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.

I think that's fair.

I remember not finding Jon's statistics overwhelming at the time, so here is his original post on voting percentages: [link]

My response at the time was that, of the six threads, two hit 42, and a third was on whether we should close Veronica Mars and when -- as I recall it, the point that everyone disputed was when we should close it, not if we should close it, and so the no preferences carried the day on that vote.

Since that time several new threads have been created with more than 42 votes.

That's definitely fair.

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.

Yeah. If we don't need it, we don't need it.

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.

Excellent idea. But I would amend that to say RELATED questions in a multi-question proposal. For instance, if the ballot included several new threads proposals and all receive more yeas than nays, I don't think they all should be opened if only one of them reaches the quorum.