|
|
| Line 34: |
Line 34: |
|
| |
|
| ==New Features== | | ==New Features== |
| ===Clear Majority Rule===
| | ''None at the moment. |
| I was looking at the comments of my last proposal and noticed that the proposal itself is a bit controversial. That is why I, [[User:Super Mario Bros.|Super Mario Bros.]] am '''organizing''' this proposal, which was originally voiced by [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]. If it were to pass, this proposal would create a rule that in order to pass or fail, the "winning side" of a proposal (with 10 votes or over) needs to beat the "losing side" of the same proposal by at least ''3'' votes in order to pass or fail. If it wins or fails with ''2 votes or less'' or ends in a tie, then the deadline will be extended for another week.
| |
| | |
| '''Proposers''': {{User|Walkazo}} and {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br>
| |
| '''Deadline''': April 14, 2009, 17:00
| |
| | |
| ====Support====
| |
| #{{user|Super Mario Bros.}} Per Walkazo's reasons above
| |
| #{{User|Arend}} Per Super Mario Bros.
| |
| #{{User|White Knight}} Per Super Mario Bros.
| |
| #{{User|Walkazo}} - Per my reasons that have been paraphrased above (see below for original version).
| |
| #{{user|zeldagirl}} per all
| |
| #{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Walkazo. I find the current rule to be rather redundant, anyway.
| |
| #{{User|Paper Yoshi}} - This proposal is just great! I think we should do the same with the Poll Selection page.
| |
| #{{User|ToadetteAnime4evur}} - Per all. If only this rule could have existed 2 months ago...
| |
| #{{User|Elvira Maltina}} - Sounds great, I find it to be cool because some users miss the chance of voting sometimes (reasons: school,problems with internet, lack of time, et cetera) and with the proposal deadline extended, they would have a chance to vote. Plus this would make more users vote when the proposal is extended and we can gather different opinions.
| |
| #{{User|Zafum}} - Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Ralphfan}} - Good point; we'll get more opinions in that case.
| |
| #{{User|Clyde1998}} - Per All
| |
| #{{User|Time Q}}: Per Walkazo. Sometimes which side wins is just a matter of luck (e.g. if it's 13-12). Requiring a greater difference seems reasonable.
| |
| #{{User|The Great Gonzales}} - Per all, but I think we should include a little addendum (see my comment below).
| |
| | |
| ====Oppose====
| |
| | |
| ====Comments====
| |
| What happens if it is still tied or there is no clear majority after another week? -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
| |
| :<strike>SoS, to answer your question, I don't know. I'm split between letting it pass/fail or marking it as No Conclusion. Which do you think I should do? Then I guess the proposal will have to wait another month (or sixty days if my proposal doesn't pass). {{user|Super Mario Bros.}}</strike>
| |
| | |
| ''"It seems ridiculous that a change that big passed by a single vote. I've been meaning to propose a new rule saying that if a proposal has more than 10 votes, it can only pass or fail by some sort of margin (maybe by 3 or 5 votes) so that only clear majorities result in changes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and it's a close race (i.e. 13 vs. 14) then the proposal would be extended a few more days (again, 3 might be a good number). That way, we won't have to worry about flip-flopping on issues every month; it also deals with ties, which we don't have any official stance on at the moment."'' - If you're gonna use my idea, Super Mario Bros., at least have the decency to give me credit, because otherwise it's intellectual theft and if you do it in real life you can get in serious trouble (for example, if you're caught plagiarizing in University you get expelled). - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
| ::Yes Walkazo, I was actually going to credit you, it's just that I was busy since I have made the proposal, so I am sorry for not doing it sooner. <strike>I am not sure if you are interested to hear why, but today was my parent's anniversary and they went out to eat,</strike> and I was not at the computer to thank you. But I will credit you in the main part of the proposal. Once again, I'm sorry for forgetting. Plus, I hope it is ok if I put you as one of the proposers.
| |
| :::Much better, thank you. - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
| | |
| '''Son of Suns''': The official stance would be to extend the deadline by ''another'' week, but the practical thing to do would be that the proposer remove the proposal and rework it, taking into consideration all the arguments for and against it so that they could find a way to appease more Users and reach a clear majority next time (which, as the proposal was removed and not passed or failed, could come at any time without a 30/60 day buffer period). I've found turning all the arguments for and against the proposal into a chart and matching points and counter-points/rebuttals makes it easier to get a clearer idea of which of those arguments are strong and which are weak, and how to address the entire thing more effectively. I know I don't need to tell ''you'' how to reason, SoS, but I just thought I'd put my strategy out there anyway. - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
| | |
| :Technically, "majority" is anything above 50% of the vote. Just throwin' that out there... {{user|Bloc Partier}}
| |
| ::Yep, that's why we're asking for a "clear" majority. Actually, while we're on the subject of terminology, if you take abstaining Users (who have commented on the proposal but did not vote) into account, it's also possible to end with a "minority" vote. The only Wiki-based example I know of is the First English Name Proposal: the final tally was 14-13, with 2 abstainers, meaning the proposal only passed with 48% support; it beat the 45% opposition, but was not, in fact, a "majority". </tangent> - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
| | |
| Just to be clear, does it need ten votes total, or ten votes for just one side? {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}}
| |
| :Ten total. If the proposal passes, I'll make sure the new rule is written clearly so there won't be any question about what it means. - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
| ::I'm actually somewhat worried about that... Ten users do often not vote on any given proposal. For example, this one. :O {{user|Bloc Partier}}
| |
| :::Yeah, but this rule concerns the big proposals more. If there's gonna be a big policy change, people get involved, whereas smaller issues like this aren't consequential to most Users. I've found that these smaller proposals generally accumulate obvious majorities anyway, and if it's close, last minute voters who only ''sorta'' cared often flock in and tip the balances rather than risk the possibility of it falling the other way. I also suggested the 10 votes minimum thing because you don't ''need'' 3 votes to be a clear majority when the numbers are small: for example, even though a 4-2 tally only differs by 2 votes, at 67% to 33%, it's still clear which side has the community backing. I just think pestering the little decisions with the Clear Majority Rule would be more trouble than it's worth. - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
| | |
| I like the idea, but I see a potential failing: if the proposal is consistently supported by only a one or two vote margin, then it will be hopelessly deadlocked, which is pretty much the same as failing. But that doesn't make sense, because it did get a favorable majority. In this situation, perhaps we could (and I know that this won't always be possible) try to reach some sort of compromise on the issue to circumvent potential logjams. -- {{User|The Great Gonzales}}
| |
| :If an issue is deadlocked, wouldn't it be better to see it rethought than to slip by because of a single vote? If the community is so divided on an issue, there is no right answer. The proposer can take down the proposal and retool it to work for more people, so it'd be more like a rough draft than a failure; the buffer zone is itself a compromise. - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Removals== | | ==Removals== |
