Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-26067066-20170106204258/@comment-5052737-20170106235119

Jerry Seinfeld wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Jerry Seinfeld wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Jerry Seinfeld wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Jerry Seinfeld wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Jerry Seinfeld wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: "If the 5 days since the vote was created have already passed" "A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met"

I know that this is already a vote, but what are we going to accomplish by removing the 96-hour policy? It's only mentioned one time in the policy, with the rest of it referring to a "5-day minimum". If we remove that minimum, then we're only going to extend it to a longer 120 hours (5 days). Or was the 5-day policy superior to the 4-day (96 hour) policy because it was a longer time? Or is it the other way around because the policy directly refers to a 96 hour minimum?

The problem is that the "At least 96 hours must pass before a request can be closed." phrase is repeated in each RfR page, thus creating the impression that it automatically overrides everything else.

By removing this phrase, it would facilitate promotions of candidates who receive an overwhelming amount of support in a couple of days. Take for example TSA's RfR, I should have formally waited for these 96 hours to pass regardless of all the exceptions and other rules in order to close it.

Basically, yeah, these 96 hours were the absolute minimum regardless of all other regulations. So essentially, an abridged version of the RFR policy would be among the lines of:

"All RFRs are required to at least 4 days (or 5 days, according to the rest of the policy). RFRs are to be closed 2 days after the last support/oppose vote was made (if a user switches their vote, the RFR is also to be closed 2 days after their vote was made [ but only if the user switched from oppose to support, support to oppose, neutral to oppose, or support to oppose. The voting period will not be extended if the user changes their vote to neutral or removes their vote entirely. ], but the voting period will only be extended once per user per switch) if 5 days have passed. RFRs can also be closed before the non-existent 5 day requirement if: the RFR has at least 10 oppositions with a 75% majority oppose, or, if the request has reached the required amount of votes with an 85% majority support. At least two supporting or opposing votes from an administrator are required to close a RFR." Yes, LCF, you're not alone in thinking it's quite convoluted. Well, why don't we make a vote to revise the policy, rather than remove one miniscule part of the policy? Like I already said, regardless of whether this vote actually passes or not, in practice, the RFR policy will still operate exactly the same as it already did, except the waiting period will be even longer, which I understand is not the intention of this vote. Yes, it will extend the minimum waiting time to 5 days, but on the other hand RfRs with overwhelming support achieved in a couple of days (like TSA's) can be closed immediately.

There are two sides to this. The rule "The request is to be closed 2 days after the last vote was made (...switching votes extends the limit once per user) if the 5 days since the vote was created have already passed" still implies that 5 days must pass before a request is extended (and subsequently closed). "A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met:
 * If the request has 10 or more oppositions, with at least a 75% majority oppose.
 * If the request has the required number of supporting votes (listed below), and at least an 85% majority support."

...? Oh, that's right, I completely forgot about that. I'm really confused right now You just have to mentally tick or cross out checkboxes when reading through the policy to work out whether the RfR can be closed.

That's what helps me make sense of it all, at least. Isn't that a little... inconvenient?

It all boils down a simple "yes/no => then" thing, in the end.

So, for me, at least, no, not that inconvenient.