Does this address the need for minimum participation? Should we have a sticky or a mimimum number of votes?
Are we banning gimmicks and new accounts from voting?
Nearly all of the rules that have been discussed recently are what I would consider moderation rules. E.g., who should be mods, how long should they serve, how can they be recalled, should their be an arbitration panel that users can appeal moderation decisions to, should certain words be censored? All of these are moderation questions
The main thing that falls outside the scope of the rule-making process in my view is actual administration of the site, including who can become an administrator. The current admins have expressed a desire that their admin roles should be neutral and consist in keeping the site running and carrying out certain actions in accordance with community wishes (e.g., giving users moderation powers). So this process should make it clear when an administrator should make someone a mod or make a mod back into a normal user, what types of rules mods should enforce, how they should enforce them, and how much discretion the community wants them to have.
This isn’t specified in the proposal, but I think the understanding is that the admins will make a banner announcement when they put a proposal to a binding vote. @jmakin has also said he will help look out for irregularities in the voting if needed. any other restrictions on who can vote could be proposed as a separate rule.
You didn’t answer my question. Why did you narrow this entire thread down to just moderation.
I am 100% on board if this process applies to the entire forum rules, but far less so if it only applies to moderation. Now maybe I see what boredsocial may have been talking about. If you think we are going to spend weeks/months of valuable forum time, energy, oxygen, and patience just to say we can vote for new mods, that is crazy. We can vote for new mods today, yesterday, tomorrow.
I have NO IDEA why you are deviating from Wookie’s OP on this very important point. It makes no sense, none.
I tried to answer your question, but maybe the answer was indirect. What kind of rules do you think the forum wants to implement that wouldn’t be moderation rules?
The proposed framework would apply to rules for selection, tenure and conduct of moderators.
To expand on this, this would allow the following types of rules (and probably more):
Selection: how are mods elected, when are mods elected, how many mods can there be, who can vote for mods, etc.
Tenure: do moderators have terms, how long are the terms, are there limits to the number of terms someone can serve as mod, can mods serve consecutive terms, what happens when a mod resigns, what happens if a mod becomes inactive, how can the forum recall a mod, etc.
Conduct: what rules should mods enforce, what else should they do, when should mods ban a user, can mod decisions be appealed, etc.
@whosnext If there are other types of rules you think the procedure should be used for, I think it would make sense to list them rather than leave it completely open ended.
It seems like we are getting to a workable proposal, so I would suggest that we put it up for a “go forward” vote starting later tonight unless there are other concerns that come up.
Thanks for the reply.
While I still disagree with positioning this rubric as pertaining only to moderation, let’s just put down my disagreement as a semantics issue. A similar discussion arose when JT led an effort at enacting forum rules awhile ago. Many people see/saw forum rules as essentially “moderator rules” and I see/saw them as two distinct (yet related) entities. For example, if you see our recent “C-word” debacle as falling under this rubric, then I am less in disagreement.
Thanks again and I am confident that this will pass both votes with flying colors.
@jmakin could you make a poll on the wording below in this thread? The poll should read “Should this proposal advance to a binding vote?” and have choices of “Yes” and “No.” Please make a public poll that closes in 1 week.
The modifications from the previous draft include specifying that the rulemaking process will apply to “standards of user conduct” in addition to moderation issues. This is to make it clear that issues like the recent c-word discussion would be covered by the rulemaking process. I also added some words to specify that binding votes will happen through public polls.
I’m @-ing everyone who has made multiple posts in this thread to notify them that the language is going up for a vote.
@MrWookie @anon10396289 @microbet @whosnext @All-InFlynn @RegretS @NotBruceZ @marty @King_of_NY @Rugby @beetlejuice @j8i3h289dn3x7 @boredsocial @anon29622970
===================================================================
Rules pertaining to standards of user conduct or forum moderation, including selection, tenure and conduct of moderators, shall be introduced through the request for comments (“RFC”) process.
Any user may initiate an RFC for a proposed rule by creating a thread in the About Unstuck subforum.
The purpose of RFC threads is to facilitate community input on proposed rules.
The initial post of an RFC thread should describe the proposed rule. Any user may provide input on the proposed rule by posting in the RFC thread.
After an RFC thread has been open for at least 3 full days, any user can request a Forum Administrator to create a poll within the RFC thread to approve the wording for the proposal. Upon receipt of such request, a Forum Administrator shall use the Administrative Account to create a public poll stating the proposed wording of the rule with the choices of “Yes” or “No.” The poll shall remain open for a period of one week. If the poll receives support from a majority of voters, the proposal will proceed to a binding rule vote. Otherwise, debate on the proposal may continue and any user can again request a vote on wording within the RFC thread.
If a proposal proceeds to a binding rule vote, a Forum Administrator will create a new thread in the About Unstuck subforum with a public poll stating the proposed wording of the rule with the choices of “Yes” or “No.” The poll shall remain open for a period of one week. The proposed rule will be adopted if it receives support from at least two thirds of all voters for moderator appointments or if it receives support from at least 60 percent of voters for all other rules.
Until rules regarding the selection and tenure of moderators have been adopted: (1) the current moderators will remain in their roles; (2) the moderators will not permanently ban any user unless that user publicly requests such a ban; and (3) the moderators will not ban any user in a way that prevents the user from voting in an RFC poll or in a biding rule vote poll with the exception of bans issued in accordance with this section.
2 Likes
I’m at a superbowl party w/ vaxxed friends, will do it tonight or in the morning
1 Like
Should this proposal advance to a binding vote?
- yes
- no
0 voters
3 Likes
Thanks for putting this up. Looks like it is set to private. I think the consensus was to have public polls so we can see who is voting. Any chance you could change it real quick?
3 Likes
guess these numbers were derived from conversations itt but they feel high and would seem to create a bridge to nowhere and just maintain the current state of affairs. hope I’m wrong
I think rule changes should require super-majority support for the same reason that we require more than a simple majority to amend the US Constitution. We want changes to the fundamental ways in which this forum operates to be harder to change because we want these changes to have legitimacy. We won’t ever have unanimity on some of these rules, but we would like to approach unanimity that the process has been fair.
in a bunch of cases rules are being established not changed.
2 Likes
I don’t think that makes a difference.
I’ve started a thread for what I would like the forum to consider after we pass an RFC rule (which I assume we will).
I mean, if the original ratification of US Constitution is your guide, the framers sought a unanimous consent standard for the drafting, and a 2/3 of states standard for ratification, both quite a bit higher than what we have here.
Bump to solicit more votes on econ’s wording prior to going to a vote.
Maybe we can make a banner?
1 Like
I don’t think it’s best to badger the whole forum for every RFC vote, even on the final text. I think we reserve that for binding final votes, to keep the sausage making out of sight of the people who want to ignore it.
2 Likes