Because, I mean, I've gotten a very strong vibe from this thread that the 6 people comprise a larger group than either the 3 people or the 4 people, if taken separately.

But if, as you say, the 3-or-4 people would all choose one of those as the first choice, and the other as the second choice, then the only way 6 will win on the preferential ballot is if more than 50% of the voters vote for 6 as a first choice, in which case 6 definitely should win.

t edit: OK, and now that I actually finished reading your post and realized that you're supporting preferential, I see that this entire post is completely pointless argument.

I would like to express that I believe 6 is the one true number. Except for 12, which is already dead. If 6 fails, I would vote for 3. Because splitting the year into thirds seems really really odd to me.

So advocating for 3 as opposed to 4, even though I support 6 is completely logical.

I know sometimes it is not clear why some of us push a bit on process issues.

I agree that we should strive for "good enough" rather than perfection. "Good Enough" IMO includes a modicum of fairness - not perfect fairness but some reasonable degree of fairness. Not because the issues are so important, but because deciding them in a way that is clearly unfair elevates them to an importance they won't otherwise have. Also, an unfair decision making process leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths. People sometimes compare the Buffistas to an ongoing cocktail party; if the process set up is not reasonably fair, then the party will be slightly less fun; even those who pay no attention to process isssues will notice after a while. So a reasonably fair process, not perfectly fair, but reasonably fair is important - even in cases where the outcome is OK.

So far, we have one portion of our process that is informal, but I think nonetheless fair; once an issue is brought up for a vote,we use old style Buffista 'consensus' to set out exactly what the choices will be and what the language of the ballot is.

But in order for it to be reasonably fair (not perfectly fair, just reasonably, just good enough) I think we need to agree on one thing. We need to agree that if an issue has more than two reasonable potential choices, there should Not be a strong bias towards limiting it to two choices - not if there is any significant support for a third option.

Because the whole point of having a vote following the discussion is that opinion in the vote may not reflect opinion in the discussion. If we were not taking that possiblity into consideration we would not bother having votes; we would simply decide the issue by a majority of those in this thread.

Now in the spirit of "good enough" we don't try to include options that nobody in the thread supports; at least we have not yet. IMO though, any option that is a reasonable choice in relation to the issue under discussion, and has support from a strong minority posting on the thread should be included as a choice on the ballot.

Because otherwise you are calling a vote on an issue, excluding a reasonable choice with support from that vote, and not allowing a revote on it for between three and six month. And if that becomes our process, I think the amount of fairness won't be "good enough" , and the ongoing party this board is will be just a little less fun than it could be.

I don't care about the difference between our three choices that much. I care about excluding one of these choices, without a chance to vote on it, a great deal.

I hope the above was clear and concise enough not to constitute obnoxious windbaggery.

FWIW, I agree with you, Gar.

Do you mean you're backing John?

I don't actually think it was so insane of me to have read it that way, okay? Now I know Allyson hadn't meant it that way but I don't think it was completely off-the-wall, by the way it was phrased, to have read it the way I did.

I wholeheartedly agree with Gar too.

Cereal:

Discussion closes on this issue at 12:00 a.m. We might want to have a ballot drafted before then.

I was just about to say that

a) we need a ballot

b) we need a counter

and

c) I have class tonight so won't be available until 10 pm to draft stuff. I am available on and off today.

Right now, I say that

a) we need to include 3, 4 and 6 on the ballot and have a run-off if need be, unless te threes and fours can agree on one, because to me that ensures that 6 will win.

b) I think the moratorium includes BOTH things that have lost and things that have "won". so we can change minimum voter turnout, etc. I think it would be sort of rude to say, propose we close the Due South Thread or something, but I guess one could...

I'm willing to count ballots.

I hadn't thought of that, but technically the moratorium vote is up for a revote after the moratorium period. So for example if people feel 6 months was too long, it's not immutable.