Difference between revisions of "UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Historical Voting Time Limit"

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Policy Document}} {{protect}}
+
{{Policy Document|Historical Voting Time Limit}} {{protect}}
 
This is a slightly more adapted version of the recently withdrawn [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/No More Historical Groups|No More Historical Groups]]. Historical Groups will have to have a time limit in place between the time of their official disbandment and the time they nominate themselves for historical status on [[Category talk:Historical Groups]]. More discussion on page.
 
This is a slightly more adapted version of the recently withdrawn [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/No More Historical Groups|No More Historical Groups]]. Historical Groups will have to have a time limit in place between the time of their official disbandment and the time they nominate themselves for historical status on [[Category talk:Historical Groups]]. More discussion on page.
  

Latest revision as of 18:59, 6 January 2013

Green check.png Guidelines — Policy Document
This page is a statement of official UDWiki Policies and Rules. See Policy Discussion for policy additions and changes.
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This is a slightly more adapted version of the recently withdrawn No More Historical Groups. Historical Groups will have to have a time limit in place between the time of their official disbandment and the time they nominate themselves for historical status on Category talk:Historical Groups. More discussion on page.

Current Historical Criteria

A policy is in place which outlines the method to attain historical status.

  1. Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game.
  2. A nomination should be made on Category talk:Historical Groups.
  3. Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yea and Nay.
  4. Groups that pass will be added to the category as described below.
  5. Groups must allow a week to pass between nominations.

Proposed Historical Criteria

I propose that an additional criterion be added to the above list on Category talk:Historical Groups. It will be:

A policy is in place which outlines the method to attain historical status.

  1. Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game.
  2. A nomination should be made on Category talk:Historical Groups.
  3. Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yea and Nay.
  4. Groups that pass will be added to the category as described below.
  5. Groups must allow a week to pass between nominations.
  6. Groups must allow 4 months in between when the group disbands and when they can be nominated.

FAQ's

  • What does this mean?
    • This means that Groups may only become historical after going through a cool-down period of 4 months from when they become inactive. The reason for this is because some groups, whilst potentially historical, chose to nominate themselves well before their impact and legacy had been demonstrated. Adding a mandatory period of some months will be better for sorting out who is most definitely historical and which groups aren't.
  • How will this be policed?
    • Like the current system, groups are voted on by how well they fit/pass the current criteria for Historical Voting. The community will judge whether the group has fulfilled the requirement to have been designated inactive for the proper period. This may be from proof the group was not on the stats page for this time, a notice in the form of Template:InactiveGroup or simply an informal notice of disbandment on the group page should suffice.
  • Will this affect any current Historical Groups?
    • No.

Important: Note

This will only affect Historical Nominations pertaining to groups in Malton. This does not affect Historical Events.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. If they can't stand the test of time, then there's no way they're historical. Four months is a good balance between giving folks some perspective and better hindsight, and losing people that would have known about them. Aichon 09:08, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  2. One major problem, however. Template:Inactive is a sysop template, you mean Template:InactiveGroup. Other than that, it's all good. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:10, 16 July 2010 (BST)
    Thank you very much for the heads up, I flew through writing this policy so it was lucky you noticed, I've fixed the link. -- 09:37, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  3. As Aichon. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 09:15, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  4. -- 09:37, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  5. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:41, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  6. -- Adward  10:04, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  7. I'd actually like to see the category either removed or completely open. But with the current system in place, where groups nominate and vote for themselves and everyone else votes against, I suppose a waiting period would do us all some good.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 10:36, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  8. Minor nitpicking: This will only affect Historical Nominations pertaining to groups in Malton. Lucky Monroeville and Borehamwood. (Not that there are many groups left that can be considered as active in the first place.) -- Spiderzed 11:42, 16 July 2010 (BST)
    Read the discussion :P. That wording was deliberate. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:05, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  9. Technical Pacifist 11:51, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  10. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:53, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  11. As Giles. - User:Whitehouse 11:59, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  12. I'm for this for now, though I'd generally prefer it to be harsher. We're coming to get you, Barbara 14:52, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  13. But one more thing. I think we need something in this for those that did not officially disband, but have dropped off the list of groups on the stats page. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 17:10, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  14. As Misanaverick. Ever heard of the Amish Liberation Front? Peaked at 15 members. Historical. --VVV RPGMBCWS 18:54, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  15. --AORDMOPRI ! T 20:41, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  16. As above. -Austin Hunt 06:14, 18 July 2010 (BST)
  17. --Hibernaculum 17:31, 19 July 2010 (BST)
  18. good doodie----sexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png ¯\(Boobs.gif)/¯ 18:01, 19 July 2010 (BST)
  19. As Giles. --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 17:17, 22 July 2010 (BST)
  20. As Aichon --Dawkins DAWKINS IS WATCHIN' [T][P!][W!][] is currently: having his arm torn off by a zombie. 22:54, 24 July 2010 (BST)

Against

  1. laziness still doesn't make this a real concern. So people put their group up for it, who gives a shit just vote no. --Karekmaps?! 16:06, 20 July 2010 (BST)
  2. Arbitrary nonsense for the sake of policy-making. If I have a heart attack (I know, I know, you wish) then it is immediately part of my medical history - not four months later. I'm anyway suspicious that historic is being confused here with notorious. Also, four months is a long time in UD-wiki land; after four months of inactivity from a group, you should be voting for "Does anyone remember them?" status. Plus, what Karek said. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:45, 20 July 2010 (BST)
    Of course that should be the vote. And if after four months, no one does remember them, then why are they historic? I mean, the sixth man on the moon was a part of history, but honestly tell me, who the fuck was he? And that's why he's not on stamps. We're coming to get you, Barbara 21:29, 20 July 2010 (BST)
    moved to talk page
  3. This 120 days number is pretty arbitrary. And if a group's impact on the game hasn't been demonstrated during the course of its actual EXISTENCE then I have no idea what 4 months will do demonstrate it. Basically, that whole line of reasoning is silly and illogical. What this policy does seem to be directed against is the perceived "meatpuppeting" of historical voting -- which term in the world of people like DDR is a codeword for resenting the fact some of us have more friends than them. --WanYao 05:34, 23 July 2010 (BST)
    I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand anything of what this policy is meant to entail. I would recommend actually reading the talk page of both this and the original policy before making such idiotic accusations, particularly about my views on meatpuppetry (hint: I support it in historical voting and say so several times). -- 06:58, 23 July 2010 (BST)
    Also, I might be mistaken, but can't people just meatpuppet several months after the fact too? Or am I just making too much sense here? We're coming to get you, Barbara 14:58, 23 July 2010 (BST)
    I judged the policy based on -- go figure -- the policy itself, as written. And I still can't see any real benefit to it other than trying to stymie meatpuppetry -- or to try to add a distinction between historical and notorious groups. Imnsho these are the only meanings a 120 days "cooling off" period could have. But this policy imnsho does little to fix that problem. Furthermore, all the points people have made about the short lifespan of the average UD player (here and in the discussion) are very true. How many No votes do you see as it is from people who don't have a clue what a group's impact really may have been? So yeah... as Karek and Funt Solo above, I'm far from convinced that this is a necessary or even useful policy -- in fact, I think it could be quite harmful. --WanYao 22:12, 24 July 2010 (BST)
    Fair enough. -- 02:16, 25 July 2010 (BST)
Policy Passed. -- 13:54, 30 July 2010 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements