A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
The argument for a low minimum voter turnout, as I understand it, is that if people have no opinion on an issue, the vote should be able to be decided by the few people that do feel strongly. Since the voting mechanism provides a way for people who oppose an issue to do so, there is no reason for a vote to be blocked just because of low interest. People who oppposed minimum voter turnout altogether might vote this way, or people who believe that there should be few impediments to changing the boards.
[Please note that this is not my personal view, and therefore may be phrased in a biased manner. I'm trying, though! Just posting it as an addendum to Sophia's and my posts, in the interests of balance.]
Okay - sorry. And thanks, you two.
I just popped into movies for the first time and caught this typo in the blurb:
gossip about upcoming fims
What's a fim?
It's like a fam, only flimsy, in a flim-flam way that only fims can be.
Where are we on the "put in a number" thing?
I was thinking, rather than saying "put a number between 1 and 100" which might inadvertently encourage people to be "reasonable" and just vote fifty, we should just give opinions voiced here, so we'd just say:
put a number in this box please [ ] (numbers suggested by Buffistas range from ten to sixty-five but please choose whatever number you want)
for MVT.
I think that's fair for MVT. For seconds I think that the numbers are as low as one and as high as fifteen? But someone would have to check on that. I think either Gar or Wolfram said fifteen?
I really think you need both upper and lower limits to prevent skewing by posting ridiculously extreme numbers. More of an issue with high than low, but still.
Edited to add, it's potentially a problem anyway, but with a small range, it's less likely to be significant.
I haven't heard anyone proposing anything higher than 65.
ridiculously extreme numbers
I think if we get one voter who puts in "a million" then yeah, we can safely call that a Spoiled Ballot without becoming evil dictators.
What do you think of wording it that way though: "buffistas have suggested numbers between x and y, but please put in whatever you think"?
I like having the preset limits, otherwise someone's got to decide where to draw the line on what's extreme. It makes more sense than saying "if we decide whatever you think is extreme, we'll reject it after the fact."
