UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/No minimum vote on APD

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Longer rationale

A couple of objections I see being raised to this:

  • Yep, it's possible to spam up talk pages to get past the 20-vote minimum (I recall this being done in the past, but I cbfed finding the link.) Forcing otherwise uninterested people isn't exactly a good idea, especially when the whole point is to get past an arbitrary limit.
  • A 20-vote minimum is unnecessary if the goal is to ensure that a majority of the wiki community votes. Active users have two weeks to see Wiki News and vote (and most do.)

In short, it's redundant and unnecessary. In the past, it didn't really harm anyone, but now that it's stopping otherwise good policies from passing, it needs to go (and especially since the wiki community seems to be shrinking, and not growing.)

And yes, this was made by a tired, ex-sysop who now only occasionally visits the wiki. Object to this on those grounds, if you like. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I deliberately titled this policy smaller minimum vote, as I accept that some people will want a smaller minimum vote, instead of no minimum vote. If this goes to voting, in the form it is in now, I'll get it moved first (to UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/No minimum vote on APD). Linkthewindow  Talk  13:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the example you were looking for. --  AHLGTG 17:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that's it. It was 1am, and I really needed to sleep :P. Linkthewindow  Talk  19:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Do it

Also, reactionary means conservative, not in reaction to something.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 14:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You might also want to retroactively apply to this one as well, or pass the ones that would pass (2&3) regardless of the 20 vote requirement anyway, since I doubt anyone will mind. --  AHLGTG 17:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of indifferent about applying it retrospectively, as we generally don't do that with policy. Still, if people are okay with it, I don't mind. Linkthewindow  Talk  19:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd first check for Things Best Forgotten before applying it retroactively. But as retarded policies like the civility policy hardly get a 2/3 majority, I think there isn't much too worry about. -- Spiderzed 00:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe saying that it would retroactively apply to policies from the last three months or something, that way it's not entirely arbitrary which it does or doesn't apply to? Not sure if that's better or worse, but I'll throw it out there anyway for others to think about. Regardless, I'm in support of the general idea. No minimum. Aichon 03:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Policies just shouldn't apply retroactively. Not for the past 3 months, not for the past 3 years. It should be from here on out.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 01:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yarp. I don't object. I hope we can get twenty people to feel the same in order for this to pass. ~Vsig.png 17:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We can pull out the spam machine one last time... Linkthewindow  Talk  19:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Smaller Sample size, Higher Standard

With no Minimum, would you want to keep the 2/3rds majority or up it? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep that part of the rules as it is. A 2/3 majority is enough to ensure policy has some support, but can actually pass. Linkthewindow  Talk  19:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 23:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Has to be said, I will be lolling when this doesn't get 20 votes to pass >:D -- LEMON #1 00:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I bet 5 bucks that it will get exactly 19 votes. -- Spiderzed 00:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks we have our batch of 20 already. -- Spiderzed 22:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Total votes vs Fors

While we are at it, shouldn't we count Fors rather than total votes? I think a policy that gets 14 Fors and 0 Againsts is clearly more accepted than one with 14 Fors and 6 Againsts. Yet, by counting total votes, the latter would fare better. -- Spiderzed 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're not counting votes at all anymore, so I don't really see how this is relevant. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion from main page

  1. Because we just hit the 20 vote minimum marker for this policy. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    But we didn't for the last one, and ones before that. :'( --  AHLGTG 23:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    But we are able to make it to 20. It just seems the previous ones didn't make it to 20 because people didn't care much about them. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    But those that did didn't have issue with it (at least for part of the multi A/P one). People tend to be less likely to comment if there's nothing much to argue about. If somehow the lack of interest was not due to the policy being "fine", then someone will inevitably point out the issue at a later date. Really, there just isn't a reason for a 20 vote limit, no one can sneak anything under the radar on this wiki. You know this, I do too, and so do many others. --  AHLGTG 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    You bring up valid points, but your statement is leaning me more towards abstaining...And I don't think you want me to abstain from voting... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, there will be some very serious consequences if you abstain. Very serious. "Very" was in italics, so you know I mean business. --  AHLGTG 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    See DDR's comment above, the shrinking of the wiki, combined with the fact that most administrative policies are boring for those who aren't regulars here, mean that a lot of admin-y type stuff is having trouble getting past. I'm sure if someone made a policy that gave Grim total and complete power over the wiki, we could find 20 voters, but not a policy reforming a minor problem with A/VB. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


It looks like this policy passed 2 days ago. Why don't we make it official? ~Vsig.png 22:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

First an op needs to check for proxies/sockpuppets, but I think that will be a formality as most voters are known regulars. -- Spiderzed 23:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I have checked, and I can confirm that every user who voted is my sockpuppet.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
And since you're my sockpuppet, then you and all those who voted are my sockpuppets. Including me. I am my own sockpuppet. --  AHLGTG 00:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
But yeah, in all honesty, there's not much point for a check. I'm pretty sure anybody suspicious would have been checked at the time, and I'm pretty sure there's no evidence of foul play.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools