I didn't mean don't care in the big sense of not caring about the board, I meant about how an issue played out.

I get it - others feel different than me.

If an issue gets several NPs, it's worth taking note that a high degree of ambivalence exists on the issue.

This is my concern. If the NP makes up a majority of the vote results then I believe that the vote shouldn't pass. If that many people are ambivalent about the issue then it should be tossed back to discussion. Another way to do this is with simple majority. To win an issue must get at least 51% of the total vote count. So if an issue had three 5 people vote, 1 NO, 2 YES, and 2 NP, then it would not pass since the 2 YES would not be greater that 51% of the total vote count of 5.

In my view, the purpose of the quorum is not to make sure 42 people are either FOR an issue or AGAINST an issue. Rather the quorum is to make sure 42 people are on actual notice of an issue by being present for the vote.

This is how I see NP. I have voted 'Present' on a couple of issues not because I didn't care, but I wanted to let the majority of interested parties rule. I wouldn't vote Yes or No to a rules change in a thread where I didn't participate, but I would vote NP to validate the vote.

FWIW, 42 still seems like a perfect number to me. I don't think things have changed significantly since we decided on that number.

Another way to do this is with simple majority. To win an issue must get at least 51% of the total vote count. So if an issue had three 5 people vote, 1 NO, 2 YES, and 2 NP, then it would not pass since the 2 YES would not be greater that 51% of the total vote count of 5.

That doesn't work with things like thread creation because voting NP becomes equivalent to voting No.

Another way to do this is with simple majority. To win an issue must get at least 51% of the total vote count. So if an issue had three 5 people vote, 1 NO, 2 YES, and 2 NP, then it would not pass since the 2 YES would not be greater that 51% of the total vote count of 5.

I think that's a pretty elegant solution, one that I hadn't heard or considered before. Again, without knowing what the tallies of previous votes were, would this have changed any of the issues on which we've voted?

eta: I see Jon's point. Hmmm... ignore my comment.

Seems to me that NP legitimizes the vote as X number of Buffistas were interested enough to vote on the issue, but the majority should be yes/yes+no.

That doesn't work with things like thread creation because voting NP becomes equivalent to voting No.

Actually it isn't the same. A majority NO vote would shut it down for the next six months, whereas no vote getting the majority would leave it open. If nothing wins a majority it could go right back into lightbulbs for an additional 4 days and then another vote.

If nothing wins a majority it could go right back into lightbulbs for an additional 4 days and then another vote.

Ahh OK. This is where the Cheesebutt was confusing. I thought once a vote was closed there was a six month moratorium no matter the outcome.

To win an issue must get at least 51% of the total vote count.

How would that apply to the subsidiary votes (whitefont policy and so forth)? We have had majority No Preference results on some of those - when shall we close the Veronica Mars thread, for example had results of:

Immediately 18
One Month after DVDs 20
No Preference 20

BTW, since it seems useful, I started making a spreadsheet of voting results but it is not quite as simple as I had hoped. But it's at [link]