Anonymous user
The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal: Difference between revisions
→Defining consensus
imported>Lost Labyrinth |
imported>LostInRiverview |
||
Line 272:
::I guess we've at least narrowed down the use of consensus as of [[The_Sims_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive_18#Consensus_on_.27Consensus.27|this discussion]]. I think consensus would still be needed to resolve an issue or discussion. If we don't even meet a sufficient 2/3 majority of votes, we might be stuck at a status quo / nothing to decide and ultimately we have to resolve it subjectively. Nevertheless, I also agree the quality over quantity, but if we actually wanted strong arguments over quantity, I don't think that's when we need consensus after all. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] <sub>–</sub> [[The Sims Wiki:Featured Media/Voting|<span style="color:red ; text-shadow:#E97451 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Vote!''</sub></span>]] 12:58, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
:::That's also a fair point RR. If consensus lands somewhere in the middle then depending on the discussion it's worth trying to reach a compromise. Same with strength of argument - that should always outweigh the number of votes. Another good point there Nikel about strength of arguments - if there's one really strong argument against one really weak argument then it's pretty obvious what would win, although strong arguments can be made for both viewpoints which could ultimately end with there being no consensus at all, hence how compromising would be a good alternative here. {{GGsig}} 13:05, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
::::I don't think it's worth pretending that this isn't about (or at least started as a response to) [[Talk:Same-sex relationships|the vote on the Same Sex relationships warning]], so I'm going to address that particular circumstance before getting into consensus in general.
::::Firstly, and something to establish because it's important to know, consensus isn't the rule here. If you may recall, I had brought up a subject like this about 6 months ago and it was generally decided to stick with the status quo of majority rule during votes; the very status quo that two days ago rightly decided the Warning issue.
::::I say 'rightly decided' not in regards to the outcome, but rather in regards strictly to the number of votes. It's important to keep in mind that neutral votes don't count for or against anything; they're neutral. Discounting the 3 votes there that didn't support or oppose, it was 9 in favor and 6 against. Since we have no rule anywhere indicating (and haven't established prior to this) a 'magic number' for what constitutes consensus/a majority vote, it would be improper (and I would argue a violation of current policy) to retroactively set a minimum vote threshold.
::::If you were to look at the discussion that took place prior to the beginning of voting, I think you'd see a more clear consensus for removal - I quote [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|Mathetesalexandrou]]: "It does seem like that the general consensus seems to think it's unneeded."). Only when the issue came to a vote did the matter become contentious. Ultimately having the vote made the outcome ''less'' certain, not more certain. Had the issue been decided based on the original discussion, the warning would've been removed without the headache of a formal vote which ultimately made things more controversial and less clear. Better yet, had someone simply been bold in the first place and removed the warning, likely no one would have noticed or cared, and none of the brouhaha would have ever happened. So this whole incident is essentially my fault, because I moved to create the vote in the first place despite there being reasonable consensus already in-place (by my count, 5 in favor and 1 opposed prior to the vote) to take the action that was ultimately decided.
::::All that said, I am against assigning a 'magic number' because, as it has been said before, quality of argument far outweighs quantity of votes. I hold that the creation of votes should only be made when less formal moves for consensus fail to reach that consensus, and then should be governed by majority vote in those cases. Why a majority vote? Because during the drive for consensus the threshold for a decision is far above a majority; moving to a vote should only happen when 1) a decision needs to be reached and 2) a consensus cannot be reached otherwise. Since a large enough bloc for consensus wasn't originally possible, it's not reasonable to expect that a vote will be any better, just as it is not good to deadlock on an issue, especially one that needs a timely resolution.
::::As for compromise... I agree that compromise should be our highest priority when in consensus-building. But that is much easier said than done, and I fear that holding a high standard for compromise in all situations will, again, deadlock the decision-making process. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LiR</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">speak</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">read</font>]]</sup>''' 23:54, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
| |||