5,988
pages
ALL POSTSProhibiting Inactive users from voting on RfRs
<p>Recently I was reading over community policy, and I noticed that we do not have any rules regarding the people who can and can not vote on RFRs besides the "active for one month" rule. I think it's time for this to change.
</p><p>I think the people voting on RFRs, especially CM, admin, and bureaucrat RFRs, should not only be active, but also active in the community has a whole. This means users who have the inactive tag, but also users who edit but never participate in chat, can not vote on these RFRs. I feel it's too easy to exploit the current system. In fact, I was even guilty of doing this myself. I came out of retirement for the sole purpose of voting oppose on a RFR. That is hardly fair. I also think if a user is not active on chat or in the community, they're hardly a good judge of the person they're voting for, which is also unfair.
</p><p>So, should we restrict the people allowed to vote on these different RFRs to people both active on the site and active in the community as a whole?
</p><p>Bureaucrat
</p><p>A) Yes 15 Votes
</p><p>B) No 13 Votes
</p><p>Admin
</p><p>A) Yes 15 Votes
</p><p>B) No 13 Votes
</p><p>CM
</p><p>A) Yes 16 Votes
</p><p>B) No 12 Vote
</p><p>DM
</p><p>A) Yes 15 Votes
</p><p>B) No 13 Votes
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Consensus">Consensus</span></h2>
<p>Yes for all
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">AmazingPythor wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">AmazingPythor wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">AmazingPythor wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">AmazingPythor wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Michaelyoda wrote: I'd like to point out that one can have the inactive tag and still visit chat every day. This vote is also incredibly vague on what constitutes inactivity. </p><p>As such, I vote B for all. </p> </div>Inactivity will be determined by admins using common sense. A user can't just make an edit to remove the tag, they would need to be truly active, as deemed active by other active members of the community.</div>So, mob rule then.
</div>I fail to see how two or three admins using common sense to determine activity equates to "mob rule."</div>It was more in response to the second sentence, which seemingly contradicts the first.</div>Well yes I suppose that was rather self-contradictory, but keep in mind that the final say in determining inactivity would be that of the admins.</div>With this community, I highly doubt that.
</div>Care to elaborate on that?</div>Here, let me link you to the 177 CVs we have had.
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Board:Community_Voting</div>Your point? Regardless of your thoughts on the rationality of the community, the admins will be the ones exclusively in charge of this system.</div>My point being that the moment that the admins decide something contrary to what someone wants, there will be a CV.
</div>You seem annoyed by CVs, yet you opposed the vote I created. </div> <p>It's their existence, not their length.
</p>
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">AmazingPythor wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">AmazingPythor wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">AmazingPythor wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">AmazingPythor wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Michaelyoda wrote: I'd like to point out that one can have the inactive tag and still visit chat every day. This vote is also incredibly vague on what constitutes inactivity. </p><p>As such, I vote B for all. </p> </div>Inactivity will be determined by admins using common sense. A user can't just make an edit to remove the tag, they would need to be truly active, as deemed active by other active members of the community.</div>So, mob rule then.
</div>I fail to see how two or three admins using common sense to determine activity equates to "mob rule."</div>It was more in response to the second sentence, which seemingly contradicts the first.</div>Well yes I suppose that was rather self-contradictory, but keep in mind that the final say in determining inactivity would be that of the admins.</div>With this community, I highly doubt that.
</div>Care to elaborate on that?</div>Here, let me link you to the 177 CVs we have had.
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Board:Community_Voting</div>Your point? Regardless of your thoughts on the rationality of the community, the admins will be the ones exclusively in charge of this system.</div>My point being that the moment that the admins decide something contrary to what someone wants, there will be a CV.
</div>You seem annoyed by CVs, yet you opposed the vote I created. </div> <p>It's their existence, not their length.
</p>
(Edited by Michaelyoda)
1
<p>B, B, B, and B. This vote is too unclear in what determines activity and inactivity. Moreover, I do not like the idea of having no physcial/written rules on who is and is not eligible to vote. Instead, if this vote passes, we would simply be allowing the admins to determine activity as they please, with no grounded rule to restrict their decisions.
</p>
(Edited by Harold89)
0
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
B, B, B, and B. This vote is too unclear in what determines activity and inactivity. Moreover, I do not like the idea of having no physcial/written rules on who is and is not eligible to vote. Instead, if this vote passes, we would simply be allowing the admins to determine activity as they please, with no grounded rule to restrict their decisions.</div> <p>The "common sense" thing is, believe it or not, used a ton in real life. I don't see why it's such a bad idea. I think most of us can agree who is active and who isn't, since our definitions of "active" are more or less the same. </p>
B, B, B, and B. This vote is too unclear in what determines activity and inactivity. Moreover, I do not like the idea of having no physcial/written rules on who is and is not eligible to vote. Instead, if this vote passes, we would simply be allowing the admins to determine activity as they please, with no grounded rule to restrict their decisions.</div> <p>The "common sense" thing is, believe it or not, used a ton in real life. I don't see why it's such a bad idea. I think most of us can agree who is active and who isn't, since our definitions of "active" are more or less the same. </p>
(Edited by Brick425)
<div class="quote">
<p>Brick425 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Harold89 wrote:
B, B, B, and B. This vote is too unclear in what determines activity and inactivity. Moreover, I do not like the idea of having no physcial/written rules on who is and is not eligible to vote. Instead, if this vote passes, we would simply be allowing the admins to determine activity as they please, with no grounded rule to restrict their decisions.</div> <p>The "common sense" thing is, believe it or not, used a ton in real life. I don't see why it's such a bad idea. I think most of us can agree who is active and who isn't, since our definitions of "active" are more or less the same. </p> </div> <p><font face="Courier New">agreed</font> </p>
B, B, B, and B. This vote is too unclear in what determines activity and inactivity. Moreover, I do not like the idea of having no physcial/written rules on who is and is not eligible to vote. Instead, if this vote passes, we would simply be allowing the admins to determine activity as they please, with no grounded rule to restrict their decisions.</div> <p>The "common sense" thing is, believe it or not, used a ton in real life. I don't see why it's such a bad idea. I think most of us can agree who is active and who isn't, since our definitions of "active" are more or less the same. </p> </div> <p><font face="Courier New">agreed</font> </p>
(Edited by LordWeirdo)
<p>Like, what happened in the two months between now and this? 
</p><noscript>
</noscript>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:263544
</p><noscript></noscript>http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:263544
(Edited by Michaelyoda)
0
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
Like, what happened in the two months between now and this?http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:263544</div>
<p>Per this. I knew I remembered this issue from somewhere...
</p>
Like, what happened in the two months between now and this?
http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:263544</div>
<p>Per this. I knew I remembered this issue from somewhere...
</p>
(Edited by Brick425)
0
<p>B to all, and per Harry. It's too hard to determine who is "actually active", and if a user is active enough in the community to be around, hear about the vote, and have feelings one way or another about it, that seems active enough for me.
</p>
(Edited by Loney 97)
1
<p>Like with the last vote, there are no concrete confines for who is and isn't "inactive." I'm not a fan of determining rules without there being actual rules, nor am I fan of restricting voting access with such a dependency on subjectivity. Like Yoda pointed out, it's weird how quickly sentiment has changed from the previous vote on this matter to what we have now.
</p><p>B to all.
</p>
(Edited by Riolu777)
B to all.
(Edited by EvilMidnightNG)
<p>Per loney and rio, the only level headed people here.
</p>
(Edited by Packachoo)