|
MrAushvitz originally submited this request for a policy change. As he is unable to bring it to vote, I have decided I will do it for him. It it what he would have wanted. Check the history of the page if you don't believe me; he submitted it immediately for voting, he only brought it to discussion because it is required by "Suggestions/Voting Guidelines". The policy appears completely unaltered. My reasons for doing this are to satisfy any curiosity that MrAushvitz might have as to the fate of his policy, and are rooted in the fairness of the situation. I also want to keep him from crying foul later when his policy didn't "get a fair chance." Keep in mind that I had no part in the formative process of this potential policy change and that any and all credit (positive or otherwise) should be directed towards the policy's creator: MrAushvitz
So, without any further ado, here it is:
- --∴Gage 23:32, 30 August 2006 (BST)
As it currently stands, there is an existing voting policy on the Wiki relating to the suggestions page. It clearly states that the "Spam" vote is not a strong kill and that the spam vote should be "saved" for the most game-breaking/ridiculous suggestions. (Note: "saving" your spam vote will be very relevant in this proposal.)
Unfortunately what you consider game-breaking/ridiculous is a very "subjective" thing, many people often consider even a minor change to be threatening and/or gamebreaking, and it is difficult for all sides involved to feel they are treated fairly. Their voting on other players suggestions often reflects this, and unfortunately many voters almost always vote "Spam" on basically every single suggestion they see, in an effort to keep the status quo as they see it. The current problem is the "Spam" vote has no sense of restriction on it's usage anymore.
There is also, a "backing" behind a spam vote which allows for removal of a suggestion entirely... which if abused, means suggestions will not be given serious voter consideration once removed to peer rejected or the humourous section.
(When you use your spam vote, many suggestions might not even make it to 10 votes tallied. Which is fair, but not for every single suggestion you vote on...)
Current Spamination Eligability Requirements:
"Eligibility for Spamination is acheived if there are at least 7 Spam/Dupe votes and the number of Spam/Dupe votes are equal to 2/3rds or greater of the total number of votes, with the author vote included in all these tallies. In addition, A Moderator can if they so choose delete any suggestion with three or more Spams as long as Spams outnumber Keeps. This includes their own spam vote."
Having said this, and pointing out the existing guidelines it is not unreasonable to make the following proposal.. in order to easily "enforce" the reduced usage of the "spam" vote.
"Each voter is permitted to vote on every daily suggestion normally. However, the overuse of the "Spam" vote is considered abuse of the voting privilege (as it has the power to lead to a suggestion's removal and was intended to be used sparingly)... abusing this vote undermines the entire purpouse of the suggestions page.
To make the "Spam" vote have greater voter responsibility and to limit it's abuse , all voters will only be permitted to vote "Spam" on HALF their daily votes made (rounding up) for that day's suggestions!
This means as a voter you may have to choose which suggestions deserved a "Kill" and which ones deserved a "Spam" vote based on which you considered to be the "worst" of that day (you will have to choose which ones you spam more carefully.) You are by no means forced to give a "Keep" vote on anything, but you only have so many spam votes to distribute in total, per day. So, by example if there were 4 suggestions for a specific day, you would only have 2 "Spam" votes to distribute for that entire day's suggestions.
Not even moderators would be exempt from this voting rule, but they would be expected to enforce it leading up to a standard 24 hour banning, and if abused repeatedly for longer and longer ban extensions.
Even those suggestions which were removed by spamination, those voters are not "freed" from their vote which was made on that suggestion. Their vote regarding that suggestion is considered "locked" when it was removed, and they are unable to change it, because the suggestion is no longer viable for further voting.
In short if you "waste" your spam vote on a suggestion which is on it's way out... you can't "allow" yourself the use of that vote on another suggestion for that day.
This voter responsibility suggestion is intended to create a more positive suggestion & suggestion-criticism based enviroment. One which makes "Trolling" more difficult, and makes the "Spam" vote now one which voters must carefully consider... possibly even save if nessesary for their daily assessment of all suggestions placed.
Note: it is 1/2 of your daily votes, rounding up.. so if there was only 1 suggestion made per day, it could be a spam vote.
Suggestions which are not yet removed: you are free to change your vote as you see fit, but it would be best to do them in an order that you do not break your "spam limit" for the day."
|
This suggestion comes down as a direct result of the origional very reasonable limit on suggestions going down to 3 per day. However in light of other "upcoming" restrictions on the number of suggestions per day, the "Troll voting" issue must also be addressed (now), so both sides of the equasion suggesters and voters interests are balanced. --MrAushvitz 23:50, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Votes
| Voting Rules
|
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
- # Vote - comments ~~~~
- or
- # Vote ~~~~
Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a moderator.
|
| The only valid votes are Yes, No, and Spam
|
- Spam - Worst. Policy. Ever.--∴Gage 23:32, 30 August 2006 (BST)
- Spam - Indeed. --Axe Hack 23:34, 30 August 2006 (BST)
- Spam - Whoever came up with this is a moron. —CaptainM— ((Talk)) 23:35, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Kill - I agree that Spam votes are thrown around a little too cavaliarly, but I can't think of a worse way to address it. --Centerfire 23:38, 30 August 2006 (BST)
- Invalid vote. --Axe Hack 00:17, 31 August 2006 (BST)
- Spam - Horrible --Mookiemookie 23:48, 30 August 2006 (BST)
- Spam I'm getting really fucking sick of your pathetic vendetta with Mr. A., including watchdogging his edits and insulting him at every turn. Just Spam his retarded suggestions and move along. You are contributing almost as much drama to this wiki as he is. Rheingold 00:47, 31 August 2006 (BST)
|
