When you say "fourth" do you mean 4, or 1/4 of a year?
Where'd they get CAT scan from?... I mean, did they test it on cats? Or does the machine sort of look like a cat?
Dawn ,'Sleeper'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
§ ita § - Mar 23, 2003 1:39:04 am PST #270 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
moonlit - Mar 23, 2003 1:51:11 am PST #271 of 10289
"When the world's run by fools it's the duty of intelligence to disobey." Martin Firrell
Yeah, clarity lost. Four.
moonlit - Mar 23, 2003 2:00:13 am PST #272 of 10289
"When the world's run by fools it's the duty of intelligence to disobey." Martin Firrell
sorry double post.
Cindy - Mar 23, 2003 4:04:08 am PST #273 of 10289
Nobody
Mathy People - Please Help Me
Question - I understand the need for run-offs and/or preferential voting when we are picking amongst things. In other words, I get why Cambridge does it for candidtates. You can't average people, or combine them in any way. I can understand how if there were several ballot initiative proposes, why we might have it too. In other words, if we'd decided we could only add one thread per quarter and had 5 threads proposed, a run-off or preferential voting would give us the choice acceptable to most people.
But we are talking months here. Numbers. Is preferential voting and/or a run-off going to give us a more acceptable (to more people) number than an average would?
I'm just sayin... Say I want 3 months, Plei wants 3 months, Rebecca wants 4 months, moonlit wants 4 months, ita wants 6 months and Kat wants 6 months.
3
3
4
4
6
6
26
26/6 = 4 and 1/3. 1/3 is rounded down to nothing. We end up with 4. Aren't the 3 people going to be more happy with 4 than with 6? Aren't the 6 people going to be more happy with 4 than with 3?
If we cannot narrow this down to two choices, is there a compelling reason to make the ballot more complicated with first and second choices?
How is this preferable; how would having people give first and second choices among numbers arrive at a more acceptable to all number than determining a reasonable range (3, 4, 5, 6), letting each person choose his first choice?
We're chosing among numbers, not people or other things that can't be averaged.
Elena - Mar 23, 2003 5:40:13 am PST #274 of 10289
Thanks for all the fish.
Sure, the 3 and the 6 people will be happy, but what about the monkey faction? Won't somebody think about the monkey!!!
I do find it somewhat ironic that we are having a consensus about whether to use 3 or 4.
(edit) Er, nothing here that helps, is there? I understand the desire for a nice clean two choice (and abstention) vote; but if we have to vote to decide on what goes on the ballot, isn't it easier to average?
Cindy - Mar 23, 2003 5:50:28 am PST #275 of 10289
Nobody
I do find it somewhat ironic that we are having a consensus about whether to use 3 or 4.
Hee. I found it ironic on Friday. Yesterday I thunked all the irony out of my head. The monkeys are always with us Elena, always.
amych - Mar 23, 2003 8:07:22 am PST #276 of 10289
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
three
Sophia Brooks - Mar 23, 2003 8:15:20 am PST #277 of 10289
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
Three and
Since the last vote, I've decided that somehow the average is unfair to the numbers on either end-- namely three and six.
Which are the only 2 nubers that make any sense to me.
Jon B. - Mar 23, 2003 8:44:51 am PST #278 of 10289
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
See, I was going to compose a post like Gar's #245, but I was going to make it funny. Damn.
I'm not going to be a pusher for Prffmmmg again. I'm not. But could someone explain to me why a runoff would be better than doing it in one swoop? I really want to know! And don't just say "It's complicated." Three options. Ask people to vote for their runoff choice in advance, should their first choice get the least number of votes. I do not accept that that is complicated.
t edited to add I understood the objections when there were 6 choices (like with the secondses question). I didn't agree, but I understood. Three choices? NSM.
Kat - Mar 23, 2003 9:19:11 am PST #279 of 10289
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
I do not accept that that is complicated.
Jon, it's not complicated for you. But it might be complicated for me or for anyone else who has proposed a runoff. In general, I proposed just voting and having a runoff if necessary because it seems to bother fewere people.
Real life Buffista example of when we have used preferential voting: Choosing a F2F site. We had poll after poll and it was "All Rank Your Choice" which ended up being not as clear as we would have liked.
THAT is why it is complicated in my head. It didn't work cleanly then. Prior experience.