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!

Well, the upside to ND's idea is that you can have a majority of yes or no even counting NP in and still not have 42 yes or no votes.

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.

So if the vote is 50 Yes, 47 No, and 4 NP, the proposal would fail but it could be re-proposed?

I don't like this because it means that people could strategize as to whether they should vote NP or not vote at all. In my example above, if two of those NPers hadn't voted, the proposal would have passed. One of the arguments for voting NP is that "we just want the question to be settled", but under your suggestion the oppssite could occur -- By voting NP (vs. not voting at all), the question does not get settled!

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.

Well, I feel pretty strongly that a vote that has a majority of no preference shouldn't go through either. I really don't like the idea of a board decision being made when a majority of the folks voting on it don't feel pro or con. Maybe the numbers can be lowered to at least 40% of the overall vote totals, but I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that a vote here could pass with 5 YES, 25 NP and 4 NO. I know that it hasn't happened, but it's set up that way and for whatever reason I'm not comfy with it.

One of the arguments for voting NP is that "we just want the question to be settled", but under your suggestion the oppssite could occur -- By voting NP (vs. not voting at all), the question does not get settled!

I guess this is part of my core issue with it. I tend to not be conflict avoidant and I don't like decisions being made to just make the issue go away. For me that feels unsettled.

Well, I feel pretty strongly that a vote that has a majority of no preference shouldn't go through either.

In my example above, only a small percentage of votes were NP. Yet that small number prevented the vote from passing.

Frank, if you'll point out what sort of definitions you're using for "active poster" then maybe I can get you stats.