Donating money is saying something, though.

I agree, but it's also the most invisible way to say something as a lurker. If you delurk in some other thread, there's a text record with your name attached, and anybody who wanders by the thread can see you've delurked.

If you just send in a big wad of cash to keep the board afloat, the only person who will know your name is Jesse, and I don't see her running around outing silent partners.

Except that 53% thought that establishing a more difficult threshold for creating a new thread was a good idea.

These two things are indirect contradiction with each other, unless you presume that some significant portion of respondants don't think creating a greater threshold for thread creation is the same as revisiting the voting rules.

The survey question was worded, "If we do create a check on thread creation, what should it be?" (emphasis mine). Someone could easily be against changing the rules, but IF the rules are to be changed a greater threshhold is the way to go. Also, fewer people answered that question, so the 53% is misleading.

I'm just saying that they're not lurking anymore. They're not saying something as a lurker, because they are saying something as a participant. A quiet one, but record is out there.

The survey question was worded, "If we do create a check on thread creation, what should it be?" (emphasis mine). Someone could easily be against changing the rules, but IF the rules are to be changed a greater threshhold is the way to go. Also, fewer people answered that question, so the 53% is misleading.

Except that the question just before that one was: "Do we need to have some kind of check on thread creation to maintain the cultural center?" and a plurality answered "Yes."

If we don't increase the quorum, but we discard the No Preference option, how likely is it that the people who voted NP would still vote and choose a side? Or would they likely just abstain? Because if all the people who are currently active voters all picked yes or no, then we'd get a clear majority out of the quorum of 42 we already have. And if the reasons for settling on the number 42 are still valid (I forget what they were), then there'd be no reason to up the quorum. Yes/ No/ I'm a dummy?

quorum quorum quorum.

A 41% plurality is hardly a mandate, but I see your point. I guess the discrepancy is that only 50 people thought we should change the voting rules while 74 thought we need to have some kind of check on thread creation. You'd think the latter would be a subset (and thus smaller) than the former.

Because if all the people who are currently active voters all picked yes or no, then we'd get a clear majority out of the quorum of 42 we already have.

I don't understand this comment. What's a "clear majority"?

In every single thread creation vote we've had, if all the people voting NP had instead not voted, the vote would still have met the quorum of 42 votes.

vote vote vote

I got your vote Denise.

Thanks, Lee.

I guess what I don't get is that if people seriously do want whatever the majority of the yes/no voters want, and vote np in order to pledge their vote that way, why we want to discount that?

What I'm trying to say, clumsily, is, are the reasons that we picked "42" still valid? And, we're considering raising the quorum )I think?) to get more yes or no votes so we have a clear majority of active posters/voters; could we get that with 42 if we eliminated the NP vote?

I've re-written this about nine times in a futile attempt to achieve clarity.

eta

there is a difference between a butt wiggle and a lap dance. Usually about $100.

Who's paying $100 for a lapdance? Is that the going rate in DC?

considers moving to DC