Forum:A new VFS is in order

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > A new VFS is in order
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4063 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.
See below, and Forum:A new VFS is in order/archive and Forum:VFS: "Change these rules at any time" for histories, including previous voting.

Outcome of second round voting

The finalised rules
  1. The first 10 days of a month (1st - 10th), registered users have a vote to see if we need more ops (active op votes count double in this vote). A minimum score of +5 must be attained in order to progress to the next level.
  2. The next 2 days (48 hours) of a month (11th and the 12th), any users can nominate users for oppage (not yourself), but not vote. Any nominees who do not wish to become a sysop can opt out at this stage.
  3. The next 8 days (13th - 20th) registered users may vote for up to three people for oppage (active op votes count double in this vote). If only one candidate from this round would progress to the next level, that level is cancelled and the candidate is opped.
  4. The following 10 days of a month (21st - 30th), the users with at least 70% of the leader are moved into a third round of voting. In this round each user gets two votes apiece (unless there are only two candidates). Stacking these votes is not allowed. In the event of a tie in this round, the candidate with more votes in the previous round than the other gets oppage.
  5. The Admins, acting in consensus, shall strike any nomination and any vote that they determine is not from an active contributor in good standing on this website.

Round 2 votes

Voting has closed There have been several votes cast after the time alloyed for voting, but they have made no impact to the outcome, so I will leave them standing (because it's easier than deleting them, and I'm lazy.)                                • Puppy's talk page • 07:37 07 Nov 2013

Rule 1 & 3

Rule 1 and rule 3 change to reflect only active admins get double votes.

Unanimous support
Score: 6

Rule 1 minimum score required to proceed to vote be reduced to +5

No votes against. Change to the rule passes.
Score: 6
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. still avoids vote manipulation by a marginal group, but also avoids a marginal group swinging the vote the other way.                                • Puppy's talk page • 06:42 31 Oct 2013
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. At least, right now. Anton (talk) 11:56, October 31, 2013 (UTC)
  • For...though should be lowered to 1. --ShabiDOO 13:33, October 31, 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign.gif Scotland Flag 1.png Compassrose.gif VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:17, November 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. --Laurels.gifRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:15, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Well at least at the moment. This Uncyclopedia, unlike the fork seems to be doing better post forking, than it was in 2012. For this reason it potentially could need adjusting if this trend continues. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Proudly bogan 21:34, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I understand the motivation for this question but dislike putting hard numbers in the rules, as they will vary with participation, and I do not know what the right number is for the present time. Consider for possible future discussion a general quorum rule: We ought not change any policy without at least the number of Uncyclopedians participating as is the average vote on articles at VFH (itself a fuzzy number and open to manipulation through a flurry of new nominations). Spıke Ѧ 22:04 6-Nov-13
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. ---- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:18, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Rule 5

I'm going to put forward the three main options suggested. To avoid a deadlock on this vote, each user has a vote Symbol for vote.svg For and Symbol against vote.svg Against on these votes (or a Symbol comment vote.svg Comment). This allows a form of preferential voting (where the {{For}} vote would be the first option, the {{Comment}} or no vote the second option, and {{Against}} would be the third option. Scoring is as per our normal For = +1, Against = -1, and means that we are far more likely to get a clear outcome.

As the majority of the vote in the first round was either for no rule or an alternate rule, there will be no vote to retain the existing rule.

Remove the rule altogether

Of the three tabled options, the most support for.
Score: 3
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Still my preferred option.                                • Puppy's talk page • 06:42 31 Oct 2013
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Don't crack wise with the policy. The criteria for voting is serious and overrides our desire to wear our sense of humor on our sleeve. The tone of a policy document can be set in a discussion or editing round; the only reason this question is here is that some users want to crack jokes and have them win a vote--that is, to participate in a cluster-edit with everyone watching. Spıke Ѧ 12:57 31-Oct-13
  • Symbol against vote.svg Against. Some levity would help to take things just the way they are, not too seriously but still seriously enough. Anton (talk) 16:45, October 31, 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. --Laurels.gifRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:15, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Yeah we don't need a round 5. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Proudly bogan 21:38, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Change the rule to "The last day of the months with 31 days, Britslayer is allowed to eliminate British candidates from VFS. This helps to ensure we respect prejudice views."

The tabled option with the least support. Rule to be removed.
Score: -1

Change the rule to "Non-regulation condiments are able to be introduced at any time, but only after the written approval of the surgeon general"

The tabled option with little support. Or even acknowledgement. Relegated to the dark realm of also-ran.
Score: 1

Rule 6

Change the rule to "The Admins, acting in consensus, shall strike any nomination and any vote that they determine is not from an active contributor in good standing on this website."

While divided opinion, the clear majority was in support of the change. New rule stands.
Score: 2
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Better than the only alternative (the current rule), despite my misgivings.                                • Puppy's talk page • 06:42 31 Oct 2013
  • Don't like neither of the two. "Good standing" of the website is ambiguous, and some good but not active contributors may come back because they want to take part in VFS, thus to help the community, especially if they know something about the nominees. Anton (talk) 12:12, October 31, 2013 (UTC)
    Anton, "neither of the two" is not on the table (and will not be on the table, as Puppy carefully limits these voting rounds to things we have discussed in the previous round). I am interested that we make good decisions. A user who can say: I do not participate in Uncyclopedia but I "know something about the nominees" does not necessarily want the best for this website and — given the anonymity and the existence of troll websites — typically wants the worst for it, including a couple of people who voted for me for Admin. Spıke Ѧ 13:06 31-Oct-13
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. The reason VFS resembles democracy is ultimately to assure contributors that their work and they will not be treated capriciously. The same motive suggests that Admins codify the reasons we would interfere in an election rather than assert a blank check to overturn it. Spıke Ѧ 13:06 31-Oct-13
  • Against. Admins should either have veto power OR extra votes. NOT BOTH. --ShabiDOO 13:32, October 31, 2013 (UTC)
    Please unhook your Caps Lock key. The decision on whether the website needs more help is separate from the decision that a given vote is from a non-contributor. There is no reason greater influence on one decision means we should not have greater influence on another decision. That we not have veto power is not on the table. Spıke Ѧ 13:49 31-Oct-13
    Responding to your comment above, nobody will be here eternally. And if a person who was a good contributor stopped being active and only came back once, as he thought that he would be helpful, according to this rule, his vote may be stricken. I like neither of the two but still prefer the first one. Anton (talk) 16:42, October 31, 2013 (UTC)
    SPIKE. You don't need a veto ontop of your extra votes. My vote is against. --ShabiDOO 17:47, October 31, 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Aimsplode example is enough for me to be in favour of this rule. --Laurels.gifRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:18, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Given how easy a bad faith vote is to spot, this shouldn't be an issue. 99% of the time they have to do with two users simply not getting along and admins should be able to recognize such instances. Trolls also don't make much effort to hide their intentions. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Proudly bogan 21:42, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Round 2 Voting - maybe

Given the inaction here, I'm satisfied to leave the rules as they are now, but if anyone wants to make any further changes, maybe we can leave it for a few more weeks. Assuming nothing is added here over the next day or so, I say we move on to Spike's suggestion at Forum:VFS: "Change these rules at any time" and hold a vote on that one item over there.                                • Puppy's talk page • 08:39 23 Oct 2013

Bring on Round 2. My Forum is not vital, as your Admins will use the current unlimited power with the limits stated in my proposal; it simply pretties things up, and helps dispel the notion of a Cabal wielding unlimited power, to put in writing the limits we would adhere to anyway. Shabidoo's two proposals limiting the vote to active Admins are worth a new round of discussion and voting, though the same result could be achieved under either the old or the new Rule 6.
Calendar time is not a factor. The clamor for a new VFS was driven by one user, now permabanned for follow-on dickery across the interwebs by as close as we come to a "disinterested Admin." He of course denied that VFS was all about him, but there is nothing about October that is different from September that requires a VFS in November if the rules are not ready. Nor are there gaping holes in the rules that would preclude a VFS in November.
We are dealing with Free Spirits here, and I insist that we have a discussion round to thrash out any required amendments to my text, rather than turn a vote on something specific into a cluster-edit. You objected that there is a little open-endedness left in the rule and I agreed that there is.
ScottPat's proposal should not be on the table at all. Which joke to include in a procedure document adds noise to a process designed to remove noise, and is a matter for whomever applies the change and the gadflies assisting him; recall that, even after we hammered out the wording of the former Content Warning, perfecting edits were required for things like links that didn't work.
Regarding levity, however, one compromise between your and my desire for clear rules and Shabidoo's advice to spice things up is illustrations with funny captions. They are not mistaken for rules, they do not interfere with the rules, and the person looking for guidance does not have to wade through the same wisecracks for the tenth time. When I proposed my rewrite of UN:SIG to the Admins, I mentioned this as a possible enhancement, and anyone is welcome to add a modest number of illustrations to UN:SIG (like, not a gallery) that are funny and directly relate to the material. Spıke Ѧ 10:19 23-Oct-13
This page is so utterly packed with info and history that I wasn't sure where to put my comments. Consider archiving the first round or a new page or something? As SPIKE said: BRING ON ROUND 2. --ShabiDOO 17:13, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
One would love to contribute in another round of peasant shooting, let me have a spot of tea first. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign.gif Scotland Flag 1.png Compassrose.gif VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 17:16, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
PG or Typhoo? --Laurels.gifRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:19, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Voting query

In the past VFS voters have been somewhat divided on the notion of being For or Against a candidate. Given that each user still gets 2 votes a piece, I'd like to see this issue put to bed permanently. So, should voting be limited to just votes in favor or are we going to allow (provided they aren't rude and are very well explained) against votes when dealing with candidates? Discuss and all that. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Proudly bogan 21:49, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Frosty - missed this comment earlier. We went through much the same conversation prior to first round and voted in favour of “vote for” being added into the rule. Hopefully that, and reference back to these forums if needed, should clarify this aspect.                                • Puppy's talk page • 07:55 07 Nov 2013

We're done

And just in time for a spot of tea.                                • Puppy's talk page • 07:55 07 Nov 2013

Retrieved from "https://uncyclopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Forum:A_new_VFS_is_in_order&oldid=5747229"