5,988
pages
ALL POSTSVote to Shorten Vote End Timer
<p>This has been a problem before. User A will vote on a vote that's pretty new. One and 3/4 days later, User B will vote, and no matter his/her vote choice, everyone will have to wait another 2 days to vote. I don't think telling people not do revive dying votes with help. I've done it before.
</p><p>Even if no users lengthen the timer by voting, 2 days is a long time to wait. It only gives more time for things like this to happen. 80% majority has happened maybe once or twice, and with how big the community is, maybe "twice" is a generous estimate.
</p><p>I propose we make the time required to pass before a vote reaches a consensus only one day (24 hours) instead of two (48 hours).
</p><p>A: Yes, shorten vote end timer.
</p><p>B: No, do not shorten the vote end timer.
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Current_Votes">Current Votes</span></h2>
<p>A) Yes: 15 votes.
</p><p>B) No: 16 votes.
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Consensus">Consensus</span></h2>
<p>No
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
0
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
<p>@Kep: That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV. </p> </div> <p>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) </p><p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p>
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
<p>@Kep: That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV. </p> </div> <p>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) </p><p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p>
(Edited by Brick425)
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
<p>@Kep: That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV. </p> </div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div> <p>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
</p><p>2. Your OP suggests otherwise. </p>
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
<p>@Kep: That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV. </p> </div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div> <p>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
</p><p>2. Your OP suggests otherwise. </p>
(Edited by Michaelyoda)
0
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV. </div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
<p>2. Your OP suggests otherwise. </p> </div> <p>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? </p><p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p>
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV. </div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
<p>2. Your OP suggests otherwise. </p> </div> <p>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? </p><p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p>
(Edited by Brick425)
0
A
(Edited by Peudguin)
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: <i>That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV.</i></div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
<p>2. Your OP suggests otherwise. </p> </div>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? <p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p> </div> <p>1. In response to your now-bolded statement above.
</p><p>2. My italicized statement above is still unanswered. How do you justify cutting off perfectly valid votes? </p>
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: <i>That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV.</i></div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
<p>2. Your OP suggests otherwise. </p> </div>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? <p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p> </div> <p>1. In response to your now-bolded statement above.
</p><p>2. My italicized statement above is still unanswered. How do you justify cutting off perfectly valid votes? </p>
(Edited by Michaelyoda)
0
Just read through the whole thread. I agree completely with MY. I urge others to read his above points.
(Edited by Harold89)
0
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: <i>That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV.</i></div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
2. Your OP suggests otherwise. </div>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? <p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p> </div>1. In response to your now-bolded statement above.
<p>2. My italicized statement above is still unanswered. How do you justify cutting off perfectly valid votes? </p> </div> <p>1. Is... Is there someone swaying the vote? I don't see what's being (Poorly) pointed out. </p><p>2. Nothing personal, but all quotes are italicized, so I can't see it. :P Just for future reference. To answer your question, I've already explained it. Getting a good picture of what the community wants is great, but there comes a point where it keeps dragging on because one more person has to vote, and another, and another, even though we know what the majority wants. </p>
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: <i>That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV.</i></div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
2. Your OP suggests otherwise. </div>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? <p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p> </div>1. In response to your now-bolded statement above.
<p>2. My italicized statement above is still unanswered. How do you justify cutting off perfectly valid votes? </p> </div> <p>1. Is... Is there someone swaying the vote? I don't see what's being (Poorly) pointed out. </p><p>2. Nothing personal, but all quotes are italicized, so I can't see it. :P Just for future reference. To answer your question, I've already explained it. Getting a good picture of what the community wants is great, but there comes a point where it keeps dragging on because one more person has to vote, and another, and another, even though we know what the majority wants. </p>
(Edited by Brick425)
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: <i>That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV.</i></div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
2. Your OP suggests otherwise.</div>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? <p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p> </div>1. In response to your now-bolded statement above.
2. My italicized statement above is still unanswered. How do you justify cutting off perfectly valid votes?</div>1. Is... Is there someone swaying the vote? I don't see what's being (Poorly) pointed out. <p>2. Nothing personal, but all quotes are italicized, so I can't see it. :P Just for future reference. To answer your question, I've already explained it. Getting a good picture of what the community wants is great, but there comes a point where it keeps dragging on because one more person has to vote, and another, and another, even though we know what the majority wants. </p> </div> <p>1. omw. You said, "One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example." In answer, I linked <u>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929</u> to provide a current example that contradicts your implication that stuff like this never happens. </p><p>2. Wow, I am really winning points right now. >_<
</p><noscript>
</noscript> dumb quote box.
<p>Now I must really question your logic, Brick, becuase how are you supposed to know what the majority wants, when you erase several valid votes? In the vote I just linked, there was only a three vote difference.
</p><p>We already have policy that closes the vote when 20 people support or oppose to vote. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/LEGO_Message_Boards_Wiki:Community_Voting_Policy So come to think of it, this CV is sort of redundant.
</p>
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: <i>That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV.</i></div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
2. Your OP suggests otherwise.</div>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? <p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p> </div>1. In response to your now-bolded statement above.
2. My italicized statement above is still unanswered. How do you justify cutting off perfectly valid votes?</div>1. Is... Is there someone swaying the vote? I don't see what's being (Poorly) pointed out. <p>2. Nothing personal, but all quotes are italicized, so I can't see it. :P Just for future reference. To answer your question, I've already explained it. Getting a good picture of what the community wants is great, but there comes a point where it keeps dragging on because one more person has to vote, and another, and another, even though we know what the majority wants. </p> </div> <p>1. omw. You said, "One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example." In answer, I linked <u>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929</u> to provide a current example that contradicts your implication that stuff like this never happens. </p><p>2. Wow, I am really winning points right now. >_<
</p><noscript></noscript> dumb quote box.
<p>Now I must really question your logic, Brick, becuase how are you supposed to know what the majority wants, when you erase several valid votes? In the vote I just linked, there was only a three vote difference.
</p><p>We already have policy that closes the vote when 20 people support or oppose to vote. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/LEGO_Message_Boards_Wiki:Community_Voting_Policy So come to think of it, this CV is sort of redundant.
</p>
(Edited by Michaelyoda)
0
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: <i>That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV.</i></div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
2. Your OP suggests otherwise.</div>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? <p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p> </div>1. In response to your now-bolded statement above.
2. My italicized statement above is still unanswered. How do you justify cutting off perfectly valid votes?</div>1. Is... Is there someone swaying the vote? I don't see what's being (Poorly) pointed out. <p>2. Nothing personal, but all quotes are italicized, so I can't see it. :P Just for future reference. To answer your question, I've already explained it. Getting a good picture of what the community wants is great, but there comes a point where it keeps dragging on because one more person has to vote, and another, and another, even though we know what the majority wants. </p> </div>1. omw. You said, "One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example." In answer, I linked <u>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929</u> to provide a current example that contradicts your implication that stuff like this never happens. <p>2. Wow, I am really winning points right now. >_<</p><noscript></noscript> dumb quote box.
<p>Now I must really question your logic, Brick, becuase how are you supposed to know what the majority wants, when you erase several valid votes? In the vote I just linked, there was only a three vote difference.
</p><p>We already have policy that closes the vote when 20 people support or oppose to vote. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/LEGO_Message_Boards_Wiki:Community_Voting_Policy So come to think of it, this CV is sort of redundant.
</p>
</div>
<p>1. Yeah, uh, that means that votes for unblocking words never results in a landslide either way. So you've proven my point.
</p><p>2. (Not to be a wisebutt, but they couldn't be erased if they were never there.) And again, you've just proven my point. There was only a 3 vote difference, thus not 80% majority.
</p><p>Also, 20 people is a lot. That unblock vote you linked had 21 people vote. And as far as I can tell, that's pretty much all of the very active community.
</p>
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: <i>That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV.</i></div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
2. Your OP suggests otherwise.</div>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? <p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p> </div>1. In response to your now-bolded statement above.
2. My italicized statement above is still unanswered. How do you justify cutting off perfectly valid votes?</div>1. Is... Is there someone swaying the vote? I don't see what's being (Poorly) pointed out. <p>2. Nothing personal, but all quotes are italicized, so I can't see it. :P Just for future reference. To answer your question, I've already explained it. Getting a good picture of what the community wants is great, but there comes a point where it keeps dragging on because one more person has to vote, and another, and another, even though we know what the majority wants. </p> </div>1. omw. You said, "One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example." In answer, I linked <u>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929</u> to provide a current example that contradicts your implication that stuff like this never happens. <p>2. Wow, I am really winning points right now. >_<
</p><noscript></noscript> dumb quote box.
<p>Now I must really question your logic, Brick, becuase how are you supposed to know what the majority wants, when you erase several valid votes? In the vote I just linked, there was only a three vote difference.
</p><p>We already have policy that closes the vote when 20 people support or oppose to vote. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/LEGO_Message_Boards_Wiki:Community_Voting_Policy So come to think of it, this CV is sort of redundant.
</p>
</div>
<p>1. Yeah, uh, that means that votes for unblocking words never results in a landslide either way. So you've proven my point.
</p><p>2. (Not to be a wisebutt, but they couldn't be erased if they were never there.) And again, you've just proven my point. There was only a 3 vote difference, thus not 80% majority.
</p><p>Also, 20 people is a lot. That unblock vote you linked had 21 people vote. And as far as I can tell, that's pretty much all of the very active community.
</p>
(Edited by Brick425)
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: <i>That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV.</i></div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
2. Your OP suggests otherwise.</div>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? <p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p> </div>1. In response to your now-bolded statement above.
2. My italicized statement above is still unanswered. How do you justify cutting off perfectly valid votes?</div>1. Is... Is there someone swaying the vote? I don't see what's being (Poorly) pointed out. <p>2. Nothing personal, but all quotes are italicized, so I can't see it. :P Just for future reference. To answer your question, I've already explained it. Getting a good picture of what the community wants is great, but there comes a point where it keeps dragging on because one more person has to vote, and another, and another, even though we know what the majority wants. </p> </div>1. omw. You said, "One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example." In answer, I linked <u>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929</u> to provide a current example that contradicts your implication that stuff like this never happens. <p>2. Wow, I am really winning points right now. >_<</p><noscript></noscript> dumb quote box.
<p>Now I must really question your logic, Brick, becuase how are you supposed to know what the majority wants, when you erase several valid votes? In the vote I just linked, there was only a three vote difference.
</p><p>We already have policy that closes the vote when 20 people support or oppose to vote. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/LEGO_Message_Boards_Wiki:Community_Voting_Policy So come to think of it, this CV is sort of redundant.
</p>
</div>1. Yeah, uh, that means that votes for unblocking words never results in a landslide either way. So you've proven my point.
<p>2. (Not to be a wisebutt, but they couldn't be erased if they were never there.) And again, you've just proven my point. There was only a 3 vote difference, thus not 80% majority.
</p><p>Also, 20 people is a lot. That unblock vote you linked had 21 people vote. And as far as I can tell, that's pretty much all of the very active community.
</p>
</div>
<p>1-2. I swear, you have the attention span of a squirrel with short-term memory loss. I am not going to recap the conversation a second time; the quote box is there for a reason.
</p><p>If that is all of the "very active" community, then there should be no trouble reaching that number. </p><p>I am done here. </p>
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
Definitely B. <p>If option A passes, it will give only the extremely active users a chance to participate in our wiki's democratic process. Option B still gives <i>slightly</i> less active users a chance to vote (and this "slightly less active" group is a larger and just as important part of this community). </p> </div>While this is a good point, the more users vote, the longer the vote will stay up. Often times the vote stays up for days, sometimes more than a week. I know we want a good consensus, but our goal with the votes is action. And that simply won't happen if there's always just a few more users that have to vote.</div>Is efficiency more important than the voice?
We already have policy in place regarding votes where there is a clear consensus. All this vote does is cut off a large portion of the community because they weren't around for 24 hours.</div>I've already explained that 80% support is insane. With a community this big, that's next to impossible.</div>...
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:272231http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273803http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:273725http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274076http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:274445http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275650 <p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:275941 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276199 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277520 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277651 </p><p>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:277636 </p><p>12 out of 25 CVs since August 3rd achieved an 80% majority. That's near half our votes in the last month and a half. </p><p>I rest my case. </p> </div>I meant for votes which... You know... Have counterarguments.</div>You mean the close votes in which each person could potentially swing the vote the other way?
</div>One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example.</div>I have seen plenty of events where the vote was ludicrously conclusive and some moron or another comes on and votes for the unpopular option, despite there being absolutely no chance of it succeeding.</div>@Brick: You're really bad at this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:271051
@Kep: <i>That is something you just have to deal with. If this vote goes through, potentially, perfectly valid opinions will be eliminated from close CVs, all because Brick became impatient enough to make this CV.</i></div>1. You already linked that vote. In fact, it was the /first/ vote you linked. It also has nothing to do with unblocking words in chat, like my example pointed out. I would argue that you're really bad at this. Of course, you're the one that started throwing insults. (Albeit stupid ones) <p>2. It's not about impatience, it's about trying to make the issues of democracy less significant. </p> </div>fjiwebeafbas.kjfnawlnfo;aww I swear I linked the right one. My mistake. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929
2. Your OP suggests otherwise.</div>1. All of those votes are close. What's your point, and for which side are you arguing? <p>2. As I replied to Bubbles, "<span style="font-weight:normal;">Personally, I find the constant vote reviving a crippling reminder of the flaws of an immature community meeting democracy."</span> </p> </div>1. In response to your now-bolded statement above.
2. My italicized statement above is still unanswered. How do you justify cutting off perfectly valid votes?</div>1. Is... Is there someone swaying the vote? I don't see what's being (Poorly) pointed out. <p>2. Nothing personal, but all quotes are italicized, so I can't see it. :P Just for future reference. To answer your question, I've already explained it. Getting a good picture of what the community wants is great, but there comes a point where it keeps dragging on because one more person has to vote, and another, and another, even though we know what the majority wants. </p> </div>1. omw. You said, "One person swinging a vote the other way could only happen if it's a close vote and only around 5 or 6 people have voted. I'm talking about controversial votes, such as unblocking words, for example." In answer, I linked <u>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:276929</u> to provide a current example that contradicts your implication that stuff like this never happens. <p>2. Wow, I am really winning points right now. >_<
</p><noscript></noscript> dumb quote box.
<p>Now I must really question your logic, Brick, becuase how are you supposed to know what the majority wants, when you erase several valid votes? In the vote I just linked, there was only a three vote difference.
</p><p>We already have policy that closes the vote when 20 people support or oppose to vote. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/LEGO_Message_Boards_Wiki:Community_Voting_Policy So come to think of it, this CV is sort of redundant.
</p>
</div>1. Yeah, uh, that means that votes for unblocking words never results in a landslide either way. So you've proven my point.
<p>2. (Not to be a wisebutt, but they couldn't be erased if they were never there.) And again, you've just proven my point. There was only a 3 vote difference, thus not 80% majority.
</p><p>Also, 20 people is a lot. That unblock vote you linked had 21 people vote. And as far as I can tell, that's pretty much all of the very active community.
</p>
</div>
<p>1-2. I swear, you have the attention span of a squirrel with short-term memory loss. I am not going to recap the conversation a second time; the quote box is there for a reason.</p><p>If that is all of the "very active" community, then there should be no trouble reaching that number. </p><p>I am done here. </p>
(Edited by Michaelyoda)