Anonymous user
Forum:Voting system and reasoning: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Lost Labyrinth No edit summary |
imported>Lost Labyrinth No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Community discussions|archive}}
Okay, so, based on what happened on [[User:Beds|Beds]]'s second [[The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/Archive 5#HanaGoth96 2|nomination]] and these [[Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests|two]] [[Forum:RfA voting and reasoning|forum posts]], I would like to propose some other solution.
Line 12:
We recently overhauled the RfA/B system so that it's more discussion based (which puts a further emphasis on reasoning) and if there's no consensus to be drawn, the nomination goes to a vote. We've had two RfAs under the new system to date and they've gone pretty well to say the least, so I don't think we really need to majorly change the system (again) just yet. {{LabSig}} 10:01, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
:I know; if I had been around I would probably have discussed on the other forum, but I would like this to be given a chance, at least for discussion. Thank you for reading, --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:#FF0038">RoseGui</span><span style="color:#DE3163"><sup>✿</sup></span>]] <sup> <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:#BE0032">talk</span>]])</small></sup> 10:40, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
::The system for RfA/B that we've adopted largely already does as you suggest. There is a period for building consensus through discussion. If that period passes and a consensus doesn't clearly exist, then a vote is held in which votes can only be made without attached reasoning or "weight" i.e. all votes "weigh" the same regardless of the person's motivation for voting. This equal weight prevents issues with trying to judge the validity of the reasons behind votes and instead treats any vote (by a valid participant) as valid.
::At this point, I would be opposed to any large-scale changes to the RfA/B process because, as Lost Labyrinth has said, the past couple cycles have run pretty smoothly. It seems to me that you shouldn't fix what isn't broken. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 14:47, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
:::I agree. I think the current system is working well and it's not worth it to try to change it now. --'''[[user:Bleeh|<font color="navy">Bleeh</font>]]'''<sup>[[User talk: Bleeh|<font color="#489094">(talk)</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[User blog:Bleeh|<font color="#489094">(blog)</font>]]</sup> 05:13, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
::::I think I understand all your points. This might be considered closed. --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:#FF0038">RoseGui</span><span style="color:#DE3163"><sup>✿</sup></span>]] <sup> <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:#BE0032">talk</span>]])</small></sup> 21:04, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
'''Closed''' - Author request/general agreement no further changes are required at this point. {{LabSig}} 21:26, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
| |||