But to me there doesn't seem to be any more inclination to talk television than Harry Potter or theremins or fanfiction.

If that were true, then there would not be a push to have multiple TV threads.

I am willing to go offline with a few other folk to form the poll questions (FOR A GENERAL BOARD USAGE POLL - NO GD ?S ON TV THREADS YET) from what has been suggested if such people will volunteer.

I would be available to IM/skype with folk after 8 or 9 pm ET.

Well, we have numbers from votes we've taken. Can we look and that and at least get a range of the number of people who are voting, even no pref, on everything? I'd be happy to go back and tally the numbers but I can't do it until tonight.

That gives us something, anyway.

Other thoughts - we used to be able to run scripts to list frequent posters in the various threads. I think ita used to do it, but I don't know if other stompies can. Maybe we can pull the numbers and someone (again, I'm happy to do some of the heavy lifting) can throw them in excel and actually find out some of this stuff. It won't pick up threads someone reads but doesn't post, but we do have some information available if we can figure out the best way to compile it.

If that were true, then there would not be a push to have multiple TV threads.

I disagree. Mostly because I think the wish for multiple television threads stems for accessibility, not more talking for the sake of more talking.

msbelle I'll volutneer.

Mostly because I think the wish for multiple television threads stems for accessibility, not more talking for the sake of more talking.

I'm confused. Because this seems to say that plethora of TV threads are about allowing smaller and smaller discussions to take place... places where there isn't more talking? So the threads become increasingly less inclusive and more select because it isn't about creating a place where there "is more talking" but just a thread where X people want to talk?

Actually, nevermind. It doesn't actually matter.

I am still thinking that we need to eliminate no preference in voting.

I'm not sure how the poll will work to actually compile the info everyone desires, since it seems we all want different info. But I suspect that I'm like whomever posted upthread about wanting to know where my posting habits are in relation to others... sort of trying to figure out what is normative behavior.

I am still thinking that we need to eliminate no preference in voting.

This. I have a hundred different responses going in my head to a lot of this discussion, and no time to put them in order for the next few days, and I hate that, but this one? Actual and real and getting stronger.

Interesting point. Do you have an alternate suggestion? I'm really starting to think we need to eliminate No Preference voting, but if the elimination causes another problem, it's not a great solution.

I agree with the dislike of No Preference in most options. I think the quorom needs to stand. Part of the reason for having a quorum is to make sure that an issue has enough interested parties, on either side of the issue. If it can't generate that support then it should either get dropped, or the proposer needs to go back to the drawing board to re-work it in such a way as to generate the needed support.

I think the No Preference thing was a fine idea at the time, but now we know that enough people are willing to express a preference in most cases. At least as we've defined "enough."

I agree with Jesse. Except for the weird part where voting no can lead to a vote passing. That is

Yes- 40 No- 1 would not pass but

Yes -40 No- 2 would.