Originally Posted by
bhatnasx
Well, I guess it's a good thing that we operate under a relaxed version of RRoO then...
When people see that someone abstains, it's fair to expect them to expect that to mean that the person did not have influence over the decision, since that is the case in most any other case.
But we run contrary to that. We currently allow TalkBoard members to vote a "coward's no"--abstaining and allowing the measure to fail without having to explain their "no" vote. What's worse is that the vast majority of people would see the abstention and assume it didn't have an impact on the vote, so it's a
hidden coward's no--one that the TalkBoard member will most likely get away with.
That just seems wrong and misleading on a gut level to me.