Wowpedia

We have moved to Warcraft Wiki. Click here for information and the new URL.

READ MORE

Wowpedia
Register
mNo edit summary
(46 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{archives1|06:16, 23 June 2006 (EDT)}}
+
{{archives2|06:16, 23 June 2006 (EDT)|18:39, August 16, 2010 (UTC)}}
 
 
== Categories for voting, and listings ==
 
I think a policy vote should be in a different category than non-policy voting such as deletion and so on. This way (or even in status quo) we can have a link in the [[mediawiki:sidebar|sidebar]] for the list of votes. There are so many votes going on, and I have no idea what they are. Also, maybe we could have a user-maintained page that lists several high-profile votes, very abbreviated proposals, and what it means to the community. Any other ideas? [[User:D. F. Schmidt|Schmidt]] 08:11, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
 
 
: I'll think on that one for a bit before I chip in with my {{cost||.02}}. Just one thing though: Deletion votes already live in their own category. --[[User:Mikk|Mikk]] 08:47, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
 
 
: Ok, that was quick. No, I don't see the point in separating regular votes from policy votes. There just aren't that many. (See [[:Category:Votes in progress]]). However, I agree with your idea of listing them + oneliner summaries somewhere. I'd suggest a new full-page wide box below the community portal. (On a sidenote, I've also been considering automating Village pump talk topic summaries there, but I need a working Linux box somewhere to run the script on. Mine is on the blink and I cba to fix it right now.) --[[User:Mikk|Mikk]] 08:55, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
 
 
: (Call me restless) I created a sample page that could be included in a box in the community portal. See [[WoWWiki:Community_Portal/Democracy]]   --[[User:Mikk|Mikk]] 09:26, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
 
 
:: Thanks. Good job. This works for what I was talking about. See, I miss so many policy votes it's not funny. [[User:D. F. Schmidt|Schmidt]] 11:47, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
 
 
::: Heh, and here I was wondering why I never see you voting for or against policies :-)   Anyway, I linked it into the community portal now. --[[User:Mikk|Mikk]] 12:07, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
 
 
 
= Proposal to simplify regular votes =
 
 
''This was moved in from [[WoWWiki:Policy/Proposal to simplify regular votes]] after being ratified. --[[User:Mikk|Mikk]] 06:02, 23 June 2006 (EDT)''
 
 
   
  +
==Voter candidacy and vote duration==
 
{{Adopted}}
 
{{Adopted}}
  +
Per discussion [[Forum:Adding Sigrie to external links|on the forums]], it has come to my attention that there is a potential for some irregularities in the voting process. To help prevent these, I would like to propose that voters be required to have a minimum of ten (10) edits with their account and extend the minimum duration a vote can last to a week (seven calendar days) - the closing period requirement will remain the same (i.e., if a vote gains enough votes to close in the first day it should still last a week; and if a vote lasts longer than a week the closing duration of three days should still exist between the winning vote being cast and the vote closing). This policy change will only take effect to votes which begin after the change is accepted.
   
 
===Votes===
I feel that the current ''(read: old)'' voting requirements are a bit too complicated:
 
 
<div style="margin-left: 0.5em;">
* Minimum vote of 5
 
 
;<span style="color: #3C3;">Yes</span>: <!-- Add {{vote|Yes|~~ ~~|optional comment}} below (remove space between "~ ~") -->
* '''Winners must outnumber losers by 3 to 1'''
 
  +
{{vote|Yes|sig={{User:Pcj/sig}} 18:58, August 16, 2010 (UTC)||Originally proposed}}
* Pending closure time of 3 days
 
  +
{{vote|Yes|{{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 20:51, August 16, 2010 (UTC)|I think this would be good, I didn't even see that external link vote till it was already pending closure.}}
  +
{{vote|Yes|sig={{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 21:18, August 16, 2010 (UTC)||Meatpuppetry is already disallowed. This would help protect against it more.}}
  +
{{vote|Yes|sig=<span style="border-bottom: 1px dotted;cursor:help;" title="WoWWiki bureaucrat">[[User:Kaydeethree|k]]_[[User_talk:Kaydeethree|d]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kaydeethree|3]]</sup></span> 03:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)|More time is good. The world (of warcraft) isn't going to end in a week.}}
  +
{{vote|Yes|sig=[[File:Frejya's Ring.gif|User:Frejya|link=User:Frejya]]<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:16px;font-style:italic;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;text-transform:none;color:FF0000;background-color:000000;">Frejya</span> 04:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC)||Would be nice to see more than 10 edits, imo - people can easily reach that by editing their own user pages; I'll happily concede that argument, though, if it gets things rolling.}}
   
 
;<span style="color: #C33;">No</span>: <!-- Add {{vote|No|~~ ~~|optional comment}} below (remove space between "~ ~") -->
   
== The Proposal ==
 
 
Simplify regular voting rules to:
 
* Winners must outnumber losers by 5
 
* Pending closure time of 3 days
 
 
Particularily, for multiple-choice votes:
 
* The "win by 5" rule refers to the closest competitor.
 
 
== Reasoning ==
 
 
The reasons for this becomes especially apparent when taking multiple-choice votes into account. Even for regular votes, the 3:1 ratio can become rather ridiculous when the opposing votes number more than just a few. If there's 5 votes against, you'd need ''fifteen'' votes in favor.
 
 
(On a sidenote, 3:1 is rather extreme to begin with, in my opinion. A ''qualified majority vote'' as applied everywhere else, is simply 2:1.)
 
 
Examples of what's required to win in current ''(read: old)'' system vs proposed system:
 
{| cellpadding=4 style="text-align:right;"
 
|-
 
||Losers || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 || 6 || 7 || 8 || 9 ||10
 
|-
 
||Winners (current) || 5 || 5 || 6 || 9 ||12 ||15 ||18 ||21 ||24 ||27 ||30
 
|-
 
||Winners (proposed) || 5 || 6 || 7 || 8 || 9 ||10 ||11 ||12 ||13 ||14 ||15
 
|}
 
 
 
== Policy ratification vote ==
 
<div style="margin: 1em 0em 2em 3em;">
 
 
;<font color="#44CC44">Yes</font>: <!-- Add: {{vote|Yes|~~ ~~|...notes/leave empty...}} (recombine the "~"s)-->
 
{{vote|Yes|[[User:Mikk|Mikk]] 16:18, 1 June 2006 (EDT)|my proposal, so..}}
 
{{vote|Yes|[[User:Ralthor|Ralthor]] 18:09, 1 June 2006 (EDT)|Well I think it could be easily changed to say that the winning vote must outnumber its greatest compitition by a 3:1 ratio, but that doesn't seem to simplify it at all. I like the ratio idea for policies just because if wowwiki ever gets to a point were a lot of people vote, 30-35 votes wouldn't be very significant. Then again if it is a ratio it will probably never get approved. Yea this will work, if winning by 5 votes ever becomes to easy or doesn't reflect enough of the community we can change it again. }}
 
{{vote|Yes|[[User:ProfGlitch|ProfGlitch]] 06:39, 16 June 2006 (EDT)|Agreed!}}
 
{{vote|Yes|[[User:Jeoh|Jeoh]] 06:22, 16 June 2006 (EDT)|Great idea!}}
 
{{vote|Yes|[[User:Dracomage|Dracomage]] 06:45, 16 June 2006 (EDT)|I think its sound.}}
 
{{vote|Yes|[[User:Kirkburn|Kirkburn]] 08:47, 17 June 2006 (EDT)|}}
 
;<font color="#CC4444">No</font>: <!-- Add: {{vote|No|~~ ~~|...notes/leave empty...}} (recombine the "~"s)-->
 
 
 
=== Comments ===
 
#I'm not decided yet, but I just think it's funny to have a vote on a vote :) "Hands up anyone who wants to take a vote?" -- [[User:Kirkburn|Kirkburn]] 16:30, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
 
#This sounds like you want to use the [[WoWWiki:Policy status phases|policy voting process]] (except for the ratify/adopt part) for generic votes. --[[User:Fandyllic|Fandyllic]] 3:40 PM PDT 1 Jun 2006
 
#* Buh? The policy voting process clearly states 3:1 ratio for policy votes? --[[User:Mikk|Mikk]] 16:52, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
 
#**D'oh, I mistook the blue banner for the proposal. You're supposed to put your proposal before the vote or at least link to it. Some of us are too stupid to click {{projectpagetab}}. --[[User:Fandyllic|Fandyllic]] 4:33 PM PDT
 
#*** lol. *shakes head* Yep. I do belong here. [[User:D. F. Schmidt|Schmidt]] 11:53, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
 
#I added an example table to the proposal page to show you exactly what happens at different levels of votes.
 
#Oh one thing, I assume you mean the winning side must outnumber the SUM TOTAL of the losing sides? Maybe this should be made clearer?--[[User:Ralthor|Ralthor]] 18:12, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
 
#: Dear lord no. That'd be a horror with 4+ alternatives. I meant win by 5 over the closest competitor. I'm clarifying the proposal. --[[User:Mikk|Mikk]] 18:19, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
 
</div><hr><br><!-- END OF VOTING BOOTH AND COMMENTS -->
 
 
= New comments =
 
 
 
== Deletion vote ==
 
{{Delete/Vote|{{#if:{{{doc}}}|{{#if:{{{doc|}}}|doc=}}|doc=}}}}
 
===Votes===
 
<div style="margin-left: 0.5em;">
 
;Delete: <!-- Add {{vote|Delete|~~ ~~|optional comment}} below (remove space between "~ ~")-->
 
{{vote|Delete|sig={{User:Kirkburn/Sig3}} 02:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)||{{{reason|Consensus is '''way''' better than voting. We have voting stuff set up for policies and deletion, but we never use any of this (nor should we).}}}}}
 
{{vote|Delete|sig={{User:Tekkub/Sig}} 08:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)||{{{reason|I vote for "my vote doesn't matter." So I guess that's a yes :)}}}}}
 
{{vote|Delete|sig={{User:DuTempete/Signature}}17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)|}}
 
{{vote|Delete|[[User:Syzgyn|Syzgyn]] 17:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)|}}
 
{{vote|Delete|[[User:Pcj|Pcj]] ([[User talk:Pcj|T]]&bull;[[Special:Contributions/Pcj|C]]){{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|time|&nbsp; 13:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)|}} 13:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)}}
 
{{vote|Delete|sig={{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)||{{{reason|As long as there are still votes for huge things and deletions still as was said.}}}}}
 
;Keep: <!-- Add {{vote|Keep|~~ ~~|optional comment}} below (remove space between "~ ~") -->
 
{{vote|Keep|--[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)|{{{reason|I view voting as the most obvious and accessible venue for reaching a consensus. That is, the poke in the eye of anyone who has an opinion. Much is discussed on IRC or via IM, but speaking as someone without those tools, I would prefer not to see a tool I DO have access to disappear. Show me other tools that I do have access to, and I may buy in to deleting this mechanism. --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)}}}}}
 
{{vote|Keep|--[[User:Fandyllic|Fandyllic]] <small>([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contr]])</small> 1:58 PM PDT 1 Oct 2007|{{{reason|Voting seems to be less wishy-washy than consensus. It seems hard to pin down consensus as anything but a vague notion. Ironically, if we did operate by consensus, I suspect we couldn't get rid of voting.}}}}}
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
   
 
===Comments===
 
===Comments===
 
<div style="margin-left: 0.5em;">
 
<div style="margin-left: 0.5em;">
<!-- Add :your comments <nowiki>--{{User:Kirkburn/Sig3}} 02:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)</nowiki> below -->
+
<!-- Add your comments below -->
  +
* Hmm, 3 days on top of the original 7? I'm not sure that's necessary. I would think 7 + 24 hours would be suitable, iff there is enough of a lead to close with.<br />That said, another concern I have is this whole "minimum number" required to close. The static number (even one which is [[wikipedia:Fluid website#Layout types|fluid]]) doesn't really take into consideration the strength of the votes, or whether there has been enough discussion (though presumably there would have been in a week's time, sometimes discussion doesn't bring out all the points that quickly). I'm not sure how best to deal with it; I like that it's concrete, but it also encourages steamrolling, which is at best inappropriate for a consensus driven model and at worst rude... --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 19:36, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
This is a nomination to delete all voting areas '''not devoted to deletion and policy'''. The templates are out of date, it's completely unused, and it's counter to the philosophy of wikis. Indeed, I would prefer we moved closer to wikipedia-style "vote" processes, but this isn't quite that extreme :P {{User:Kirkburn/Sig3}} 02:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 
  +
*:You absolutely need a gap of greater than a day between the winning vote being cast and the discussion closing. There may be more votes to be had after the "winning" vote has been cast. As to your other point, it's hard to quantify discussion in a policy. Further, the point being argued may not merit much discussion and consensus may be reached without much discussion, this is again hard to quantify. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 19:44, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
*::It's a day between the winning vote and the discussion closing only ''after'' the requirement of seven days, which, in seven days, one would hope that you've captured the majority of the comments. This problem, of course, disappears if one removes the absolute (or even liquid) requirement...<br />Agreed to your first point, disagree with your second. Is a lead of 5 "votes" a consensus, or just a pileon of votes? For example, Fandyllic's taken part in a pair of the recent votes (and not to be discouraging of his votes specifically) with nothing but a "yes" or "no". How is that useful for gauging consensus? He didn't even comment to say, "this person's views align with my own". A simple count of the votes isn't how consensus should be judged. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 20:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and for why I've chosen "delete" for this, rather than a policy vote - this is not about recall a policy in effect. It has no current effects, and is not just about removing this specific page, but this list:
 
  +
*:::Your comments agree with your previously described inclination against voting on wikis in general. While I agree that consensus should be the normal method arguments are handled, there is precedent for the usefulness of voting. Aside from completely removing the policy, I don't see any particular way to implement your ideas. I don't think forcing people to comment is a good solution especially in cases where the decision is black and white; it's the grey areas where discussion is more warranted. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 20:13, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
*::::Haha, I'm sure. Agreed, it is useful, which I acknowledged. I'm also at a loss without going down the road of Wikipedia, which of course, has its own issues. The problem of having it explicit in policy is that we ''can't'' give weight to comments without being looked at strangely; i.e., if there's a "winning side" by number but the discussion is closed opposite to the winning side due to superior arguments brought by the opposing side. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 20:29, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
# [[WoWWiki:Policy/Voting]]
 
  +
*:::::Well and as I said above it's hard to quantify the depth of comments. "If Side A has 10 votes with an average comment strength of 0.75, but Side B has 8 votes with an average comment strength of 1.0 then Side B wins". "Average comment strength" is impossible to measure reliably. The way I look at it, voting is simply a way to measure consensus, where discussion is the means by which consensus is obtained. If someone has a really good argument, then they should be able to sway votes over to their side. The objective of this policy should be to give people enough time in which to make their arguments. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 20:33, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
# [[Template:Vote/Closing]]
 
  +
*I noticed some interesting clauses in [[WoWWiki:Policy status phases]], this is exclusively for policy votes:
# [[Template:Vote/Closing/Content]]
 
  +
*:Ratification time – the winning side must remain winner for 1 week (7 days). However, if the ratification ratio is high (4 to 1 in favor) and the number of yes votes is high (15), 3 days is enough.
# [[Template:Vote/Note]] (possibly)
 
  +
*:Recall time – also 1 week (7 days). However, if the recall ratio is high (4 to 1 against) and the number of recall votes is high (10), 3 days is enough.
# [[Template:Vote/Vote]]
 
  +
:Comments? Should we change these as well? --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 20:02, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
# [[Template:Vote/Vote/Content]]
 
  +
::I honestly forgot about the "ratification" period; it seems largely extraneous to me. I like the ratios, but I don't like the specific numbers. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]]) 20:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
# [[Template:Vote/Talk]]
 
 
</div><hr style="color: #555;" />
 
Nice and short! {{User:Kirkburn/Sig3}} 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 
 
: Regarding Eirik's comment: winning a vote isn't the same as consensus. Far from it in fact, as minority views are pushed away and no compromise is found to please all parties. This isn't about remove the ability to discuss the best method for doing anything, it's about removing an outmoded and inflexible solution. No votes of this type have been carried out for a long time! The tools we all have access to are talk pages, where people can discuss their ideas and a solution for all parties can be found.
 
 
:Note well: this '''isn't''' changing the deletion or policy nomination process, this is the older, different "general vote" stuff. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig3}} 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 
 
::If we're using Wikipedia as an example of consensus (which I suspect is the case), then I think the idea of consensus leading to acceptable compromise to opposing parties is a false assertion. Wikipedia is rife with examples of the pretense of consensus leading to an arbitrary decision. Rarely do admins fully explain decisions made by "consensus". I would have to demand a clear and definitive explanation of the form of consensus we plan to use in WoWWiki, if we are using it as a replacement for voting.
 
::Consensus as I've seen operate in most scenarios goes like this:
 
::#''x'' number of people generally want option A.
 
::#''y'' number of people want option B.
 
::#''x'' outnumbers ''y'', so the ''decider'' picks option A.
 
::#Group ''y'' grumbles and protests.
 
::#The ''decider'' says some stuff about making minor changes and may or may not make them.
 
::#Group ''y'' realizes they are stuffed, basically realize arguing is fruitless, and mostly opts out of the discussion.
 
::--[[User:Fandyllic|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor:help;" title="Admin">Fandyllic</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contr]])</small> 2:06 PM PDT 1 OCt 2007
 
 
::: Again, we don't even ''use'' the templates I'm suggesting for deletion. The policy and delete vote stuff isn't being touched by my suggestion. I'm saying we should avoid votes as much as possible (which we seem pretty good at anyway). {{User:Kirkburn/Sig3}} 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 
 
:::: Does this count, then as a policy and/or deletion vote? Do we have any examples of "general stuff" votes in the past? ... and, um, if we're not using it, what is the worry about leaving it here? In part, what is the problem you are trying to solve? --[[User:Eirik Ratcatcher|Eirik Ratcatcher]] 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (aka Dazed and Confused)
 
 
:::::I once saw a cleanup or merge vote I think... --{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 
 
::::::Much of the evidence of past voting seems to have been removed or archived, but there have been a few votes in the past as the wiki was growing. See the [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Accepted|what links here]] for the {{tlink|Accepted}} template to see a list of past votes that have been accepted. Most votes seem to win, since the list of [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Declined|what links here]] for the {{tlink|Declined}} is much shorter.
 
::::::The argument that this policy is not heavily used or appears philosophically distasteful seems to be a weak argument, but you can ''vote'' to delete it. It seems strange you have to vote to delete something with the implication that consensus would be better when obviously consensus would prevent deleting it. --[[User:Fandyllic|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor:help;" title="Admin">Fandyllic</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contr]])</small> 4:50 PM PDT 1 Oct 2007
 
 
There's 6 votes to delete as I write this and 2 votes to keep. Consensus does not prevent actions from being taken, nor would it "save" this article. What this is affecting '''would not affect this type of vote'''. The [[WW:VOTE]] page currently gives the impression that voting on many different types of article changes is a ''good'' thing - which is plainly isn't, as we'd never get anything done.
 
 
The fact that nearly all votes win does fairly help my argument - in some cases it can show that the "no" people got little choice in the matter and couldn't influence the outcome by creating a consensus, and it can also show that there wasn't much point voting in the first place. Many decisions are also not black and white "yes/no" - voting doesn't often allow for shades of grey. In fact, even this vote doesn't allow for shades of grey. I've nominated it for deletion, and I have no way of altering that to say "I want to remove the templates and process, but keep the outline of the page" as we're stuck in "delete or not do anything".
 
 
As for "why does it matter that this exists if it's not used". It's another policy for people to wade through when they want something done, plus it gives the wrong impression. It's also another set of pages and templates to maintain. {{User:Kirkburn/Sig3}} 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 
 
</div>
 
<hr style="color: #555;" />
 

Revision as of 12:20, 23 August 2010

Template:Archives2

Voter candidacy and vote duration

Per discussion on the forums, it has come to my attention that there is a potential for some irregularities in the voting process. To help prevent these, I would like to propose that voters be required to have a minimum of ten (10) edits with their account and extend the minimum duration a vote can last to a week (seven calendar days) - the closing period requirement will remain the same (i.e., if a vote gains enough votes to close in the first day it should still last a week; and if a vote lasts longer than a week the closing duration of three days should still exist between the winning vote being cast and the vote closing). This policy change will only take effect to votes which begin after the change is accepted.

Votes

Yes
  1. Yes PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 18:58, August 16, 2010 (UTC) - (Originally proposed)
  2. Yes SnakeSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3For Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 20:51, August 16, 2010 (UTC) - (I think this would be good, I didn't even see that external link vote till it was already pending closure.)
  3. Yes SWM2448 21:18, August 16, 2010 (UTC) - (Meatpuppetry is already disallowed. This would help protect against it more.)
  4. Yes k_d3 03:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC) - (More time is good. The world (of warcraft) isn't going to end in a week.)
  5. Yes User:FrejyaFrejya 04:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC) - (Would be nice to see more than 10 edits, imo - people can easily reach that by editing their own user pages; I'll happily concede that argument, though, if it gets things rolling.)
No

Comments

  • Hmm, 3 days on top of the original 7? I'm not sure that's necessary. I would think 7 + 24 hours would be suitable, iff there is enough of a lead to close with.
    That said, another concern I have is this whole "minimum number" required to close. The static number (even one which is fluid) doesn't really take into consideration the strength of the votes, or whether there has been enough discussion (though presumably there would have been in a week's time, sometimes discussion doesn't bring out all the points that quickly). I'm not sure how best to deal with it; I like that it's concrete, but it also encourages steamrolling, which is at best inappropriate for a consensus driven model and at worst rude... --Sky (t · c) 19:36, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
    You absolutely need a gap of greater than a day between the winning vote being cast and the discussion closing. There may be more votes to be had after the "winning" vote has been cast. As to your other point, it's hard to quantify discussion in a policy. Further, the point being argued may not merit much discussion and consensus may be reached without much discussion, this is again hard to quantify. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 19:44, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
    It's a day between the winning vote and the discussion closing only after the requirement of seven days, which, in seven days, one would hope that you've captured the majority of the comments. This problem, of course, disappears if one removes the absolute (or even liquid) requirement...
    Agreed to your first point, disagree with your second. Is a lead of 5 "votes" a consensus, or just a pileon of votes? For example, Fandyllic's taken part in a pair of the recent votes (and not to be discouraging of his votes specifically) with nothing but a "yes" or "no". How is that useful for gauging consensus? He didn't even comment to say, "this person's views align with my own". A simple count of the votes isn't how consensus should be judged. --Sky (t · c) 20:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
    Your comments agree with your previously described inclination against voting on wikis in general. While I agree that consensus should be the normal method arguments are handled, there is precedent for the usefulness of voting. Aside from completely removing the policy, I don't see any particular way to implement your ideas. I don't think forcing people to comment is a good solution especially in cases where the decision is black and white; it's the grey areas where discussion is more warranted. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 20:13, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
    Haha, I'm sure. Agreed, it is useful, which I acknowledged. I'm also at a loss without going down the road of Wikipedia, which of course, has its own issues. The problem of having it explicit in policy is that we can't give weight to comments without being looked at strangely; i.e., if there's a "winning side" by number but the discussion is closed opposite to the winning side due to superior arguments brought by the opposing side. --Sky (t · c) 20:29, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
    Well and as I said above it's hard to quantify the depth of comments. "If Side A has 10 votes with an average comment strength of 0.75, but Side B has 8 votes with an average comment strength of 1.0 then Side B wins". "Average comment strength" is impossible to measure reliably. The way I look at it, voting is simply a way to measure consensus, where discussion is the means by which consensus is obtained. If someone has a really good argument, then they should be able to sway votes over to their side. The objective of this policy should be to give people enough time in which to make their arguments. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 20:33, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • I noticed some interesting clauses in WoWWiki:Policy status phases, this is exclusively for policy votes:
    Ratification time – the winning side must remain winner for 1 week (7 days). However, if the ratification ratio is high (4 to 1 in favor) and the number of yes votes is high (15), 3 days is enough.
    Recall time – also 1 week (7 days). However, if the recall ratio is high (4 to 1 against) and the number of recall votes is high (10), 3 days is enough.
Comments? Should we change these as well? --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 20:02, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I honestly forgot about the "ratification" period; it seems largely extraneous to me. I like the ratios, but I don't like the specific numbers. --Sky (t · c) 20:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC)