Forum:Recycling VFS

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Recycling VFS

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4959 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

So, Some nicely bulletpointed facts to start us off:

• VFS is very rarely used but has a dedicated page.
• Community votes tend to take place on the Village dump in an extremely ad-hoc manner.
• VFH has a rather lovely system in place for voting.
• It would be quite useful to have a repository of stuff that got officially voted on.

Therefore, I'm proposing we "recycle" VFS into "Vote For Stuff" - it would use the same nice voting tables and shite as VFH does and would allow us to vote on things properly; additionally, when it came to voting for Sysops, the new VFS would be perfect for doing so.

What I also propose are a set of rules as to when you may submit a vote on something; my personal preference on this is that a user must get the backing of either 1 admin or 5 community members, but you can adjust to suit your taste. Each vote should have a strict duration for voting which would be set according to the severity of the article.

Additionally, there should be a set of tests that determine whether something could be voted on, such as whether the vote will change anything (i.e. does it violate an existing policy or is anyone going to actually implement the required changes)

Finally, I should also point out that the main issue is NOT VFS itself what I am suggesting is that we have a place for voting on things much akin to VFH, there is NO necessity to "recycle" VFS as I am suggesting, it could obviously go into its own page and VFS can be left alone -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:23, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I think my primary concern lately has been the focus on voting when we're supposed to operate on a basis of consensus. --Andorin Kato 19:25, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... how exactly do you achieve consensus without voting? hive mind? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:26, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

No, you open a discussion about the proposal and see if anyone has any dissension. If so, you talk it out with them and understand each other's points and concerns- basically, you determine things through reasonable arguments instead of just strength of numbers via a vote. If the opposition's good arguments are defeated and they can't come up with more, the proposal is sound. A lack of voting or discussion is assumed to represent a lack of resistance to the proposal, to an extent. And on that note I think it's inappropriate in just about all of our voting processes to vote against something without rationale. --Andorin Kato 19:31, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, you open a discussion about a proposal and if it's deemed necessary to vote upon it... well, see what I wrote above. If it's not deemed necessary to be voted upon, it will never see the light of what I wrote above and instead should get written directly into policy or implemented or whatever it's about. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I think your proposal about VFS is fine. It will certainly be more useful than it is now. I just wanted to say something about consensus and how a proposal shouldn't be implemented simply because more people are in favor of it- those against might have good reasons for their position. --Andorin Kato 19:38, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

And I have a serious issue with that because when it comes to a contentious issue, you have to draw the line somewhere, you might as well say people can register a vote in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 in intervals of 0.1 with 0.1 meaning minimal concern for the issue at hand and 1.0 indicating the strongest possible support/objection for it. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:41, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

No, my point is that if a person or two has a really good argument for voting against a proposal that all other voters are in favor of, particularly if the For votes lack the rationale to defeat the dissenter's argument, that Against voter shouldn't be ignored just because he is way outnumbered. --Andorin Kato 19:46, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

A fatally flawed rationale; really good is a subjective term that's not concrete in the least; what the dissenter feels is a really good idea may well be considered a completely shit idea by everyone else, which is usually exactly how things go, so now we're basically down to whether or not the dissenter's view is supported by someone with authority, in which case, that seems patently unfair bias. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:49, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, to be more on topic... go for it. I like the idea of having a general, central "suggest stuff" page for policy change and such. It'd be better than using the forum because it would be a dedicated page for exactly that sort of thing. However, we should still hold monthly (or whatever time frame makes sense) votes to determine whether new sysops are needed. So there ought to be a set of guidelines for that, even if they're exactly what the current VFS system uses. --Andorin Kato 19:46, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I am slightly confused what you would need the backing of admins/other users for.

Is it to vote on things? I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you mean. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 21:37, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Simple, it's so people don't (ab)use it to post stupid/nonsense votes such as "give everyone free beer" or votes that won't achieve anything such as "redesign the main page" when nobody is actually going to spend the time to redesign it -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 02:16, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

What if I assemble a mob to propose a rule requiring every admin to eat peaches with George Foreman and Lord Byron in Luxembourg at least once a year? --Mn-z 03:26, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Against. Luxembourg peaches are terrible. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:12, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

And isn't VFS used for Vote for Sandwiches when not in use for ops???

Yeah, what that says. Sandwiches, what about the sandwiches? Aleister 21:41 14 8

Are you suggesting we op them too? --Black Flamingo 21:47, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

 For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:54, 14 August 2010

We have a place to vote for favourite sandwiches?!

Dear god, I discover this just now and you want to rip that away from me? —SOD OFF WHORE Mr. Antonio Yettie (talk) [22:17 14 August 2010]

It has a long history too. Just put vfs into the search box, and you are in a land of mustard and white bread. Aleister 20:19 14 8

Oh dear god...bliss! —SOD OFF WHORE Mr. Antonio Yettie (talk) [22:22 14 August 2010]

You do know that when a regular user creates a "vote for this page", the vote is non-binding?

Just saying. --Mn-z 23:43, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Let's Vote!

Score: +1

For

1.  Definitely. VFS is useless given that we won't be opping anyone anytime soon. A "Votes for Stuff" page would decrease clutter in the dump greatly. Plus, if we had a set of rules with regards to vote regulations (I.E. something stays on for five days; if it has a score of +10, it is enacted), it could give suggestions some actual authority rather than just having them be meaningless forum posts that usually don't get anything done. We can put "new ops" under a new header every month; if the sysops wish, only admins could will allowed to vote on it. But the bottom line is this is one great idea. Plus, it'll give me something new to poopsmith. Let's do it! Saberwolf116 03:14, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
2.  For. I believe we need to draw distinct lines in the sand; fuzzy, non-specific interpretations of the word consensus inevitably tend to mean "it's alright if it supports my views" - the very idea that a majority of voters on a contentious issue doesn't classify as consensus sounds like patent nonsense to me, only made even more ironic by the fact that despite such views, ad-hoc polls continue to be held on the Village Dump and a number of the people I'm talking about continue to vote in them. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 05:05, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
3. Yeah. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:03, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Against

1.  Against. I prefer "consensus" over democracy. --Mn-z 03:21, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
2.  Against. Consensus. And sandwiches. Aleister 2:31 15 8
3. Against. When you listen to fools, the mob rules. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:13, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well done, you just missed the point completely

The purpose of what I am proposing is NOT to propose we settle matters on the basis of consensus, democracy or whatever the hell your bag is.

What I am proposing is a place where we can hold votes efficiently and keep a nice archive of them; the requirements for any particular vote to fail or pass can be tailored to each specific situation and displayed on the vote.

Also, here's a nice little example of hobson's choice for you: say we held a vote on whether to use democracy (majority) vs consensus (which I interpret as meaning no contention of any given issue although as I said above, the meaning is so fuzzy it's practically meaningless) - if there is a narrow majority, or in other words, contention: it wouldn't matter if the narrow majority was in favour of consensus or democracy because either way, those in favour of consensus will either be complaining that they've been disregarded or they'll be completely gazumped because they'll have violated their own beliefs if they ignore the dissenters and finalize the decision in favour of consensus, hence, what the hell do you do? you're basically paralyzed and for this precise reason, I consider the very idea of consensus to be nothing more than a recipe for drama on any contentious issue because it makes the minority feel victimised and seeking retribution whilst the majority feel demonised and undermined. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 05:24, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that could only happen if the vote were decided democratically, so the meta-vote isn't a good example. Also, if a very controversial proposal were made which 51% of the community supported and 49% of the community opposed, ruling in favor of the proposal purely on a democratic basis would piss off a lot of editors. You might be stating that an approach that must end in consensus is bad; I say the same thing about an approach that relies purely on majority rule, as those with good reasons to vote against will find that those reasons don't matter, no matter how good they are. And no, whether or not a reason is good isn't as subjective as you made it out to be: Ultimately, something is good if it's good for the wiki, and likewise bad. --Andorin Kato 05:41, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about pissing people off, but I would put it to you that there's really no excuse for getting pissed off; if you have a democratic system then what the majority says is what goes, there's no blurring of the lines, everybody knows exactly what to expect and what the playing field is - editors choosing to get pissed off by close-run results is on par with a temper tantrum and frankly, I don't think that sort of behaviour should be tolerated. I also don't see how consensus solves the problem at all, on the contrary, it has a far wider scope to make things worse. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 05:56, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Would the majority-rule system extend to VFH? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 06:08, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

One, what you said assumes, once again, that a purely democratic system is in place- which isn't self-evident as that's exactly what I'm calling into question, whether there should be a purely democratic system in the first place. Two, do you mean to say that if a proposal were debated so hotly that it almost perfectly split the community was passed simply on a narrow majority basis, you don't think the dissenters, who were essentially defeated on a technicality, ought to be upset about it? The community needs to decide important issues as a whole, rather than favor always going towards whoever simply has the greater number of supporters. One more thing: A purely democratic system can be tainted with voter bias, as it does not require accountability for votes (you can, under current policy, vote against something and not have to explain why, something I dislike), whereas with consensus, you have to give honest reasons for your position and back them up as necessary. --Andorin Kato 06:09, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Discussing and talking about things is all well and good, but the bottom line is that it never gets anything done. Democracy may leave people pissed off, but we can't stay deadlocked in a forum like a bunch of useless politicians while a pressing issue is facing the site. Saberwolf116 06:15, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

If a debate is constantly ongoing without resolution, there is no consensus and the status quo is to not approve the policy. --Andorin Kato 06:23, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

And if we take your extreme example of a 51/49 split, and it is indeed a pretty extreme example, on what basis is it considered reasonable to leave things as they are in favour of the marginal minority? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 06:46, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you see the situation in a democratic sense as "ruling in favor of the minority" whereas I see it in a consensus-based sense as "split community, therefore no decision." We may just need to agree to disagree since we don't need any more drama nowadays and this forum isn't even about what we're discussing. --Andorin Kato 06:52, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well it's a contentious issue in and of itself, and there's no such thing as no decision, maintaining the status quo against the wishes of a majority, no matter how narrow is still a decision -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 07:01, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Not changing the system isn't a bad thing. --Mn-z 12:33, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Not changing the system is also a bad thing -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 17:35, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think both Oli and Andorin are right in their own way. There are lots of situations where practicality dictates we must do something. In those situations, failure to reach "consensus" can't be allowed to prevent us from reaching a decision; a majority vote would need to be taken. I do think that in general we should try and reach consensus where possible, because I think that leads to better decisions. A formalised voting procedure could help to establish consensus, provided the criteria were set up right. Consensus doesn't mean everyone has to agree, there may be dissenters, and that's fine; what's important is what the community in general (i.e. the large majority) want to do. -- incredible Ape (suffocate) (Riot Porn) 07:14, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that we should determine the voting necessities on a case-by-case basis rather than blindly sticking to a single type of decision making. I'm right with you there -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 16:11, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Why is is I never get a sandwich

... whether or not I vote anywhere, anytime? The best I ever got was a cookie. Cookies are for desert. I NEED a meal. The two bits I'm paid each week just isn't cutting it anymore; I've had to BEG ON THE STREET and only make it due to my superior writing abilities I've gleaned here (I make the bestest cardboard signs ever!). I'll settle for noodles but a sandwich would be goodest. I'm just sayin'. That is all.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  15 Aug 2010 ~ 05:53 (UTC)

You lost me at "desert". Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:16, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Cookies are for when you traverse large tracts of barren wasteland.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  15 Aug 2010 ~ 08:19 (UTC)

 Nom and For I too, would like to have my sandwich. Damn the red tape preventing me from tasting my hard earned BUTT POOP!!! sandwich! --—John Lydon 05:14, August 17, 2010 (UTC)