For me, it is not the case that "abstain" implies "refrain from voting forever" and not "refrain from voting for now". I kinda guess it comes down to how you internally model the concept of "election" with regard to PM. If you consider a node to be an election, then abstaining means deciding to never vote on that node (vs. just waiting to maybe cast your vote). If you consider each time you view a node as a potential new election, then just because you abstained in previous elections doesn't mean you will continue to abstain in future elections involving that same node. But I guess that not being able to vote in a future election just because you voted previously may present a problem for such an internal model.

But perhaps it also comes from actively deciding to refrain vs. just not bothering to (yet). If one feels that "deciding to not decide (yet) is still a decision", then to "refrain" is probably more likely to imply "refrain for now".

If we eventually offer an "I will never vote on this" option, then it will need to avoid XP benefits (including the "cast all votes" benefit). I lean toward it costing more than "one vote" as well... And do we add a feature to show how many people have opted out of voting on each node? (:

But I don't think I can call such an option simply "abstain". Too bad my thesaurus does not list "recuse", as I find that it comes closer in some respects. But thesauring "abstain" brings up "abjure" which sounds promising (or the even less common "abnegate").

  ( )++ ( )-- (.)defer ( )abjure
[download]

FYI, I was thinking more of traditional voting in political systems, such as the UN security council where we are used to hearing that X voted for, Y voted against, and Z abstained (or something like that). I would consider it a "neutral" vote so it might be worth including in "x number of votes" info. And of course XP benefits and penalties should not apply and the XP penalty for too many downvotes should be unaffected. I'm curious as to why you think it should cost more than 1 vote? With that said, I'm not sure if it would really be worth the time to implement -- for me it would be more of a curiosity thing.

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

I also completely agree with Old Grey Bear's statements. It never occurred to me that one's ambivilance toward voting a node would be a metric worthy of reporting.

From my view, doling out ++ votes is an indication that I am in some way positively disposed toward a node. A -- vote, an indication that I disagree enough to express dissatisfaction with the spirit or content of the node.

Often, however, I will review the Recently Active Threads, hoping to find sparkling gems that I just can't wait to reward with my ++ vote. Sometimes there just isn't that much sparkle (or I'm unable to appreciate the sparkle). I'll often double back to the nodes I've already read and deign to grant them my positive vote because, after compared to the alternatives, they are worthy of merit.

Making anything of my having passed over the node initially, wouldn't seem right. It might even create a contradictory signal if I later gave it a ++.

After all "Best in Show" is limited to what's in the show.

Interestingly, OGB's admiration for the long absent Abigail-II has made me wonder if I shouldn't consider expanding my consideration to all posts not just those made "today" or even "recently".

<><

generator