As "first proposer" I jave always hated "no preferance," but it seemed like a good compromise with people who hated the very fact of voting at the time. Now that voting seems more entrenched in the culture, it does not seem necessary. In practice, it seems like it would not change the outcome of very many votes.

I love No Preference. I don't see it as a copout at all. The only time I actually voted NP, I did so after reading all of the discussion and thinking seriously about the issue. So, if I read about an issue and think about it and still have no preference except that we should do whatever most people want, I can:

1) not vote, which I believe has the tendency, over time, to weaken my ties to the community; or 2) guess what most of the people want, which may just reward the most vocal group rather than the largest one, and besides is just guessing.

I don't like either of these options. Plus, option 1 might lead to no quorum. People have expressed a dislike of No Preference counting towards a quorum. But what if we have 30 people who don't care, 14 who care and vote yes and 3 who care and vote no? Do we really want the 3 who care and vote no to be the ones who get what they want. Wouldn't we rather the 14 who care and vote yes to?

In short, I think of No Preference as a choice, not a copout.

Do we really want the 3 who care and vote no to be the ones who get what they want. Wouldn't we rather the 14 who care and vote yes to?

The 3 who care and vote no DON'T get what they want. Nor do those that vote yes get what they want either. It just means that the issue isn't decided nor is there a moratorium. It can go right back to a discussion and get voted on again.

Or am I misremembering?

I couldn't find anything about preferential voting in the Cheesebutt but it does say that the structure of the vote is up to the proposer.

But what if we have 30 people who don't care, 14 who care and vote yes and 3 who care and vote no? Do we really want the 3 who care and vote no to be the ones who get what they want. Wouldn't we rather the 14 who care and vote yes to?

So far, this hasn't been an issue and it's unlikely to become one. But that's in part because our process tends to weed out issues that only matter strongly to 14 or so members before they come to a vote.

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 agree with this.

But where do we fix the new value? I think somebody posted the statistics here or in B'cracy, but the 42 limit hasn't had too many problems being met, right? If it's never even close, then it is kind of a meaningless number, but I worry about how we determine where to fix it anew.

The 3 who care and vote no DON'T get what they want. Nor do those that vote yes get what they want either. It just means that the issue isn't decided nor is there a moratorium. It can go right back to a discussion and get voted on again.

Or am I misremembering?

You're not misremembering. But since most votes involve thread creation, then it can be argued that the 3 nay-voters are effectively getting what they want (i.e. no new thread).

Except not really, Jon. Because the issue is still open and, most likely, still being discussed.

True, dat. I guess, since the situation has yet to occur, it's difficult to say how such a thing would play out.

I admit, I'm having a hard time envisioning any issue where only 15 of us care.

I think we've had enough votes that we don't really have to worry about hypotheticals any longer. If one of these bizarre and unusual situations turns up in the future, we can deal with it then.