Sorry, been busy.
1 Like
Gosh, I’m not sure if making the OP the banner will work. The poll gets wonky. So I will make a random banner and link to the OP instead 
3 Likes
This feels like we’re getting into Stack Overflow Meta territory to me. Voting about rules to vote about rules about voting about rules.
I abstain on the grounds that people should respect the mods’ decisions and if a mod is out of control the system will correct itself.
Stack Overflow sucks now. I don’t think we should follow their lead. Unless you’re a government, governing principles are counterproductive imo. Mods are doing the best they can, if someone doesn’t like it, become a mod or don’t whine about it.
Edit: Ok fine I voted yes because Microbet and Wookie wanted it and they of anyone should know how big of a PITA it is to be a mod. But I still am pissed at anyone who harasses a mod.
3 Likes
The main distinction is first seeking the approval of just the most interested parties prior to bugging the forum at large for their approval. Not everyone wants to be involved in the sausage making, certainly not of every sausage. Of those who do not, some may well want to vote once the details are sorted out.
Is everyone supposed to be eligible to vote? Some requirements might be in order, like join date or number of posts. For example, you could argue if sporadic posters like me should partake in such a process. 
I, of course, would only let people vote that own at least 20 acres of land; but that’s just me. 
3 Likes
Is there any contingency plan for fast-tracking the process? Let’s say X has previously been allowed. Now it turns out repeated X has caused an imbroglio to ensue and the general opinion has shifted to disallow X.
Does it have to take at least 17 days of forum drama to change the rules?
My proposal is a separate rule that allows mods to moderate as if the new rule has already been implemented as soon as overwhelming support for the rule change becomes obvious.
There is not in this. We could certainly use this process to approve something like that, though.
It seems like it’s voting on the same thing twice to me:
First vote:
a public poll stating the proposed wording of the rule with the choices of “Yes” or “No.”
Second vote:
a public poll stating the proposed wording of the rule with the choices of “Yes” or “No.”
Exactly what is the difference between these two polls?
This exactly makes the point of why this procedure is needed!
The second version there should say the “ratified wording” or something. The first vote is just on the wording and the second is on the substance.
Easy enough to extend this and create classes of “minor rule” and “major rule” and a procedure for deciding how that is chosen and how it affects how they are handled at a later date. Like in a year. The biggest danger to the entire process of getting any kind of agreement here is it dragging on until there are only a couple people interested. Imo, we need baby steps with long breaks in between. After all, this is tremendously unimportant!
1 Like
So it’s analogous to a Senate committee passing a bill to the main body for a floor vote, but amendments are only allowed in committee, and I guess the committee is non-exclusive.
The second vote should be voting to adopt the rule as written. The first vote should be “is this rule ready to be voted on”?
Another question is whether Preet, Sweet, etc. get to vote? What about non-obvious multiple accounts (Trolly/Trolly is one that comes to mind - not obvious to me)?
This “two vote” process was discussed a bit in the prior thread. It even was put to a vote (very meta).
IIRC I was one of the few who voted for not having a “first” vote and proceeding directly to the “final” vote. But the “two vote” process won by a landslide.
Multiple accounts shouldn’t get multiple votes obviously. Gonna have to have some honor system working or we’ll have to do something to verify accounts that get to vote or scrap it all.
Trolly/Trolly? If you mean Trolly (Trolly McTolliserton or whatever) and TrollyWantACracker, I believe they are different people and TrollyWantACracker was metaname on 2p2.
This process has shown that virtually every poll written has been flawed and many of the flaws are apparent very quickly when more sets of eyes see them. I’ve been a bit surprised by this, especially on the polls that I’ve composed!
Voted because of the banner afting losing intereest previously
1 Like
Poll has expired. As I understand it, now someone can put in an RFC for modding chads now.