<p>So recently we had a vote (<u>See here</u>) that caused some confusion and chaos among the wiki, so I find it best that we hold a proper discussion on how the vote is to be formatted and dealt with.
</p><p>The first things that I think need to be covered, whether changing or implementing, are as follows:
</p><p>1) Definitely need to create a more organized way of voting, my current idea is copy/pasting the list of mods and marking them with either support or oppose. I also think it may be best to not have a neutral option at all.
</p><p>2) I think reasons should be a requirement in votes, and legitimate reasons too. Maybe not in supporting the keeping of rights, but definitely in opposes.
</p><p>3) I think a user should be demoted only if they have either 75% or 80% opposition.
</p><p>
</p><p>Feedback PLEASE. Also if anyone has any other ideas of things that need changing or implementing please say so and we can throw around ideas from there.
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Final_ideas_.28Subject_to_change.29">Final ideas (Subject to change)</span></h2>
<p>1) Votes are required to be in the form of a copy/pasted list with each username marked with either support (keep rights) or oppose (lose rights). If you do not list a user it will automatically be assumed that you are neutral.
</p><p>2) Legitimate reasons must be given for every support and oppose.
</p><p>3) If a user has a majority of opposition, they are to be demoted.
</p><p>4) If a user is demoted they are allowed to create another RfR for a possible alternate outcome instead of having to wait the required 4 weeks.
</p>
5,988
pages
ALL POSTS
0
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>BusyCityGirl wrote: Currently isn't this vote against policy? "A community vote cannot be used to directly demote rights from a user, however, a petition to the Admins can be made that a user be demoted." </p> </div>Apparently no-one remembered that when this vote passed...</div>Then shouldn't this be corrected?
</div>What do you mean by corrected?</div>policy applies retroactively as well. if this vote has passed but turns out to be against the policy, admins should still invalidate it. </div>However, the community voted to go against the policy, as we have done in the past numerous times.</div>Then why do we have policies, if they mean nothing?
</div> <p>Policies are meant to be followed, however if the community holds a vote to either change or go against policy, whatever the majority (which in this case was 19/20) decides is what is to be followed. We have done this numerous times in the past (see here, here, and here.) so I'm unsure why this is any different. You, the community, <i>voted</i> for this and the majority was overwhelming. </p>
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>BusyCityGirl wrote: Currently isn't this vote against policy? "A community vote cannot be used to directly demote rights from a user, however, a petition to the Admins can be made that a user be demoted." </p> </div>Apparently no-one remembered that when this vote passed...</div>Then shouldn't this be corrected?
</div>What do you mean by corrected?</div>policy applies retroactively as well. if this vote has passed but turns out to be against the policy, admins should still invalidate it. </div>However, the community voted to go against the policy, as we have done in the past numerous times.</div>Then why do we have policies, if they mean nothing?
</div> <p>Policies are meant to be followed, however if the community holds a vote to either change or go against policy, whatever the majority (which in this case was 19/20) decides is what is to be followed. We have done this numerous times in the past (see here, here, and here.) so I'm unsure why this is any different. You, the community, <i>voted</i> for this and the majority was overwhelming. </p>
(Edited by Avalair)
0
<p>For number 3 we need to make a decision, as I am hoping to have the vote up by tomorrow. Either 75% or majority rules.
</p>
(Edited by Avalair)
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>BusyCityGirl wrote: Currently isn't this vote against policy? "A community vote cannot be used to directly demote rights from a user, however, a petition to the Admins can be made that a user be demoted." </p> </div>Apparently no-one remembered that when this vote passed...</div>Then shouldn't this be corrected?
</div>What do you mean by corrected?</div>policy applies retroactively as well. if this vote has passed but turns out to be against the policy, admins should still invalidate it. </div>However, the community voted to go against the policy, as we have done in the past numerous times.</div>Then why do we have policies, if they mean nothing?
</div>Policies are meant to be followed, however if the community holds a vote to either change or go against policy, whatever the majority (which in this case was 19/20) decides is what is to be followed. We have done this numerous times in the past (see here, here, and here.) so I'm unsure why this is any different. You, the community, <i>voted</i> for this and the majority was overwhelming. </div> <p>no no no no no, that is so flat out wrong and dangerously so, too. the vote that was passed wasn't to /change the policy/. for this to be legal, it would have to /change the policy/ to make sure that demoting does not need to run through the process as outlined by the policy first. /then/ you could pass another vote to hold the cv slice had in mind. this is not what happened. ignoring this is absolutely irresponsible and leads to bad places. </p>
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>BusyCityGirl wrote: Currently isn't this vote against policy? "A community vote cannot be used to directly demote rights from a user, however, a petition to the Admins can be made that a user be demoted." </p> </div>Apparently no-one remembered that when this vote passed...</div>Then shouldn't this be corrected?
</div>What do you mean by corrected?</div>policy applies retroactively as well. if this vote has passed but turns out to be against the policy, admins should still invalidate it. </div>However, the community voted to go against the policy, as we have done in the past numerous times.</div>Then why do we have policies, if they mean nothing?
</div>Policies are meant to be followed, however if the community holds a vote to either change or go against policy, whatever the majority (which in this case was 19/20) decides is what is to be followed. We have done this numerous times in the past (see here, here, and here.) so I'm unsure why this is any different. You, the community, <i>voted</i> for this and the majority was overwhelming. </div> <p>no no no no no, that is so flat out wrong and dangerously so, too. the vote that was passed wasn't to /change the policy/. for this to be legal, it would have to /change the policy/ to make sure that demoting does not need to run through the process as outlined by the policy first. /then/ you could pass another vote to hold the cv slice had in mind. this is not what happened. ignoring this is absolutely irresponsible and leads to bad places. </p>
(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)
<div class="quote">
<p>GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>BusyCityGirl wrote: Currently isn't this vote against policy? "A community vote cannot be used to directly demote rights from a user, however, a petition to the Admins can be made that a user be demoted." </p> </div>Apparently no-one remembered that when this vote passed...</div>Then shouldn't this be corrected?
</div>What do you mean by corrected?</div>policy applies retroactively as well. if this vote has passed but turns out to be against the policy, admins should still invalidate it. </div>However, the community voted to go against the policy, as we have done in the past numerous times.</div>Then why do we have policies, if they mean nothing?
</div>Policies are meant to be followed, however if the community holds a vote to either change or go against policy, whatever the majority (which in this case was 19/20) decides is what is to be followed. We have done this numerous times in the past (see here, here, and here.) so I'm unsure why this is any different. You, the community, <i>voted</i> for this and the majority was overwhelming. </div> <p>no no no no no, that is so flat out wrong and dangerously so, too. the vote that was passed wasn't to /change the policy/. for this to be legal, it would have to /change the policy/ to make sure that demoting does not need to run through the process as outlined by the policy first. /then/ you could pass another vote to hold the cv slice had in mind. this is not what happened. ignoring this is absolutely irresponsible and leads to bad places. </p> </div> <p>what bad places? </p>
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>BusyCityGirl wrote: Currently isn't this vote against policy? "A community vote cannot be used to directly demote rights from a user, however, a petition to the Admins can be made that a user be demoted." </p> </div>Apparently no-one remembered that when this vote passed...</div>Then shouldn't this be corrected?
</div>What do you mean by corrected?</div>policy applies retroactively as well. if this vote has passed but turns out to be against the policy, admins should still invalidate it. </div>However, the community voted to go against the policy, as we have done in the past numerous times.</div>Then why do we have policies, if they mean nothing?
</div>Policies are meant to be followed, however if the community holds a vote to either change or go against policy, whatever the majority (which in this case was 19/20) decides is what is to be followed. We have done this numerous times in the past (see here, here, and here.) so I'm unsure why this is any different. You, the community, <i>voted</i> for this and the majority was overwhelming. </div> <p>no no no no no, that is so flat out wrong and dangerously so, too. the vote that was passed wasn't to /change the policy/. for this to be legal, it would have to /change the policy/ to make sure that demoting does not need to run through the process as outlined by the policy first. /then/ you could pass another vote to hold the cv slice had in mind. this is not what happened. ignoring this is absolutely irresponsible and leads to bad places. </p> </div> <p>what bad places? </p>
(Edited by Slicer Vorzakh)
<div class="quote">
<p>Avalair wrote:
For number 3 we need to make a decision, as I am hoping to have the vote up by tomorrow. Either 75% or majority rules.
</p>
</div>
<p>Hm? What's the rush?
</p><p>You realize this discussion was started literally just 24 hours ago...
</p>
(Edited by BusyCityGirl)
0
<div class="quote">BusyCityGirl wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: For number 3 we need to make a decision, as I am hoping to have the vote up by tomorrow. Either 75% or majority rules. </p> </div> <p>Hm? What's the rush? </p><p>You realize this discussion was started literally just 24 hours ago... </p> </div> <p>The vote should be going on right now if this all didn't happen. Not to mention Rio and I will both be away this week so we won't be able to manage or mantain the vote. </p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: For number 3 we need to make a decision, as I am hoping to have the vote up by tomorrow. Either 75% or majority rules. </p> </div> <p>Hm? What's the rush? </p><p>You realize this discussion was started literally just 24 hours ago... </p> </div> <p>The vote should be going on right now if this all didn't happen. Not to mention Rio and I will both be away this week so we won't be able to manage or mantain the vote. </p>
(Edited by Avalair)
<div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>GuacamoleCCXR wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>BusyCityGirl wrote: Currently isn't this vote against policy? "A community vote cannot be used to directly demote rights from a user, however, a petition to the Admins can be made that a user be demoted." </p> </div>Apparently no-one remembered that when this vote passed...</div>Then shouldn't this be corrected?
</div>What do you mean by corrected?</div>policy applies retroactively as well. if this vote has passed but turns out to be against the policy, admins should still invalidate it. </div>However, the community voted to go against the policy, as we have done in the past numerous times.</div>Then why do we have policies, if they mean nothing?
</div>Policies are meant to be followed, however if the community holds a vote to either change or go against policy, whatever the majority (which in this case was 19/20) decides is what is to be followed. We have done this numerous times in the past (see here, here, and here.) so I'm unsure why this is any different. You, the community, <i>voted</i> for this and the majority was overwhelming. </div>no no no no no, that is so flat out wrong and dangerously so, too. the vote that was passed wasn't to /change the policy/. for this to be legal, it would have to /change the policy/ to make sure that demoting does not need to run through the process as outlined by the policy first. /then/ you could pass another vote to hold the cv slice had in mind. this is not what happened. ignoring this is absolutely irresponsible and leads to bad places. </div>what bad places?</div> <p>the lack of any coherence in the logical foundation of our policy, perhaps? if people just ignore and change it however they like, if unrelated votes can be used to bypass it, then none of it makes any sense. </p><p>i can see people going the "you're taking this too seriously, lol, what a loser for thinking this matters" route but i'm afraid i'd have to call them out on their lack of understanding of political processes, <i>regardless of their significance. </i>certain rules must be followed, and one of those rules is that when you have a codified piece of scripture, in our case, the policy, that dictates the mechanisms of administration, changing it requires a standalone process. if a vote is proposed that contradicts the policy, it must be counted as invalid, even if it is supported by a majority. you first need to change the policy, not pass a vote first and then change the policy retroactively on a whim. </p><p>edit: fixed syntax </p>
<div class="quote"> <p>GuacamoleCCXR wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
<div class="quote">Avalair wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>BusyCityGirl wrote: Currently isn't this vote against policy? "A community vote cannot be used to directly demote rights from a user, however, a petition to the Admins can be made that a user be demoted." </p> </div>Apparently no-one remembered that when this vote passed...</div>Then shouldn't this be corrected?
</div>What do you mean by corrected?</div>policy applies retroactively as well. if this vote has passed but turns out to be against the policy, admins should still invalidate it. </div>However, the community voted to go against the policy, as we have done in the past numerous times.</div>Then why do we have policies, if they mean nothing?
</div>Policies are meant to be followed, however if the community holds a vote to either change or go against policy, whatever the majority (which in this case was 19/20) decides is what is to be followed. We have done this numerous times in the past (see here, here, and here.) so I'm unsure why this is any different. You, the community, <i>voted</i> for this and the majority was overwhelming. </div>no no no no no, that is so flat out wrong and dangerously so, too. the vote that was passed wasn't to /change the policy/. for this to be legal, it would have to /change the policy/ to make sure that demoting does not need to run through the process as outlined by the policy first. /then/ you could pass another vote to hold the cv slice had in mind. this is not what happened. ignoring this is absolutely irresponsible and leads to bad places. </div>what bad places?</div> <p>the lack of any coherence in the logical foundation of our policy, perhaps? if people just ignore and change it however they like, if unrelated votes can be used to bypass it, then none of it makes any sense. </p><p>i can see people going the "you're taking this too seriously, lol, what a loser for thinking this matters" route but i'm afraid i'd have to call them out on their lack of understanding of political processes, <i>regardless of their significance. </i>certain rules must be followed, and one of those rules is that when you have a codified piece of scripture, in our case, the policy, that dictates the mechanisms of administration, changing it requires a standalone process. if a vote is proposed that contradicts the policy, it must be counted as invalid, even if it is supported by a majority. you first need to change the policy, not pass a vote first and then change the policy retroactively on a whim. </p><p>edit: fixed syntax </p>
(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)
<div class="quote">
<p>BusyCityGirl wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Avalair wrote:
For number 3 we need to make a decision, as I am hoping to have the vote up by tomorrow. Either 75% or majority rules.
</p>
</div>
<p>Hm? What's the rush?
</p><p>You realize this discussion was started literally just 24 hours ago...
</p>
</div>
<p>Whether we do it today or next year doesnt change your chance of being demoted
</p>
(Edited by Slicer Vorzakh)
<div class="quote">
<p>Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>BusyCityGirl wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Avalair wrote:
For number 3 we need to make a decision, as I am hoping to have the vote up by tomorrow. Either 75% or majority rules.
</p>
</div>
<p>Hm? What's the rush?
</p><p>You realize this discussion was started literally just 24 hours ago...
</p>
</div>
<p>Whether we do it today or next year doesnt change your chance of being demoted
</p>
</div>
<p>
Me? Really, why does everyone think it's about me? Who cares about my chances of being demoted. That's not remotely what this is about. If someone wants me demoted, they can start that movement anytime they want. </p>
Me? Really, why does everyone think it's about me? Who cares about my chances of being demoted. That's not remotely what this is about. If someone wants me demoted, they can start that movement anytime they want. </p>
(Edited by BusyCityGirl)
<div class="quote">
<p>Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>BusyCityGirl wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>BusyCityGirl wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Avalair wrote:
For number 3 we need to make a decision, as I am hoping to have the vote up by tomorrow. Either 75% or majority rules.
</p>
</div>
<p>Hm? What's the rush?
</p><p>You realize this discussion was started literally just 24 hours ago...
</p>
</div>
<p>Whether we do it today or next year doesnt change your chance of being demoted
</p>
</div>
<p>
Me? Really, why does everyone think it's about me? Who cares about my chances of being demoted. That's not remotely what this is about. If someone wants me demoted, they can start that movement anytime they want. </p> </div> <p>Considering this is the first time youve been this active in over a year, it's pretty obvious that's why youre fighting do hard </p> </div> <p>That, my friend is simply not true. I am on night chat just about a week straight evey other week or so. I keep up with every vote and discussion (except for the vote to make this happen as it was closed 3 days after opening. -The only 3 days that week I didn't check in...). And same as Guac for demotion vote counts. Really, this is silly. Even if that was my motive, what does it matter? The points made remain fully valid. </p>
Me? Really, why does everyone think it's about me? Who cares about my chances of being demoted. That's not remotely what this is about. If someone wants me demoted, they can start that movement anytime they want. </p> </div> <p>Considering this is the first time youve been this active in over a year, it's pretty obvious that's why youre fighting do hard </p> </div> <p>That, my friend is simply not true. I am on night chat just about a week straight evey other week or so. I keep up with every vote and discussion (except for the vote to make this happen as it was closed 3 days after opening. -The only 3 days that week I didn't check in...). And same as Guac for demotion vote counts. Really, this is silly. Even if that was my motive, what does it matter? The points made remain fully valid. </p>
(Edited by BusyCityGirl)