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: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura
Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina
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 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
The Vote on the quorum and voting process was a while ago, Laura "Sunnydale Press" Mar 19, 2003 12:06:31 am PST but it did have 94 people voting, so a pretty big turnout. Oh yeah, I am in the 70% that don't think it needs revisiting quite yet.
