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)
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)
<p>B to all.
</p><p>THIS IS AN UNACCEPTABLE BREACH OF DEMOCRACY!!! YOU'RE TRYING TO TURN US INTO BLOODY COMMUNISTS!!! I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS!!!
</p><p>Jk, most of my reasons have already been stated, so...per above. :P
</p>
(Edited by GandalftheWizard)
B to all.
(Edited by TheShadowAssassin)
0
B to all.
(Edited by Peudguin)
0
<p>BBAA
</p><p>I mean, obviously the Admins and Buro who are not very active, but once were, they got to their positions for a reason, they know the community and their input from often times years of being here should really count for something.
</p>
(Edited by Jdude420)
<div class="quote">
<p>Jdude420 wrote:
BBAA
</p><p>I mean, obviously the Admins and Buro who are not very active, but once were, they got to their positions for a reason, they know the community and their input from often times years of being here should really count for something.
</p>
</div>
<p><font face="Courier New">I think you misunderstand...this vote is to prevent all inactive users from voting on RFRs, and each type of RFR is being voted on separately. Not to prevent inactive users from particular rights groups from voting on RFRs.</font>
</p>
(Edited by LordWeirdo)
0
<p>AAAA
</p><p>
</p><p>The "common sense" thing is actually useful when you have more than one admin. </p>
</p><p>The "common sense" thing is actually useful when you have more than one admin. </p>
(Edited by Kingwja)