The one I most remember was the one I referenced early in this discussion. There were new eps of both Dresden and BSG, but the comments got swamped. I thought it happened to Dresden again later, but it looks like I was mistaken.

It is unfortunate that that happened. It is definitely something we strive very hard not to have happen, and I wish we had been 100% sucessful in that effort.

That being said, I have issues with this statement:

I am having a problem with the supposed victimization of SPN folk, since it seems like the rest of us are being told, "We talk a lot. Get over it." We're the ones who are having DVD W&Ps scheduled at the same time as the new episodes of the shows we watch. That's pretty impolite.

It seems like mischaracterization of both what has happened and what we are saying.

No Preference

Actually, I'd love to see this option not apper on ballots anymore at all. I'm not sure which vote it had it on, but there were an equal number of NOs as there were No Preference and only 6 more YES votes.

I guess I see lots of things pass when people don't really care and indifference shouldn't mean a pass.

Which is a longer winded version of me saying pick a side.

Voting "No Preference" isn't exactly indifference, it's a vote in favor of whatever the majority chooses. Not voting at all is indifference. I don't know if people are thinking that way when they vote, but that's the effect.

But if the majority votes "No Preference" then what? Or if No Preference has as many votes as one of the options then it seems just stupid.

And voting is about electing, which is about choosing. Choosing no preference is like choosing nothing. If you are voting just to help get the quorum, why bother? Since voting is the decision making process, and if a vote doesn't have a quorum on its own, shouldn't that be indicative that perhaps there isn't enough actual interest with an actual opinion for the vote to be valid.

And voting is about electing, which is about choosing. Choosing no preference is like choosing nothing. If you are voting just to help get the quorum, why bother? Since voting is the decision making process, and if a vote doesn't have a quorum on its own, shouldn't that be indicative that perhaps there isn't enough actual interest with an actual opinion for the vote to be valid.

I was just about to (try to) post this very thought. I have voted no preference before just to help ensure a quorum... but in thinking about it, if an issue up for vote doesn't have enough interest to enough people to actually vote "yes" or "no," then maybe it's just not enough of an issue to the community at large to warrant implementation either way.

What is the quorum number, anyway?

To win a vote, the option must have 50% +1. So if the majority vote No Preference, that is essentially a Take No Action vote.

ETA: MVT is 42.

The Minimum Voter Turnout means that enough people were interested enough to participate. If not enough of those feel strongly on the issue to take a particular action one way or the other, then they've recorded an opinion, right? I mean, it's an opinion of general neutrality, but, that's an opinion. (And it's essentially a transparent version of how consensus works, too.)

Since the proposer writes the ballot, it is totally legitimate to leave No Preference out as an option. But leaving it in is leaving room for people to just not feel strongly either way, and be willing to go along with what the majority prefer. I know I've felt that way, on some issues, so I don't have a problem with leaving that option open to others.

I agree that results with a large percentage of No Preferences are problematic, at best, but taking away the option of voting "I want this resolved, I don't care which way" doesn't seem right, either. I'll have to think on it.

To win a vote, the option must have 50% +1. So if the majority vote No Preference, that is essentially a Take No Action vote.

Really? I didn't think so, but I could be misremembering.

No Preference is my vote when I want to leave it in the hands of the people with a stake in the outcome. Both sides in this issue have valid concerns. It's not going to drive me out of the thread if SPN stays in Boxed Set. I don't feel quite right voting for a new thread that I likely will never visit.

I like having No Preference as an option. It is my version of undecided or present. If on voting day I feel that Boxed Set would be a better place with more room for the other shows then it will be Yes. If on voting day I feel that skimming over the SPN posts hasn't been a big deal and that the posts are quite cute, then No. If neither side has persuaded me by then, then No Preference.

Now if Eureka gets drowned out on a new episode night, tomorrow, the scale may get tipped!

I wouldn't want any kind of a live W&P thread. Just more when things get into a group: "Hey, let's watch this thing on DVD!" space.

It seems like mischaracterization of both what has happened and what we are saying.

Agreed.

It happened once, and we've been very careful to try to keep it from happening again.

I don't think they're saying get over it. I saw a few say they try to hold it down or take it to LJ- which actually makes me a little sad.

My inbox would say that we take a lot of it to email, as well, but to be fair, I don't know how much of that would wind up in thread, anyhow, due to the nature of it. (The talk, not the thread.)

Exactly. It was brief, it only happened while new episodes were airing and (from my perception as someone who doesn't watch either show) it still didn't approach the volume SPN has had. This seems to me an argument for a separate SPN thread.

BSG seemed to have a similar volume. I know when it aired, it felt like it was HUGE. (That could be due to the part where I was skimming past it, rather than reading it, as I don't watch BSG. I'm sure to a BSG watcher, it felt like very little discussion.) It's also the most-discussed show in the spoiler thread, last time I checked.