Difference between revisions of "Nookipedia talk:Proposals"
From Nookipedia, the Animal Crossing wiki
AlexBot2004 (talk | contribs) (→Adding the ability to veto proposals: new section) |
AlexBot2004 (talk | contribs) (→Adding minimum vote threshold: Closing discussion) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Adding the ability to veto proposals == | == Adding the ability to veto proposals == | ||
| + | {{Archive top|result=Consensus is in support of the proposal. '''~''' [[User:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:#1C662A">'''AlexBot2004'''</span>]] ([[User talk:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:black">Talk</span>]]) 23:10, March 3, 2024 (EST)}} | ||
| + | This was brought up in a [[Nookipedia talk:The Roost#Discussing our proposal system|Roost discussion]] a couple months ago, so I thought I'd expand on it and propose it here. The idea is that a Bureaucrat would be able to veto a proposal that does not follow the rules listed on this page (e.g. not fleshed out, not a binary choice, not a big enough change), is made in bad faith, or has no realistic chance of passing. A vetoed proposal would be removed immediately rather than when the voting period ends, and moved to the [[Nookipedia:Proposals/Archive|Archives]] as a failed proposal (bad-faith proposals would not be added to the Archives). When moving a vetoed proposal to the Archives, the Bureaucrat who vetoed it should leave a comment on the proposal explaining to the proposer why it was vetoed. '''~''' [[User:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:#1C662A">'''AlexBot2004'''</span>]] ([[User talk:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:black">Talk</span>]]) 12:33, November 30, 2023 (EST) | ||
| + | :{{Support}} per my comments in the Roost discussion linked above. In addition to the examples mentioned, I do think that proposals relating to how the staff operate should also be vetoed (but disallowing them would mean creating a new rule, so that's probably more suitable in a separate discussion). [[User:Drago|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:green">Drago</span>]] [[User talk:Drago|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:purple">(talk)</span>]] [[File:Drago PC Villager Icon.png|20px]] 12:51, November 30, 2023 (EST) | ||
| + | :{{Support}} Good idea for filtering proposals. Although, is there going to be a Bureaucrat available for every bad idea?'''''[[User:Briky|Briky]]'''''[[File:Emotion Greetings NH Icon.png|30px]] 03:02, January 6, 2024 (EST) | ||
| + | :{{Support}} Per all. -- [[User:PanchamBro|PanchamBro]] ([[User talk:PanchamBro|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PanchamBro|contributions]]) 07:11, January 6, 2024 (EST) | ||
| + | {{Archive bottom}} | ||
| − | + | == Adding minimum vote threshold == | |
| + | {{Archive top|result=Consensus is in support of adding a 5 vote minimum before a proposal's result can be determined. '''~''' [[User:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:#1C662A">'''AlexBot2004'''</span>]] ([[User talk:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:black">Talk</span>]]) 15:35, March 29, 2024 (EDT)}} | ||
| + | Currently, a proposal will pass if it ends with at least a 2/3 majority (66%) in favor. However, since there is no minimum vote threshold, a proposal could technically pass with only a single vote (1–0). A proposal could also pass 2–1, which I feel is too close to call one way or the other—which others seem to agree with, given that the result of the current proposal (2–1) has yet to be determined, even over 6 months after the voting period ended. | ||
| − | [[ | + | I think a minimum threshold of 5 votes would give a better grasp at what the general consensus is. For reference, every successful proposal so far has already had at least 5 votes. If a proposal's voting period ends without receiving the minimum of 5 votes, it will be extended for seven days. '''~''' [[User:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:#1C662A">'''AlexBot2004'''</span>]] ([[User talk:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:black">Talk</span>]]) 23:30, March 3, 2024 (EST) |
| + | :{{Support}} No issues with this for me! [[User:Drago|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:green">Drago</span>]] [[User talk:Drago|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:purple">(talk)</span>]] [[File:Drago PC Villager Icon.png|20px]] 10:51, March 4, 2024 (EST) | ||
| + | :{{Support}} from me on this one. It would make proposals a lot more fair! ~ [[User:Vivian|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:#6299c1">Vivian</span>]] [[User talk:Vivian|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:#3a5fb1">(talk)</span>]] [[File:Vivian Sig Pic.png|20px|link=Special:Contributions/Vivian]] 12:38, March 4, 2024 (EST) | ||
| + | :{{Support}} per all. -- [[User:PanchamBro|PanchamBro]] ([[User talk:PanchamBro|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PanchamBro|contributions]]) 10:58, March 5, 2024 (EST) | ||
| + | {{Archive bottom}} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:35, March 29, 2024
Adding the ability to veto proposals[edit]
Consensus is in support of the proposal. ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 23:10, March 3, 2024 (EST)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
This was brought up in a Roost discussion a couple months ago, so I thought I'd expand on it and propose it here. The idea is that a Bureaucrat would be able to veto a proposal that does not follow the rules listed on this page (e.g. not fleshed out, not a binary choice, not a big enough change), is made in bad faith, or has no realistic chance of passing. A vetoed proposal would be removed immediately rather than when the voting period ends, and moved to the Archives as a failed proposal (bad-faith proposals would not be added to the Archives). When moving a vetoed proposal to the Archives, the Bureaucrat who vetoed it should leave a comment on the proposal explaining to the proposer why it was vetoed. ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 12:33, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Support per my comments in the Roost discussion linked above. In addition to the examples mentioned, I do think that proposals relating to how the staff operate should also be vetoed (but disallowing them would mean creating a new rule, so that's probably more suitable in a separate discussion). Drago (talk) 
12:51, November 30, 2023 (EST)- Support Good idea for filtering proposals. Although, is there going to be a Bureaucrat available for every bad idea?Briky
03:02, January 6, 2024 (EST) - Support Per all. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 07:11, January 6, 2024 (EST)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Adding minimum vote threshold[edit]
Consensus is in support of adding a 5 vote minimum before a proposal's result can be determined. ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 15:35, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Currently, a proposal will pass if it ends with at least a 2/3 majority (66%) in favor. However, since there is no minimum vote threshold, a proposal could technically pass with only a single vote (1–0). A proposal could also pass 2–1, which I feel is too close to call one way or the other—which others seem to agree with, given that the result of the current proposal (2–1) has yet to be determined, even over 6 months after the voting period ended.
I think a minimum threshold of 5 votes would give a better grasp at what the general consensus is. For reference, every successful proposal so far has already had at least 5 votes. If a proposal's voting period ends without receiving the minimum of 5 votes, it will be extended for seven days. ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 23:30, March 3, 2024 (EST)
- Support No issues with this for me! Drago (talk) 10:51, March 4, 2024 (EST)
- Support from me on this one. It would make proposals a lot more fair! ~ Vivian (talk)
12:38, March 4, 2024 (EST) - Support per all. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 10:58, March 5, 2024 (EST)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
