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
Yeah, we have seen all of this fall off because of fatigue. What we need on these things is vetted, well worded polls, and most people not needing to be part of the discussion to understand what they are voting on.
The issue with this line of thinking is that it allows the moderation of the site to be dominated by the people who have the most stake in it (and no one has a bigger stake in moderation decisions than people who want to troll, which might be why they never ever stop complaining about it). The trolls have a voter turnout rate of 100%, at a minimum everyone on the site should be notified that there’s a vote taking place so that they can weigh in.
A banner isn’t really badgering anyway, so :shrug:
Also, any poster would always be able to post about it in the LC thread or wherever.
There’s no reason why we can’t question the good faith of a slew of gimmick votes or the like. That is already against the rules.
At last, we have an official troll list…
5 Likes
I am a troll, but I do not troll this site. I reserve that for facebook but I am close to being banned there.
So, I have only 9 more days as a mod. Things have been going so well lately and I’m hoping to ride this out in peace. Yeah, I’m sure @boredsocial meant you @Jalfrezi (among others) - but please, let’s call this even and stop it here.
What happened to the idea of opening an “official” RFC thread for mod issues (terms, etc.)?
I think everybody will agree to having “parallel” threads and timelines at this point. If for no other reason than to start the clock ticking (or else this will all take a very long time).
To the best of my knowledge, no. And even if so, it wouldn’t really prevent malfeasance, as a handful of gimmicks could vote, but their votes couldn’t be invalidated. They could scuff the whole vote that way.