48-hour Requirement on RfR's | Fandom

Luke McSwagger99·7/23/2015 in Community Discussions

48-hour Requirement on RfR's

<p>So I've felt with some CM RfR's, especially with some recent ones, that they suddenly gain too many hasty supports (oftentimes due to manipulative advertising) and end all too soon without giving some users enough time to reconsider their vote, or for other users to notice the request and submit their vote. Take note of what the policy currently states: </p><p>
</p>

<i>The duration of a request may not exceed 10 days, and should usually last at least 5 days. A request must have a clear consensus in order to be closed prior to 10 days.</i>
<i>A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met:</i>

<dl><dd>

<i>If the request has 10 or more oppositions, with at least a 75% majority oppose.</i>
<i>If the request has the required number of supporting votes (listed below), and at least an 85% majority support.</i>

</dd></dl><p style="line-height:inherit;"> </p> <p>
</p>

<i>For a request to pass, the candidate must have at least 20 supporting votes, with at least 75% support out of the total supporting and opposing votes. (NOTE THIS IS FOR CHAT MODERATORS)</i>

<p style="line-height:inherit;"> </p> <p style="line-height:inherit;">I see several RfR's come and go in a matter of /hours/, simply because they hit 20-ish supports before 3 or more opposes get in. Support reasons are blunt and lacking in significant reason for supporting, and a good handful of users, admins included, don't even get to provide their say in the matter if they didn't get on that day. We shouldn't want to make hasty decisions, especially decisions placing people in positions of authority. For this reason I propose that we place a 48-hour minimum closing requisite on RfR's to ensure that well-thought-out votes will be cast, and that more members of the community will be able to submit their opinions on the request. If it hasn't been clear enough already, my proposition is that:</p> <p style="line-height:inherit;">A RfR must be open for a minimum of 48 hours before closing due to majority of supporting or opposing votes. </p> <p style="line-height:inherit;">Share your thoughts on the matter and stay civil about it, /please/. </p>

(Edited by Luke McSwagger99)

0

ZXSpidermanXZ·7/23/2015

<p>Agreed except not 25 minimum supports. I think we should stay with 20, maybe 25 if it ends before 5 days? </p>

(Edited by ZXSpidermanXZ)

0

Luke McSwagger99·7/23/2015

<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
Oppose, this is just enough time for someone running to get all their friends to reach the edit requirement and support them. It will cause too many problems.</div> <p>Actually, this will eliminate users running to get everyone in chat to vote on it within the first 3 hours. It will allow more users the chance to analyze the user presenting said request, resulting in better-quality supports and opposes. </p>

(Edited by Luke McSwagger99)

0

Luke McSwagger99·7/23/2015

<div class="quote">ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:
Agreed except not 25 minimum supports. I think we should stay with 20, maybe 25 if it ends before 5 days?</div> <p>My bad, 25 supports is for admin. 20 is for CM. I've fixed my error now, apologies. </p>

(Edited by Luke McSwagger99)

0

Harold89·7/23/2015

<p>I would also like to point out that this same issue was happening for emoticon voting, until a vote was created and passed that emoticons would need to stay up for 8 days and only then would see if it passed the requirement of 75 percent support and 15 supports. See Thread:204312 and Thread:210364. </p><p><span style="white-space:pre-line;line-height:20px;">The success of this vote made sure that no emotes simply passed because a small group of users reached the support amount in a short period of time. This also gave </span><span style="white-space:pre-line;line-height:20px;">the majority of those active on the wiki time to lend their opinion and choose to support or oppose.</span> </p>

(Edited by Harold89)

0

Lilac Neko·7/23/2015

support

(Edited by Lilac Neko)

0

Vonness11`·7/23/2015

Support

(Edited by Vonness11`)

0

Luke McSwagger99·7/23/2015

<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
I would also like to point out that this same issue was happening for emoticon voting, until a vote was created and passed that emoticons would need to stay up for 8 days and only then would see if it passed the requirement of 75 percent support and 15 supports. See Thread:204312 and Thread:210364. <p><span style="white-space:pre-line;line-height:20px;">The success of this vote made sure that no emotes simply passed because a small group of users reached the support amount in a short period of time. This also gave </span><span style="white-space:pre-line;line-height:20px;">the majority of those active on the wiki time to lend their opinion and choose to support or oppose.</span> </p> </div> <p>Harry presents a good point here, with our past decisions on disallowing the emoticon votes to pass too quickly. I believe this is all the more reason to implement the minimum time requirement on our RfR's, as consistency is essential to building and maintaining a solid political structure in our community: Why do we require a minimum of time before closing an emoticon vote, but don't have that requirement for our RfR's? (which are honestly far more important than a vote of adopting a 19px image for usage in our live chat) If we can't be consistent with our guidelines, then we give room for weaknesses and flaws to taint aspects of our structure. </p>

(Edited by Luke McSwagger99)

0

Aravis Tarkheena·7/23/2015

<p>Support, I'd even suggest waiting at least 96 hours / 4 days, which is double that time. </p>

(Edited by Aravis Tarkheena)

0

Luke McSwagger99·7/23/2015

<div class="quote">Aravis Tarkheena wrote:
Support, I'd even suggest waiting at least 96 hours / 4 days, which is double that time.</div> <p>Cash has stated that he's prefer 72 hours, and now you suggest 96 hours. This is a discussion, everyone, so keep in mind that the "48 hours" can be discussed too and is totally open for change. 96 hours might be a bit long for most scenarios, but personally I'm definitely willing to support a 72 hour requirement or even 96 if the rest of the community does. </p>

(Edited by Luke McSwagger99)

0

KnightoftheLight·7/23/2015

<p>Support, not everyone will have a chance to vote without the 48-hour requirement. </p>

(Edited by KnightoftheLight)

What do you think?