I am confused.
I thought that we want a lower threshold to move an RFC to a binding vote than the actual final binding vote.
I think a Majority threshold is best for the vote on RFC text and then 2/3 on the final binding vote for new rules.
But the poll just posted for the RFC text threshold vote is 60% vs 2/3.
I could not care less between 60 and 66.666, but I’m voting with the majority here just to try to get something done on it.
I’m not certain, but I think request for comments.
That makes sense now, LOL me.
Kept thinking “ragefire chasm” from world of warcraft.
Between Pitbull and video games there are a lot of things going on in your brain that are a complete mystery to me.
my mind works in mysterious ways
Sorry, I am using shorthands that make sense to me.
The proposed process for “new rules” is:
So there are two votes in the process. A “preliminary” vote to bring it to a “binding” vote. I prefer Majority Rule for the preliminary (RFC) vote and something higher (I don’t care if it is 60% or 66%) for the binding vote.
I said I wasn’t gonna post seriously about this all weekend but if you want the admin to be the final check box in whatever process you decide, I don’t mind doing that, as long as it requires me exercising very little judgment. I can like verify the vote is valid (e.g. no gimmicks or anything that looks funny), process is followed, and then whatever.
I don’t know if ggoreo really would want to be involved in this stuff. But I’m not going anywhere.
Although I don’t mind, I do worry some future admin would, and that would make filling my role a little harder.
I think things have to be done slowly if we want change that the forum will buy into. Once we establish a rulemaking process, there’s no reason why several rule discussions can’t be done in parallel, so it might not take as long as you think. Some posters are worried about being permabanned. This proposal would prevent anyone from being permabanned until everyone has had a chance to vote on how the forum should be moderated, so hopefully that will help keep the temperature cool while the forum works through the process.
Would you and or @anon46587892 be OK with doing this if your involvement (as administrator) is limited to making polls that have gone through the process described in the proposal?
In my view, the proposed rulemaking process would be limited to rules about moderators and moderation. So the process wouldn’t be able to pass rules like “the admins should dox user X.” I think the admin role is a big responsibility and would be OK with codifying that in a separate process. But I think that would have to take much more of a consensus approach and also recognize other practical considerations.
One argument in favor of having a higher threshold for advancing a rule to a vote than for a rule being adopted is that how a rule is worded is pretty important. Having a higher threshold for rule advancement should help guard against badly written rules (and could also prevent controversial unpopular proposals from advancing at all).
That would be a good norm. I think the forum software has a limit @s per post, so we may not be able to notify everyone that way. In any case, I would but that responsibility on the person requesting the poll rather than the admin or mod who actually creates the poll.
But it allows for the possibility of veto of a rule by a smaller number of voters than required to defeat the actual binding vote.
I agree. Logically that does not make sense to me.
I guess it boils down to what we are trying to accomplish and what we are trying to watch out for. If we want to establish a process that facilitates enacting popular new rules, we should have “low” vote margin thresholds.
If we are concerned that the process will in some way lead to many “unwise” new rules, we should have “high” vote margin thesholds.
I am very much in the first camp which is why I prefer a “low” (i.e., majority) threshold, especially for the preliminary vote on the proposed text of any new rule.
Having said all that, I am happy to follow the consensus and my overarching concern is to move forward as fast as we can. Speed is valuable especially when “fatigue” is looming around every corner.
I can see arguments for setting it up different ways:
0 voters
Yea I’m fine with that. It makes sense we would make the poll too, because you can only pin OP’s to the banner and not replies.
This seems like an incredibly round about way to copy best practices wrt moderation.
what do you mean
Here’s where I think we are now. The changes from the earlier proposal are:
===================================================================
Rules pertaining to 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 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, (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.
Thanks for incorporating feedback and modifying the proposal. I have one more question. Originally this RFC process and voting protocols were to apply to all new forum rules, including but not limited to mod selection (terms, etc.). The most recent proposal only mentions forum moderation in the first line.
Did you limit this to moderation on purpose? I would hate for us to have to go through all this again when new forum rules are contemplated. Can you reword the first line to include all forum rules?
Thanks much.
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?