5,988
pages
ALL POSTSVote to Bypass Vote Length in Extreme Circumstances
<p>This should be fairly common sense and I cannot envision anyone objecting, but there is no clause that specifically allows for a vote to pass in this case. Assuming that there is a vote that has been agreed upon by over 50% of the <i>whole community</i> (or an otherwise overwhelming majority, like a unanimous 49% of the community within 24 hours), the vote can immediately close as it is quite literally impossible for the vote to not pass.
</p><p>Just as a clear iteration for those who did not catch it the first time, this applies to 50% <i>of the community</i>, not 50% of those who have voted.
</p><p>A) Yes 13 votes
</p><p>B) No 0 votes
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Consensus">Consensus</span></h2>
<p>Yes.
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
<p>a.
</p><p>while alemas raises valid concerns, estimating that at no point will there be more than 50 votes on a cv seems accurate enough to me, with 25 votes thus being the pass benchmark. it's not like you're trying to land on mars with these, an approximation will do.
</p>
(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)
<p>A
</p><p>This is not a country so the decisions aren't life threatening or anything. Letting this happen might actually speed up the decision making.
</p>
(Edited by Anonymous 67a8f391a32fb7.13434178)
0
<p>A.
</p><p>A downside of any direct democracy is the time it takes. This would definitely help. Good idea for a vote, I must say.
</p>
(Edited by Brick425)
<p>AAAAAAAAAAA
</p><p><span style="color:#DF0101;">Yada</span> <small><span style="color:black;">Dark</span></small> <span title="This user is an administrator of Picsou Wiki.">
</span> 17:46, August 21, 2016 (UTC)
</p>
</span> 17:46, August 21, 2016 (UTC)
</p>
(Edited by Dark Yada)
A.
(Edited by EvilMidnightNG)
A
(Edited by Majolo9050)
0
A
(Edited by Peudguin)
A
(Edited by JMW wolfpack)
<div class="quote">
<p>Alemas2005 wrote:
Um, yes, this vote would make perfect sense...
</p><p>...if only we could actually know how big the active community is. 
</p><noscript>
</noscript>
<p>Using Special:ListUsers, even after deselecting all the irrelevant groups, we get over 900 records, including dupes and blocked users. While I would be voting A), I'll hold back until we can sort this out. We'd need a census. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>While yes, we usually have around 40 active members at any one time, it often happens that inactive users pop back in for a vote. It's definitely not as straightforward as you think. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p><font face="Courier New">My concerns exactly with this vote. Ironically, in attempting to bypass a bureaucratic hiccup, we find ourselves looking at a bureaucratic mess. </font>
</p>
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Using Special:ListUsers, even after deselecting all the irrelevant groups, we get over 900 records, including dupes and blocked users. While I would be voting A), I'll hold back until we can sort this out. We'd need a census. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>While yes, we usually have around 40 active members at any one time, it often happens that inactive users pop back in for a vote. It's definitely not as straightforward as you think. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p><font face="Courier New">My concerns exactly with this vote. Ironically, in attempting to bypass a bureaucratic hiccup, we find ourselves looking at a bureaucratic mess. </font>
</p>
(Edited by LordWeirdo)
<div class="quote">
<p>LordWeirdo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Alemas2005 wrote:
Um, yes, this vote would make perfect sense...
</p><p>...if only we could actually know how big the active community is. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Using Special:ListUsers, even after deselecting all the irrelevant groups, we get over 900 records, including dupes and blocked users. While I would be voting A), I'll hold back until we can sort this out. We'd need a census. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>While yes, we usually have around 40 active members at any one time, it often happens that inactive users pop back in for a vote. It's definitely not as straightforward as you think. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p><font face="Courier New">My concerns exactly with this vote. Ironically, in attempting to bypass a bureaucratic hiccup, we find ourselves looking at a bureaucratic mess. </font>
</p>
</div>
<p>I look to Roddy's comment. If it's that awful, all we need is a blog with a poll on it with one option: "I am active here." Users are directed there and the poll's results are the official number of active people on the wiki.
</p>
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Using Special:ListUsers, even after deselecting all the irrelevant groups, we get over 900 records, including dupes and blocked users. While I would be voting A), I'll hold back until we can sort this out. We'd need a census. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>While yes, we usually have around 40 active members at any one time, it often happens that inactive users pop back in for a vote. It's definitely not as straightforward as you think. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p><font face="Courier New">My concerns exactly with this vote. Ironically, in attempting to bypass a bureaucratic hiccup, we find ourselves looking at a bureaucratic mess. </font>
</p>
</div>
<p>I look to Roddy's comment. If it's that awful, all we need is a blog with a poll on it with one option: "I am active here." Users are directed there and the poll's results are the official number of active people on the wiki.
</p>
(Edited by Herr keplers)