'Heart Of Gold'
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!
Jesse, it took me a while to figure this out. But it works like this:
3 mths 4 mths 6 mts
4 mth & 6mths tie.
In order to break the tie the 3 mths votes are looked at to see what the second choice votes were and then those are counted to break the tie.
So if I, hypothetically, picked 3 mths, 4mths, 6 mths. Then 4mths would be counted for the tie breaker because that was my second place vote.
This would be easier to describe with pictures.
I think I like Jon's ballot better, but I am not sure why I find it clearer, because Type's really is.
Weird.
I cannot describe how much I do NOT want to get back into the, "how about if we describe it this way? Does it make sense now?" I'm getting right back into the annoyed place of whenever that was before about this same stupid issue. I really don't see the value of having to have this annoying conversation AGAIN when we can just do the damned runoff.
And um, monkey-grooming gestures all around.
Well, I think that Gar tried the rewrite because he thought that it would be clearer to you, Jesse. Thanks fer nothin' Gar! (grrrr) ;)
If you understand mine, and no one has any other, different, issues with it, then let's go with it.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be annoying.
It's not you, askye. It's not you, Jon and Gar. It's just the whole thing.
Jon's is fine. And yes. We don't yet have a consenus, just a consensus among those of us posting. We need the "single-ballot runoff is the devils work" people - those who publicly voice hatred for the idea - to come on and say they are willing to live with it, just this once . And I hope they will agree; but if they do not; if they block consensus, then we need to move on and do multi-ballot run-off. I hope someone gets the word to them so that they come on and agree or come on and block consensus fairly soon.
I think if they do block consensus, there should not be further discussion at this time; we should move on; given that I hope that any blocking of consensus will be done calmly, and in a doblerized fashion, along the lines of "I strong disagree; let's have a multi-ballot run-off". And if that happens we will accept it.
And regardless we should make sure the question of how to handle run-offs makes the queue as soon as possible.
I think if they do block consensus, there should not be further discussion at this time; we should move on; given that I hope that any blocking of consensus will be done calmly, and in a doblerized fashion, along the lines of "I strong disagree; let's have a multi-ballot run-off". And if that happens we will accept it.
I'm trying to block this "consensus" of four people right now. I do not think we need to bother doing anything other than a multi-ballot runoff for this issue.
Jesse I thought you did not feel strongly on the issue? We won't discuss it further, but I ask that you block consensus only on the substance, not on the "how other people will react". In other words at least one person should block the consenus, because they strongly oppose it on their own behalf.
I suggest that we have two ballots ready for tonight's vote at midnight. One will include the PV option with a second preference rank, the other will just have 3/4/6 and no preference. If we fail to get a consensus on using PV for this vote we'll use the other option, and there's still a good chance that the OTP will shine through and the PV/runoff issue will be moot for this ballot.