UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Policy to Not Make Policies That Specifically Relate to Other Policies That Are Currently Under Voting or Being Discussed on the Policy Discussion Page

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Oh Snap

I should have known better than to tangle with one of our distinguished wiki elders. Clearly I have been served. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 03:34, 26 October 2006 (BST)

hardly -- Rueful 03:36, 26 October 2006 (BST)
I only ask that you spare my children, sir. They've done nothing wrong. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 03:37, 26 October 2006 (BST)
This is hilarious. You have spamed Special:Recentchanges like no other. Expect pain to rain down from the heavens when the mods decide what to do with you.--Gage 03:39, 26 October 2006 (BST)
Me? I made, like, two edits to this talk page, which I admit were sort of juvenile, and a policy to keep people from continuing to make "unban so-and-so" policies one right after another. I'm sorry I've done some flaming but I'm not seeing how I've been on the level of Mia or Rueful in this case. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 03:43, 26 October 2006 (BST)

New Takes On Current Ideas?

What about new policy suggestions that deal with the same ISSUE a currently discussed/voted on policy has, but tackles it in a new or innovative way that the pre-existing policies cannot/refuse to suggest? I haven't seen the same level of abuse on the Wiki policy pages over the past year or so as I have on the, say, game suggestion page. But couldn't those methods we use there be just as good here, ie the 'Spam' vote method? Let the collective viewers flag for Spam, with a moderator making the final call after a key Spam vote # was reached? --MorthBabid 22:03, 26 October 2006 (BST)

Right now, people are trying to delete a policy instead of voting against it and giving the thing a shot. Regardless of what anyone thinks of that policy, the idea that you should be able to delete an idea before people find out whether it's worth a damn is ridiculous. It makes a back door for getting rid of ideas and that's superfluous at best and book burning at worst. It looks like the policy vote thing is going to be the new-place-to-tell-other-users-how-much-you-hate-them section. Adding the spam system from the suggestions page, which is controversial at best, will serve only to bring old problems and hatreds into this new arena. --Ron Burgundy 09:55, 27 October 2006 (BST)
So you're saying that if I made UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Ron Burgundy is a Douchebag that it should be voted upon? Some things are clearly deletable with a second thought. –Xoid STFU! 21:24, 27 October 2006 (BST)
While I agree with Xoid in principle, in practice 'common sense' isn't always common...even good mods make bad calls. It'd be nice to have a slight check in place. Perhaps the whole need for 'Spamination' of policies is really whats being called for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MorthBabid (talkcontribs) 05:57, 28 October 2006 (BST).
…and what about users who make even worse decisions? "Keep - A vote for nun-chuck using nuns being in game is a vote for common sense!" (It's only a matter of time, mark my words…) –Xoid MTFU! 11:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It all boils down to whats more at risk of us losing as a whole, as opposed to the snowball-effect risk. The fine line between limiting enough and not limiting too much? An unpopular idea doesn't negate its validity as an idea itself. Just because you and I don't like the idea of nuns doesn't mean someone shouldn't be able to suggest it PERIOD...but it SHOULD mean that it has the potential to be spammed if the populus demands it. --MorthBabid 21:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying each issue should only have one vote. Otherwise, it's convoluted and superfluous while voted upon and might be contradictory when implemented. Suppose the policy looks like it's going to pass by a wide margin and then gets deleted by a small one. --Ron Burgundy 00:52, 28 October 2006 (BST)
So if no one noticed that that page had been made, then three days later the creator started voting, then it should've remained the whole two weeks? (I wonder what would've happened if it passed.) Uh, yeah, I'll get back to you on that Ron. –Xoid MTFU! 11:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to vote upon whether we should vote upon issues, we'll get an infinite regress. Should we vote upon whether we can vote upon voting and then vote again upon that? I don't think the wiki has that much space. Can you put a section of a page up for deletion? That is, can I put the delete-the-unban-Amazing thing up for deletion- and if I did, could someone in turn try to delete my attempt at deletion? No, of course not. It's absurd, superfluous, inflationary, convoluted, bureaucratic, and senseless- maybe even common senseless.  :) --Ron Burgundy 08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Bubba has come up with an unique twist on this idea in the section below, which I think addresses all of the issues we're talking about. --MorthBabid 18:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dense

I'm sorry, but this policy is kind of incomprehensible, imho. In the title you say that you cannot make a policy that refers to policies under discussion or voting. That seems clear enough. But the text is kind of murky. May I suggest the following (or something like it) for policy text:

Proposing new policies that refer to one or more policies currently under discussion or currently being voted on is not permitted. Proposals which violate this rule will be submitted for speedy deletion. This policy does not prohibit proposing policies that modify existing approved policies. Nor does this policy prohibit proposing policies that refer to previously rejected policies.

I would also suggest that the proposed policy be renamed to something like this: Policy prohibiting new policy proposals that refer to existing policy proposals during discussion or voting period.

Seems a little cleaner to me. Bubba 23:41, 26 October 2006 (BST)

I read the criteria for speedy deletion and there isn't one that would allow this. So either you have to add a criteria to it, or better, change the words to this:
Proposing new policies that refer to one or more policies currently under discussion or currently being voted on is not permitted. Proposals which violate this rule will be submitted for speedy deletion. This policy does not prohibit proposing policies that modify existing approved policies. Nor does this policy prohibit proposing policies that refer to previously rejected policies. Bubba 00:26, 27 October 2006 (BST)
Not bad. That more accurately resembles the way we currently deal with idea sumbissions on the Suggestions page. --MorthBabid 18:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

This is a policy "not to make policies that specifically relate to other policies." This policy clearly relates to the unbanning policies. If this policy passes, will it retroactively undo itself? --Ron Burgundy 09:57, 27 October 2006 (BST)

I salute you, sir. -- Rueful 14:41, 27 October 2006 (BST)
My brain hurts. This would be so funny if this happened. Policymakerman 22:53, 27 October 2006 (BST)
lol. Point taken. --MorthBabid 05:55, 28 October 2006 (BST)
((function (x) (x x)) '(function (x) (x x)) Bubba 18:57, 28 October 2006 (BST)

Archive

It's been over 2 weeks and no voting. Can we get this archived? I'm unsure if I can do it so I'll leave it. Pillsy FT 23:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll move it myself since no one seems to care about it. Pillsy FT 11:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)