Pred's Fantasy Football Forums - View Single Post

Popes · March 14th, 2008, 02:08 PM

It appears I'll go down in a flaming wreck when I put this up for a vote. Anyone else agree with me?

BTW, I just made a point over in the "Re-align divisions?" thread:

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11969

The possiblities there illustrate my point. It seems to be an issue where people can reasonably want to abstain (or vote "don't care") and not have their vote count at all: they'd like to leave it up to the people who have opinions on the issue. Under the majority of 12 rule, they have to be convinced to vote Yes in order for a change to take place.

I know Brian's counter-argument is that if 7 people don't actively want change, then there shouldn't be a change: your argument for change is simply not strong enough to sway enough people.

But look at the other half of the coin: those who don't want change. What if there aren't any? What if 6 want new divisions and 6 just flat out don't care either which way. That's an overwhelming argument for change. But it loses under the majority of 12 rule. It passes (6-0) under the majority of votes cast rule.

I know Brian brought up some points I'd have to address if my side actually won out (what's the minimum?; what to do about times when people don't frequent the boards?). I don't have answers on those right now and since it's looking like a landslide here, I'm not going to bother exploring them.

Also, I don't think it's possible to do a carve-out for a vote that "directly involves" one team. That would be a nightmare to deal with every situation and be arguing about the meaning of "directly involves". If we're moving to majority of 12, I think it needs to always be majority of 12.

March 14th, 2008, 02:08 PM	#6
Popes Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 1,052	Re: What does majority rule mean? It appears I'll go down in a flaming wreck when I put this up for a vote. Anyone else agree with me? BTW, I just made a point over in the "Re-align divisions?" thread: http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11969 The possiblities there illustrate my point. It seems to be an issue where people can reasonably want to abstain (or vote "don't care") and not have their vote count at all: they'd like to leave it up to the people who have opinions on the issue. Under the majority of 12 rule, they have to be convinced to vote Yes in order for a change to take place. I know Brian's counter-argument is that if 7 people don't actively want change, then there shouldn't be a change: your argument for change is simply not strong enough to sway enough people. But look at the other half of the coin: those who don't want change. What if there aren't any? What if 6 want new divisions and 6 just flat out don't care either which way. That's an overwhelming argument for change. But it loses under the majority of 12 rule. It passes (6-0) under the majority of votes cast rule. I know Brian brought up some points I'd have to address if my side actually won out (what's the minimum?; what to do about times when people don't frequent the boards?). I don't have answers on those right now and since it's looking like a landslide here, I'm not going to bother exploring them. Also, I don't think it's possible to do a carve-out for a vote that "directly involves" one team. That would be a nightmare to deal with every situation and be arguing about the meaning of "directly involves". If we're moving to majority of 12, I think it needs to always be majority of 12. Last edited by Popes; March 14th, 2008 at 02:10 PM.