Also, I hear what Java Cat (and others are saying). It is hard to read through this thread to make an informed vote. Should some people outline the arguments for and against certain propositions in a post that people can get to easily?

I think we have tried to be really neutral in the wording of the ballot, but someone just reading the ballot might not have heard the reasons for things. And we make it rather hard to get to.

I don't see this as something we would need to continue in the future, just something that would see us through this time.

(Okay, yeah, I'm still pissed off at my Honorable Senator for that "present" vote yesterday. But it's a closely related issue.)

Har. I know that's a big part of why I suddenly found myself being anti-no preference myself.

Present. I understand the real life reason for objecting to this, but I may often want to use "Present" here. There will be questions where I do not have a preference but wish to participate as present.

WHEW! Laura posted which means I can post so we can keep our posting numbers in equilibrium.

And now you have to again Missy. Note that I am keeping the word count in alignment as well.

I thought for a moment about doing a summary on the debate. A very brief moment.

1) yes

2) no

3) No preference - (count me towards your freaking minimum vote total)

4) I'm blinvisible (don't count me towards the minimum vote total)

OK, I see the meta-reasons for doing this this one time, and I'm happy to include it on this ballot. I'm just worried that it will be confusing.

OK, I see the meta-reasons for doing this this one time, and I'm happy to include it on this ballot. I'm just worried that it will be confusing.

Let's see if I can pose my question in an able to be understood way.

We haven't yet set a minimum voter turnout. So

For this vote, I don't think we have one. So

I don't think we need to count "presents" because

What number are we going for? BUT

If the form cannot allow you to skip a question THEN

we need something for someone to check that they are skipping. AND

If we vote that "presents" count, THEN

We will need 3 options on each ballot.

Oh thank god. Sophia said just exactly what I was going to try to figure out how to say.

If the form cannot allow you to skip a question THEN we need something for someone to check that they are skipping

I can set up the form however we like. I just thought that to prevent virtual chads (I love saying that) we should force folks to check off something on every question.

If we're not going to count MVT for this ballot (since we won't have quantified it until we count the ballots) then I'll just put in three choices like I've been doing.

The other option is to calculate the MVT number from the ballots first, and then use that number to validate each question, but that's way too meta for me.

I agree that we don't need minimum voter turnout counted on this vote. Once we've established the number, we can begin counting it for future votes.

Should we make the options for each something like

1) yes

2) no

3) No preference - (count me towards your freaking minimum vote total)

4) I'm blinvisible (don't count me towards the minimum vote total)

Wow. I can't think of a better reason to NOT count abstentions as part of the MVT. This seems to go way beyond simple to me, if simple is our goal. I was unsure which way to vote on counting abstentions, now the choice seems clear to me. If you don't vote, your lack of vote doesn't count.

Kat, all I can say is, you're the one taking things personally, not me.

I was never "offended" by the use of the phrase "bullshit consensus," which is why I never said that I was, either now or then. Obviously "singled out" was a poor choice of words -- perhaps I should have said "included in."

The only issue that I was bothered by was the hypocrisy I was observing a few days ago, and I brought it up as soon as it arose. Since you never personally offended me, my posts on the subject were never directed specifically at you, or meant to imply anything at all specifically about you, ever. I used the generic "people" not to avoid personal confrontation, but because I was addressing a general tone in the thread. That was all.