board77

Sassafras wrote:

I have access to TOE but do not post there.

Yet.

Heya, Sass. Soooo, had you heard that Viggo became a ToE member last week. He's been passionately posting a list of turn-ons. Beautifully written. Some nice pictures too. Apparently, he has a thing for strong, sassy women. Amongst other things.

yov, you are truly eeee-v-il

I didn't bite though.



*pokes yov*

I voted for the 3 months and 100 posts requirement, because after all, I think that requiring any kind of sponsoring would just make things complicated. As for why the 3/100 limit, Mummpy put it well in his post above. But, what I wish is that, the importance of making one's presence known in the introductory thread would be especially emphasized, so that the other members would know who is reading their posts, and could act accordingly.

Imp, would you add to the first post when this vote began and when it will end? Thanks!

Jn

Thanks for all your work on this, Imp.

You may want also want to add in the first post exactly how the cumulative voting system works: i.e., if the first option gets the 66.67% by itself, it is is the winning choice. Otherwise its total carries over the next choice, which is the winning choice if its cumulative total exceeds the needed percentage, and if not, its cumulative total carries over to the next choice, etc., etc. I know that there was some confusion over how this worked in the when to open poll, so we should be as clear as possible.

I'd still like to know whether anyone else has encountered a similar voting system before, or whether it really was an original idea that I came up with.

I have the same concern. Let's say, hypothetically, we get the following count. How is it scored?

11 votes for 100 posts and 3 months and sponsorship
9 votes for 100 posts and 3 months
0 votes for 50 posts and 3 months
1 vote for 25 posts and 3 months
3 votes for no posts and 3 months
9 votes for no posts and no wait (just age)

TOTAL 33 votes

Super majority 22 of those votes cast

The most popular votes, under this hypothetical situation, are "nothing (just age)" and "100 votes/3 months" and "100 votes/3 months and sponsorship". Would the winning option be "just 3 months" (counted down from the top) because at least 22 voters have said they want 3 months, but there is not a super majority of voters who want a token number of posts? Or could you look at it the opposite way - only 12 people agreed that they could be let in without any post count at all. This is not a super majority of agreement. It makes my head hurt. Make it stop!

Voronwe - I've ever seen this kind of voting system before. Once again you have earned your title "A Maverick and a Danger to Us All."



Jn

I'm a bit surprised, because there are some questions that really lend themselves to this type of vote.

Of course, it's something that even well-educated people have to think about before they grasp it. That's a major strike against it right there.

No, no . . . Jn is right. Voronwe is a maverick and a danger to us all.

Voted.

Laureanna, for the reason you have outlined above I had originally intended to begin with the LEAST stringent option, and work up to the MOST stringent, but the majority seemed to prefer this listing so...I did it this way.

Quote:

Of course, it's something that even well-educated people have to think about before they grasp it. That's a major strike against it right there.

Yes, but its also a point in its favor.



Laureanna, and Impy, let me try to explain why I think it makes more sense to go from more stringent to less stringent. To me it make more sense to assume that someone who votes for a particularly choice is implicitly saying that if they can't have something that stringent, they would want the next most stringent option available, then it does to assume that someone who chooses a particular choice is impliciting saying that if they can't have have that level of unstringentness, they would want the next less stringent option available.

Ironically, this system will likely result in a less stringent option then I would prefer, but I still think it is the only fair approach.

voted

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

I'd still like to know whether anyone else has encountered a similar voting system before, or whether it really was an original idea that I came up with.

It's not a voting system in the traditional sense, but in the financial markets there is a pricing mechanism for securities -- called auction rate securities -- where investors seeking to purchase securities will bid a price at which they would be willing to purchase a specified quantity of the securities offered. Then the entity taking these bids, puts them in order of price, then allocates the securities to bidders beginning with the bidder who is willing to pay the highest price, then to the bidder willing to pay the next highest price, and so on, until enough bids have been allocated to cover all of the securities that are being offered. The price that all winning bidders must pay is set at the highest price -- or the clearing price" -- that will result in all of the securities being sold. Here's an example:

1 million shares of a security is offered for sale.

Bidder A bids a price of $5/share for 150 thousand shares
Bidder B bids a price of $4.98/share for 100 thousand shares
Bidder C bids a price of $4.95/share for 225 thousand shares
Bidder D bids a price of $4.90/share for 60 thousand shares
Bidder E bids a price of $4.89/share for 125 thousand shares
Bidder F bids a price of $4.85/share for 300 thousand shares
Bidder G bids a price of $4.84/share for 10 thousand shares
Bidder H bids a price of $4.82/share for 85 thousand shares
Bidder I bids a price of $4.80/share for 250 thousand shares
Bidder J bids a price of $4.75/share for 75 thousand shares
Bidder K bids a price of $4.28/share for 800 thousand shares

In this case, to "clear" all 1 million shares for sale, the "auction agent" will set the price for all sales at $4.82, which is the price at which Bidder H bid, because that is the point at which the cumulative total of shares purchased reaches $1 million. Bidders A through G would purchase all the shares they bid for, but instead of paying the price they bid at, they would pay $4.82/share. Bidder H would purchase only 30 thousand shares (rather than the full 85 thousand shares for which he/she placed a bid) because that is all the shares that are left by the time the auction agent gets to Bidder H's bid. Bidders I, J & K get nothing.

The above is a simplified example, believe it or not!!!

Torn,

I think that's the method Google used when it went public. It's got a name like "Dutch Auction". The bidding example is inverted from our voting arrangement, i.e, we rule out the top and the bidding rules out the bottom.


I've done a lot of work with voting in computer decision making. There are a lot of different strategies. I think this one is related to a fuzzy logic method for possibility distribution as in:

Fuzzy Voting

I use similar kinds of voting for systems that need to evaluate identity based on a weighted set of parameters. These are used for evaluating a group of suspects or assigning a probability to an individual of being the right choice.

For schemes in which there are no individual parameters that can overrule the vote, the final step for evaluating a suspect looks a lot like this vote. This is the simplest form.

The system that TORN describes is how the whole price system is supposed to work, in theory. Except instead of placing bids before the price is set, consumers simply buy or fail to buy at the market price. If inventory does not clear the supplier lowers the price until it does.

Jn

I am sure glad all you bright and vigilant people are on the job, because

<head explodes>

<goes contentedly off to watch TV>

Voted

Quote:

...where investors seeking to purchase securities will bid a price at which they would be willing to purchase a specified quantity of the securities offered.

Come watch TV with me, Anthy.

There's probably a nice soothing redecorating show on.

<curls up in a ball next to Prim>