All posts by Jerry Seinfeld
A, providing they are properly named and attached to articles or something.
So basically just A
FiretigerIsMLG wrote: A, i dont want to read something then idioticly findout is practically useless xd
what is that even supposed to mean
Jerry Seinfeld wrote:
Tuvok95 wrote: Can't we just be happy with Keplers?
No, because it's inevitable that there will be many splinter sites that will be created, and unless the majority accept to consolidate, the community will inevitably die.
Boy I really am an optimistic person
Tuvok95 wrote: Can't we just be happy with Keplers?
No, because it's inevitable that there will be many splinter sites that will be created, and unless the majority accept to consolidate, the community will inevitably die.
Riolu777 wrote:
Riolu777 wrote: I'm in favor of scrapping this vote and having an entire overhaul of the closure rules. I've had to ask people on chat and get different answers in the past when wanting to find out when to close RfRs.
AP could just close this and then we figure out a new system for RfR closures and put forth a vote on it.
Sounds like a good idea, I hope Pythor doesn't mind that we've kinda commandeered his vote. 
</noscript>
Riolu777 wrote: I'm in favor of scrapping this vote and having an entire overhaul of the closure rules. I've had to ask people on chat and get different answers in the past when wanting to find out when to close RfRs.
Is that actually allowed? If so, then ditto.
Alemas2005 wrote:
Alemas2005 wrote:
Alemas2005 wrote:
Alemas2005 wrote:
Alemas2005 wrote:
"If the 5 days since the vote was created have already passed"
"A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met"
I know that this is already a vote, but what are we going to accomplish by removing the 96-hour policy? It's only mentioned one time in the policy, with the rest of it referring to a "5-day minimum". If we remove that minimum, then we're only going to extend it to a longer 120 hours (5 days). Or was the 5-day policy superior to the 4-day (96 hour) policy because it was a longer time? Or is it the other way around because the policy directly refers to a 96 hour minimum?
The problem is that the "At least 96 hours must pass before a request can be closed." phrase is repeated in each RfR page, thus creating the impression that it automatically overrides everything else.
By removing this phrase, it would facilitate promotions of candidates who receive an overwhelming amount of support in a couple of days. Take for example TSA's RfR, I should have formally waited for these 96 hours to pass regardless of all the exceptions and other rules in order to close it.
Basically, yeah, these 96 hours were the absolute minimum regardless of all other regulations.
"All RFRs are required to at least 4 days (or 5 days, according to the rest of the policy). RFRs are to be closed 2 days after the last support/oppose vote was made (if a user switches their vote, the RFR is also to be closed 2 days after their vote was made [but only if the user switched from oppose to support, support to oppose, neutral to oppose, or support to oppose. The voting period will not be extended if the user changes their vote to neutral or removes their vote entirely.], but the voting period will only be extended once per user per switch) if 5 days have passed. RFRs can also be closed before the non-existent 5 day requirement if: the RFR has at least 10 oppositions with a 75% majority oppose, or, if the request has reached the required amount of votes with an 85% majority support. At least two supporting or opposing votes from an administrator are required to close a RFR."
Yes, it will extend the minimum waiting time to 5 days, but on the other hand RfRs with overwhelming support achieved in a couple of days (like TSA's) can be closed immediately.
There are two sides to this.
</noscript>
"A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met:
- If the request has 10 or more oppositions, with at least a 75% majority oppose.
- If the request has the required number of supporting votes (listed below), and at least an 85% majority support."
...?
You just have to mentally tick or cross out checkboxes when reading through the policy to work out whether the RfR can be closed.
</noscript>
That's what helps me make sense of it all, at least.
</noscript>
Isn't that a little... inconvenient?
Alemas2005 wrote:
Alemas2005 wrote:
Alemas2005 wrote:
Alemas2005 wrote:
"If the 5 days since the vote was created have already passed"
"A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met"
I know that this is already a vote, but what are we going to accomplish by removing the 96-hour policy? It's only mentioned one time in the policy, with the rest of it referring to a "5-day minimum". If we remove that minimum, then we're only going to extend it to a longer 120 hours (5 days). Or was the 5-day policy superior to the 4-day (96 hour) policy because it was a longer time? Or is it the other way around because the policy directly refers to a 96 hour minimum?
The problem is that the "At least 96 hours must pass before a request can be closed." phrase is repeated in each RfR page, thus creating the impression that it automatically overrides everything else.
By removing this phrase, it would facilitate promotions of candidates who receive an overwhelming amount of support in a couple of days. Take for example TSA's RfR, I should have formally waited for these 96 hours to pass regardless of all the exceptions and other rules in order to close it.
Basically, yeah, these 96 hours were the absolute minimum regardless of all other regulations.
"All RFRs are required to at least 4 days (or 5 days, according to the rest of the policy). RFRs are to be closed 2 days after the last support/oppose vote was made (if a user switches their vote, the RFR is also to be closed 2 days after their vote was made [but only if the user switched from oppose to support, support to oppose, neutral to oppose, or support to oppose. The voting period will not be extended if the user changes their vote to neutral or removes their vote entirely.], but the voting period will only be extended once per user per switch) if 5 days have passed. RFRs can also be closed before the non-existent 5 day requirement if: the RFR has at least 10 oppositions with a 75% majority oppose, or, if the request has reached the required amount of votes with an 85% majority support. At least two supporting or opposing votes from an administrator are required to close a RFR."
Yes, it will extend the minimum waiting time to 5 days, but on the other hand RfRs with overwhelming support achieved in a couple of days (like TSA's) can be closed immediately.
There are two sides to this.
</noscript>
"A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met:
- If the request has 10 or more oppositions, with at least a 75% majority oppose.
- If the request has the required number of supporting votes (listed below), and at least an 85% majority support."
...?
Oh, that's right, I completely forgot about that. I'm really confused right now
TheShadowAssassin wrote: After reading LCF's posts, honestly I feel like it would just be best to trash the policy and allow Discussion Moderators and Administrators to close it at the individual's own discretion. It's too long and convoluted and should be really simple.
I'm attempting to rephrase the RFR policy in a manner that would make sense, but I've come across parts that can't be changed because they're so convoluted and contradictory.
Alemas2005 wrote:
Alemas2005 wrote:
Alemas2005 wrote:
"If the 5 days since the vote was created have already passed"
"A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met"
I know that this is already a vote, but what are we going to accomplish by removing the 96-hour policy? It's only mentioned one time in the policy, with the rest of it referring to a "5-day minimum". If we remove that minimum, then we're only going to extend it to a longer 120 hours (5 days). Or was the 5-day policy superior to the 4-day (96 hour) policy because it was a longer time? Or is it the other way around because the policy directly refers to a 96 hour minimum?
The problem is that the "At least 96 hours must pass before a request can be closed." phrase is repeated in each RfR page, thus creating the impression that it automatically overrides everything else.
By removing this phrase, it would facilitate promotions of candidates who receive an overwhelming amount of support in a couple of days. Take for example TSA's RfR, I should have formally waited for these 96 hours to pass regardless of all the exceptions and other rules in order to close it.
Basically, yeah, these 96 hours were the absolute minimum regardless of all other regulations.
"All RFRs are required to at least 4 days (or 5 days, according to the rest of the policy). RFRs are to be closed 2 days after the last support/oppose vote was made (if a user switches their vote, the RFR is also to be closed 2 days after their vote was made [but only if the user switched from oppose to support, support to oppose, neutral to oppose, or support to oppose. The voting period will not be extended if the user changes their vote to neutral or removes their vote entirely.], but the voting period will only be extended once per user per switch) if 5 days have passed. RFRs can also be closed before the non-existent 5 day requirement if: the RFR has at least 10 oppositions with a 75% majority oppose, or, if the request has reached the required amount of votes with an 85% majority support. At least two supporting or opposing votes from an administrator are required to close a RFR."
Yes, it will extend the minimum waiting time to 5 days, but on the other hand RfRs with overwhelming support achieved in a couple of days (like TSA's) can be closed immediately.
There are two sides to this.
</noscript>
The rule "The request is to be closed 2 days after the last vote was made (...switching votes extends the limit once per user) if the 5 days since the vote was created have already passed" still implies that 5 days must pass before a request is extended (and subsequently closed).
Alemas2005 wrote:
Alemas2005 wrote:
"If the 5 days since the vote was created have already passed"
"A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met"
I know that this is already a vote, but what are we going to accomplish by removing the 96-hour policy? It's only mentioned one time in the policy, with the rest of it referring to a "5-day minimum". If we remove that minimum, then we're only going to extend it to a longer 120 hours (5 days). Or was the 5-day policy superior to the 4-day (96 hour) policy because it was a longer time? Or is it the other way around because the policy directly refers to a 96 hour minimum?
The problem is that the "At least 96 hours must pass before a request can be closed." phrase is repeated in each RfR page, thus creating the impression that it automatically overrides everything else.
By removing this phrase, it would facilitate promotions of candidates who receive an overwhelming amount of support in a couple of days. Take for example TSA's RfR, I should have formally waited for these 96 hours to pass regardless of all the exceptions and other rules in order to close it.
Basically, yeah, these 96 hours were the absolute minimum regardless of all other regulations.
"All RFRs are required to at least 4 days (or 5 days, according to the rest of the policy). RFRs are to be closed 2 days after the last support/oppose vote was made (if a user switches their vote, the RFR is also to be closed 2 days after their vote was made [but only if the user switched from oppose to support, support to oppose, neutral to oppose, or support to oppose. The voting period will not be extended if the user changes their vote to neutral or removes their vote entirely.], but the voting period will only be extended once per user per switch) if 5 days have passed. RFRs can also be closed before the non-existent 5 day requirement if: the RFR has at least 10 oppositions with a 75% majority oppose, or, if the request has reached the required amount of votes with an 85% majority support. At least two supporting or opposing votes from an administrator are required to close a RFR."
Yes, LCF, you're not alone in thinking it's quite convoluted.
</noscript>
Well, why don't we make a vote to revise the policy, rather than remove one miniscule part of the policy? Like I already said, regardless of whether this vote actually passes or not, in practice, the RFR policy will still operate exactly the same as it already did, except the waiting period will be even longer, which I understand is not the intention of this vote.
Alemas2005 wrote:
"If the 5 days since the vote was created have already passed"
"A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met"
I know that this is already a vote, but what are we going to accomplish by removing the 96-hour policy? It's only mentioned one time in the policy, with the rest of it referring to a "5-day minimum". If we remove that minimum, then we're only going to extend it to a longer 120 hours (5 days). Or was the 5-day policy superior to the 4-day (96 hour) policy because it was a longer time? Or is it the other way around because the policy directly refers to a 96 hour minimum?
The problem is that the "At least 96 hours must pass before a request can be closed." phrase is repeated in each RfR page, thus creating the impression that it automatically overrides everything else.
By removing this phrase, it would facilitate promotions of candidates who receive an overwhelming amount of support in a couple of days. Take for example TSA's RfR, I should have formally waited for these 96 hours to pass regardless of all the exceptions and other rules in order to close it.
Basically, yeah, these 96 hours were the absolute minimum regardless of all other regulations.
So essentially, an abridged version of the RFR policy would be among the lines of:
"All RFRs are required to at least 4 days (or 5 days, according to the rest of the policy). RFRs are to be closed 2 days after the last support/oppose vote was made (if a user switches their vote, the RFR is also to be closed 2 days after their vote was made [but only if the user switched from oppose to support, support to oppose, neutral to oppose, or support to oppose. The voting period will not be extended if the user changes their vote to neutral or removes their vote entirely.], but the voting period will only be extended once per user per switch) if 5 days have passed. RFRs can also be closed before the non-existent 5 day requirement if: the RFR has at least 10 oppositions with a 75% majority oppose, or, if the request has reached the required amount of votes with an 85% majority support. At least two supporting or opposing votes from an administrator are required to close a RFR."
"If the 5 days since the vote was created have already passed"
"A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met"
I know that this is already a vote, but what are we going to accomplish by removing the 96-hour policy? It's only mentioned one time in the policy, with the rest of it referring to a "5-day minimum". If we remove that minimum, then we're only going to extend it to a longer 120 hours (5 days). Or was the 5-day policy superior to the 4-day (96 hour) policy because it was a longer time? Or is it the other way around because the policy directly refers to a 96 hour minimum?
B. There should be a minimum amount of days that a RFR stays up, so that there is sufficient amount of time to vote on them...
A, these are the kinds of changes I'm talking about here.
Hello, is anyone there? Earth to Mars. This entire petition is worthless because this site's convoluted policies make it impossible for anything to be done here. Hold on, why are we still talking about this? Should I scroll up and read the 20 replies that I skipped over to get to the bottom of this thread? Probably lmao
Alemas2005 wrote:
Johnyjo wrote: A heck yeah I see no reason why not. :P
Just saying, Johnyjo is probably even more sheltered than me, that's why he avoids any mildly offensive words and voted to keep all of them blocked.
</noscript>really? you don't strike me as sheltered, just dim.