UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Default Voting Rules: Difference between revisions
BobHammero (talk | contribs) (+protect) |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 22:06, 15 September 2006
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
I agree with you, we need to set some sort of standard to prevent things like the profile database controversy happening again.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 11:02, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- I reckon' the system I was whipping up for the suggestions page policy votes would be easily adapted to a generic voting policy. Anyone other than Jedaz, BobHammero or Dan taken a look at it? –Xoid S•T•FU! 11:39, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- The profile database vote was a farce, it should've gone to arbitration as it was a simple edit conflict. the profile database thing was exactly why arbitration was set up. a simple judgement on content. I'll suggest it to both parties later today as a solution. If we simply dare to make discisions we don't need to vote on everything. Policy votes should only be for policy not about content. content votes should only be about soundings to see what the poeple think codefying to much will only hamper the wiki instead of helping it. I suggest that there are no binding votes outside policy discussion and the suggestions page. and no content votes on the policy discussion page. If we simple make arbitrition work for content conflict as well as drama resolvement all is solved.--Vista 15:41, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- That doesn't mean that generic voting guidelines are a bad idea. While arbitration is where that should've gone, there will eventually be a case where a vote would be preferable. Why not make the policy now, before that case pops up? –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:41, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- Then it's very simple to do so on the fly on the arbitration page, it's what that page is for. The reason why I think they are a bad idea is because we are getting to depend on time consuming votes, limiting both our flexibility and the workability of the wikl on the whole. Setting up rules now means that those rules whould started to be used in ways that they are not intended. --Vista 16:48, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- <sarcasm><slander>Really? I thought the arbitration page was for general idiocy and time wastage.</slander><sarcasm> –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:53, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- well that too ofcourse... I mean how else whould we have our FUN?--Vista 17:03, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- Totally with Vista on this one. Talk:Main_Page currently has Amazing threatening to get "everyone he knows" to vote in favour of something to force it through, but also seeming willing to compromise on a separate wiki page for avatar links. Intelligent discussion and compromise seems better for the wiki than a terse voting game. --Punchkin 17:22, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- Less a threat, more of an example of how I could "break the rules too" since I saw what was taking place as "rule breaking" (in my opinion.) - Think of it as saying that if they wanted to get dirty about the vote, I could theoretically outdo them, so it was best to drop it and have this very discussion. -- Amazing 23:30, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- <sarcasm><slander>Really? I thought the arbitration page was for general idiocy and time wastage.</slander><sarcasm> –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:53, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- Then it's very simple to do so on the fly on the arbitration page, it's what that page is for. The reason why I think they are a bad idea is because we are getting to depend on time consuming votes, limiting both our flexibility and the workability of the wikl on the whole. Setting up rules now means that those rules whould started to be used in ways that they are not intended. --Vista 16:48, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- That doesn't mean that generic voting guidelines are a bad idea. While arbitration is where that should've gone, there will eventually be a case where a vote would be preferable. Why not make the policy now, before that case pops up? –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:41, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- The profile database vote was a farce, it should've gone to arbitration as it was a simple edit conflict. the profile database thing was exactly why arbitration was set up. a simple judgement on content. I'll suggest it to both parties later today as a solution. If we simply dare to make discisions we don't need to vote on everything. Policy votes should only be for policy not about content. content votes should only be about soundings to see what the poeple think codefying to much will only hamper the wiki instead of helping it. I suggest that there are no binding votes outside policy discussion and the suggestions page. and no content votes on the policy discussion page. If we simple make arbitrition work for content conflict as well as drama resolvement all is solved.--Vista 15:41, 31 May 2006 (BST)
I'd like to see folks start laying out their own plans for a new vote system. Cut the chase? -- Amazing 23:30, 31 May 2006 (BST)
I reckon that if we are going to have standard guidelines that we might as well make it so that you can't save a idea just from a few no votes. Take a look at the one on the suggestions page, I reckon that would be a good place to start from. About the only major change that I can see that should happen with it is to specify about the spam votes which the one on the suggestions page failed to specify (damn people not saying before). But do we really need to set up procedures for everything? Soon we'll be having votes for the smallest of changes... - Jedaz 09:26, 10 June 2006 (BST)
