UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion

Moderation/Policy Discussion Archive

• Group Pages
• Offensive Language/Interaction (was Offensive People)
• General archive
• Older general archive

Moving the passed policies to proper place?

Shouldn't the content of passed policies be moved to their own, proper page, like UDWiki:Vandalism and UDWiki:Namespaces? This would get rid of the voting section which is pretty useless after the policy has passed. The policies might also need some rewriting, as currently they are written solely for policy discussion. --Brizth ^{M T} 17:01, 27 August 2006 (BST) Edit: Minus the "Update the Wiki Software" and "Move the Moderation pages into the Project namespace" since those are not really policies. --Brizth ^{M T} 17:04, 27 August 2006 (BST)

They're not? BURN HIM! Ah. Yes. I was actually going to do that myself, when I could get off my arse. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:11, 27 August 2006 (BST)

{{Template:Comannounce}}

Should there be a line in "How to start a policy discussion" about updating the comannounce template when you move/create a policy? --Ybbor^T19:07, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Done. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 03:56, 28 September 2006 (BST)

Redundant templates

Do we really need both the protect template and the "this is a policy" template on policy pages? I mean, obviously, all accepted policies are gonna be protected -- Daranz ^{. talk . mod} 14:50, 6 October 2006 (BST)

I don't see a problem with it... but thats me. Also, you may want to put your signature in as a template, because, although cool, it's kinda long in the edit window. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 21:21, 6 October 2006 (BST)

It is redundant. I think the whole point of the {{protect}} template was to be noticeable for pages that weren't supposed to be protected by default. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 01:52, 7 October 2006 (BST)

Policy Archiving

According to the rules on the page, policies that are under discussion for over two weeks are supposed to be archived. If we follow this rule then all three policies that are under discussion should be archived by now. Should we set up a new subheading for them or just wait until their original authors get around to doing something with them? I know Bob at least has been busy elsewhere. -- Alan Watson ^T·RPM 15:01, 10 October 2006 (BST)

Hmm. Might be necessary, if they start piling up. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 03:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of policies needing archiving, UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Sysops_can_delete_certain_pages_on_sight has been up for a month without going to voting.--Karek^maps?! 13:16, 20 September 2007 (BST)

Very Small Rule Change

At the minute, step 7 on the page says "Any [successful] policy must have at least 20 votes, 66% of them for it". I want to change the rule so policies need 66% support and at least 14 for votes, similarly to the change with the suggestions policies. Under the current rules a proposal with 14 fors and 6 againsts would pass but a proposal with 14 fors and 0 againsts would fail. I was intending to just change this without going through the rigmarole of an official policy vote because I don't think it's necessary (this is only closing a loophole after all), but if anyone wants this to go up for voting say so and I can do it that way. --Toejam 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I'd be up for it, definitely. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 05:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's done. --Toejam 18:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another group in a similar situation to UD Wiki

Virtual(ly) Law: The Emergence of Law in LambdaMOO

Here's an article about the rules system in another virtual community, LambdaMoo. It's interesting to compare the different structures between us and them. For example their arbitration system works differently. But here's a heads up: It's a long read. --Toejam 08:05, 20 September 2007 (BST)

Images?

Would it be fine to use images like for approved policies (in the spot where the tally is) and an X (not uploaded) for rejected? I uploaded the check for kicks and I wouldn't like to see it unused.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A Better Page Structure

Should probably include a recently concluded votes section that marks the result of the votes and is kept up for either one week or two for the sake of letting people follow policy development more completely with actual ease. Before anyone says anything no, this isn't something that needs a policy update to implement. --Karek^maps?! 04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol what muppet would say that -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You never know, I used to be frequently astonished at what people assumed needed full policy votes. --Karek^maps?! 22:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

piece of cake... i added all policies discussed in the past 3 months on it, though --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)