I don't see anything in the proposal that mentions thread creations--Jesse, was that what you had in mind? I've certainly seen it raised in scenarios where thread creation wasn't the topic of discussion. It isn't all we talk about.

I don't think so, Laga.

I don't necessarily object to removing No Preference on philosophical rather than practical grounds, but I agree that Jon's Point #2 needs to be sorted out. Unfortunately, I have no suggestions.

Currently planning to vote "no preference" on this...

Only if Jesse gives that as an option.

I am interested in talking about participation in decision-making. I think it's probably a good idea to raise the bar in terms of number of participants -- and I don't think voting NP is really participating. I don't think "most people don't care one way or the other" (whether shown by not voting or by voting NP) to be a good enough reason to do something.

I do seeing making it harder to start new threads as part of this, but definitely not all of it.

I do seeing making it harder to start new threads as part of this,

How does removing NP make it harder to start new threads?

Really, I don't know if it does -- maybe everyone who votes NP would vote yes. I think I'm looking to raise the bar on "legit" decisionmaking.

This is not some crusade I'm on -- I'm genuinely interested to hear what other people think. In a time-limited discussion.

Sorry, if I'm coming across as overly confrontational. I'm just trying to understand the motivation of the antinopreferencistas. The philosophical argument is a good one. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I can understand it.

NP originally came up, as I recall, for those times when you didn't really have an opinion but wanted the option to basically say "I think we should settle this question, I don't care how." Which could come from a "their voices should be heard!" or "they should shut and go away" place equally well, I think. (With they being whoever was proposing whatever.)

With a side of "we're all big voting geeks and can't stand the idea of sitting out a vote, however meaningless to us personally."

At the time, we didn't know if we were going to see a lot of things go all the way through lightbulbs and voting and then just...stop with no resolution because it was a small or limited issue.

I think we've seen that's not the case. I'm ready to let go of it.

I'm open to raising the number of votes to pass, but I'd like to consider the voting numbers of the past few years more carefully before committing.

2) What do we do if enough people vote to create a thread, but not enough vote on things like its spoiler policy?

Hey, I do have a suggestion after all. We could agree that if a quorum is reached on any question of a multi-question proposal, then the quorum is considered to have been reached for all parts of the proposal.