|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''Moderation/Policy Discussion Archive'''
| | BUSH |
| *[[UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Group Pages|Group Pages]]
| |
| *[[UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Offensive Language|Offensive Language/Interaction (was Offensive People)]]
| |
| *[[UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/archive|General archive]]
| |
| *[[UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/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. --{{User:Brizth/sig}} 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. --{{User:Brizth/sig}} 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. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 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? {{user:ybbor/sig}}19:07, 27 September 2006 (BST)
| |
| :Done. --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 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 --<span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #000; border-right: 1px dotted #000; border-top: 1px dashed #AAA; border-left: 1px dotted #AAA"> [[User:Daranz |Daranz]]<sup> . [[User talk:Daranz|talk]] . [[Moderation|mod]]</sup></span> 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. --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 21:21, 6 October 2006 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :It is redundant. I think the whole point of the {{tl|protect}} template was to be noticeable for pages that weren't supposed to be protected by default. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 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. -- [[User:Alan Watson|Alan Watson]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alan_Watson|T]]·[[Ridleybank Resistance Front|R]][[Philosophe Knights|P]][[Malton Telephone|M]]</sup> 15:01, 10 October 2006 (BST)
| |
| :Hmm. Might be necessary, if they start piling up. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.th7.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 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.--{{User:Karek/sig}} 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. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
| |
| :That's a great idea. I'd be up for it, definitely. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Hubrid Nox]] <sup>[[UDWiki:Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Witch Burners|B!]]</sup> 05:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
| |
| ::It's done. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 18:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Another group in a similar situation to UD Wiki ==
| |
| | |
| [http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue1/lambda.html 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. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 08:05, 20 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == Images? ==
| |
| | |
| Would it be fine to use images like [[Image:yes check.png|15px]] 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.--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
| |
