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.

Wow. I can't think of a better reason to NOT count abstentions as part of the MVT.

Coming around to this perspective. Right now, I vote for abstentions only on multiple-item ballots, and leave 'em out of the totals.

One of the things I think is getting lost in the discussion here is that the current ballots, setting up our procedures, are way more complicted than anything we're likely to see come up for vote in the future. I have to keep reminding myself of this when I'm tempted to go for some of the more complicated, address-every-eventuality ideas that have come up.

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.

Ummm... Except it looks like we won't do it that way. It will be simple.

Future votes will have only one question. If you think it's an important issue that should be decided, but you can't make up your mind which way to vote, then you vote "no preference". Your vote counts towards the MVT, but not for the actual decision. Why is that not simple?

Your vote counts towards the MVT, but not for the actual decision. Why is that not simple?

Because I guess I'm still going with the much simpler logic of "If you don't vote, your lack of vote doesn't count." Unless someone can convince me that there is a meaningful, logical reason to count a failure to vote as a vote.

Actually, it's kind of hard to decide this without knowing what the MVT will turn out to be. If it's high, I can see wanting to be able to add to the vote without expressing a preference. But if the MVT is below, say, thirty, then I don't see the need.

I'm with Brenda. I cop to right now still not getting the point of the MVT, and therefore would like to be able to "present" to make sure the MVT is met so that the people that have an opinion one way or another can have an effect.

But why not just vote then? I can't see caring enough to see that something has an effect, but not caring enough to vote one way or another.

I can't see caring enough to see that something has an effect, but not caring enough to vote one way or another.

But lots of us can see just that. So why not vote to include us?

WTF, Jon? Is there a problem if I don't vote your way?

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.

Burrell, if you'll go back, you'll see I suggested that when I didn't know Jon could construct a ballot where we could skip some items and vote on others. It's a non-issue now. Also - see Sophia's posts on clarifying why the "count me towards the MVT" vote isn't necessary.

This is a discussion. It's brainstorming. People are going to come up with suggestions and still not be married to them.