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]

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.

That is the current case, I am proposing this as an alternative. Right now it is most YES or NO votes wins and either way the issue is close for 6 months, even if the YES or NO votes do not constitute a majority of the overall votes. I'm proposing that the YES or NO votes should constitute a majority of the overall votes.

How would that apply to the subsidiary votes (whitefont policy and so forth)?

My bias would be that subsidiary votes could stay as they are. It would end up being part of the lightbulbs 4 day process to work out which sections of a proposal are subsidiary votes and which parts new issues. We could do something along the lines of each new issue is numbered and each subsidiary issue is a decimal of that issue. For example.

1. The board should be a new color
1.1 Color should not be yellow

2. The board should be shaped like a goat

etc. etc.

2. The board should be shaped like a goat

2.2 The goat should be named Reginald St. Germain du Frodric von Effelstein.

2.2 The goat should be named Reginald St. Germain du Frodric von Effelstein.

No, it should be Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm

I disagree very strongly with the notion that an issue that gets less than 42 YES or NO votes is either (1) not significant enough to warrant action; or (2) not debated enough and should be kicked back for more discussion.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think as for (1) there are plenty of actions that need doing even if most people are ambivalent about how they're done. As for (2), adding more discussion time seems more like a recipe for discord than an answer to ambivalence.

Are there other arguments for making the proposed voting changes? (I mean this question with all due respect, because I may have missed something.)

I suppose you want to pay for the watch, too, don't you Frank?

AntiEffelsteinista!