By By what margin should we decide rule changes

[Hentenza]

Hi Everyone,

There has been question as to what margin should be used to pass or defeat rule changes.
I am starting this poll to determine that margin. Again, this poll is only designed for that purpose. This poll will be public, only current members can vote, and it will be open for 7 days. I made this one shorter than my previous one so that we can use the results of this poll to evaluate the results of the membership requirement poll.

Please everyone vote. I believe that in this climate of uncertainty we should finalize our rules to avoid frustration and useless debate.

Please let God guide your vote.

The choices are:

70%- As per the site wide rules for electing moderators.
66%- Two thirds majority
50%+1%- Simple majority.

[HypnoToad]

"50%+1%"??

You couldn't just say "51%"? ;)

[Hentenza]

"50%+1%"??

You couldn't just say "51%"? ;)

^_^

[Tangeloper]

Hi Everyone,

There has been question as to what margin should be used to pass or defeat rule changes.
I am starting this poll to determine that margin. Again, this poll is only designed for that purpose. This poll will be public, only current members can vote, and it will be open for 7 days. I made this one shorter than my previous one so that we can use the results of this poll to evaluate the results of the membership requirement poll.

Please everyone vote. I believe that in this climate of uncertainty we should finalize our rules to avoid frustration and useless debate.

Please let God guide your vote.

The choices are:

70%- As per the site wide rules for electing moderators.
66%- Two thirds majority
50%+1%- Simple majority.
I voted for the simple majority option. The 'simpler' the better so we can just get back to discussing issues and not the rules! LOL

[MrJim]

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: it will never end, will it?

More Poles
Less Polls

[Hentenza]

I voted for the simple majority option. The 'simpler' the better so we can just get back to discussing issues and not the rules! LOL

Yeah!!! I own my own business because I got sick and tired of managing people. :D:thumbsup:
But I guess if all of you just put up with it for a little longer, we can make CC comfortable for everyone and go back to discussing what's important.:clap::clap::wave:

[Hentenza]

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: it will never end, will it?

More Poles
Less Polls

When are rules are finalize, I vote for whoever starts another poll be shot. :thumbsup:
I'm from Texas. I'll bring the gun.^_^^_^^_^

[CyberPaladin]

If your getting less than 2/3 support than the issue should be revisted especialy dealing with rules all a simple majority is going to do is cause alot more bitterness. Rather than getting large points of contention worked out so that most of our members agree.

[MrJim]

Maybe there ought to be a poll :doh: on the nature of voting~regardless of how many/what % of membership voted during the poll the results stand.

And getting a quorum for a vote around here is probably impossible.

[Tangeloper]

Maybe there ought to be a poll :doh: on the nature of voting~regardless of how many/what % of membership voted during the poll the results stand.

And getting a quorum for a vote around here is probably impossible.
I agree -- a quorum (2/3 of all members voting) would be absolutely impossible to enforce! Many people pop in and out depending upon life circumstances. It doesn't mean that they can't be members. A quorum vote could really only be applied if we had a Board of Directors, or Legislature that was voting on the rules, not the general membership of an internet forum. This isn't a business or a government! (o;

[Tangeloper]

When are rules are finalize, I vote for whoever starts another poll be shot. :thumbsup:
I'm from Texas. I'll bring the gun.^_^^_^^_^
ROFL! I'm getting a real headache trying to keep straight what has and hasn't been decided and what poll is for what and how they all interact at this point. I haven't even gone to the WIKI threads because it's kind of hard to come into the middle of a discussion and figure out what everyone is talking about! LOL

[Hentenza]

Maybe there ought to be a poll :doh: on the nature of voting~regardless of how many/what % of membership voted during the poll the results stand.

And getting a quorum for a vote around here is probably impossible.

Look, we are members of this forum. Those of us that come here weekly have the opportunity to vote. It will be impossible to get a quorum unless we e-mail people and that will not even guarantee a larger voting base.
I say we run polls for a minimum of 7 days to give everyone a chance to vote and whatever the outcome it just is. There is absolutely no way to please everyone here but some common sense should apply.

And, no, I am not opening a poll to define common sense.:doh:^_^^_^^_^:P

[Hentenza]

ROFL! I'm getting a real headache trying to keep straight what has and hasn't been decided and what poll is for what and how they all interact at this point. I haven't even gone to the WIKI threads because it's kind of hard to come into the middle of a discussion and figure out what everyone is talking about! LOL

LOL! I agree. If this uncertainty continues I am going to have to get prozac for my developing insanity.:P^_^^_^^_^^_^

[Debi1967]

I say the 51% should be across the board because sometimes you are going to get some people that agree and some that disagree with even mods being brought in and we have a need for molre mods in this area.

It is hard to get 70% of th vote because people take into consideration more than if you are capable of doing th specific job or not they let their own biases towards people come into play.

So not only for rules but for mod elections we should make it 51 %

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

51%...:thumbsup:

[Lisa0315]

I voted 2/3 majority. It doesn't have to be 2/3 of total members, but 2/3 of those who choose to vote in a certain time frame.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

When are rules are finalize, I vote for whoever starts another poll be shot. :thumbsup:
I'm from Texas. I'll bring the gun.^_^^_^^_^
We'd first need a poll to decide IF shooting will be the method of execution.

Then probably another poll deciding on what type of firearm.

Then probably another poll on type of ammunition.

Probably need a poll if we are accepting any "last statement/request" from the condemned.

Need a poll on whether execution will be public or not.

Probably need a poll as to whether execution-related polls are to be by simple, two-thirds, or other type of majority.

Definitely need a poll as to how this will be worded in the Wiki.

Probably need a poll to elect a poll-master, since we are obviously going to need a lot of polls, so someone should supervise. (And, of course, a corresponding poll on how that is worded for the Wiki.)

I probably overlooked a few polls, we'll add them later.

[HypnoToad]

If your getting less than 2/3 support than the issue should be revisted especialy dealing with rules all a simple majority is going to do is cause alot more bitterness. Rather than getting large points of contention worked out so that most of our members agree.
If we end up going the 66% route, one thing we can do there is, if there's more than two poll options, then drop the least popular option and revote to see if one gets 66% then.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

We'd first need a poll to decide IF shooting will be the method of execution.

Then probably another poll deciding on what type of firearm.

Then probably another poll on type of ammunition.

Probably need a poll if we are accepting any "last statement/request" from the condemned.

Need a poll on whether execution will be public or not.

Probably need a poll as to whether execution-related polls are to be by simple, two-thirds, or other type of majority.

Definitely need a poll as to how this will be worded in the Wiki.

Probably need a poll to elect a poll-master, since we are obviously going to need a lot of polls, so someone should supervise. (And, of course, a corresponding poll on how that is worded for the Wiki.)

I probably overlooked a few polls, we'll add them later.
:doh: ^_^

[Hentenza]

Bump

[nyj]

I voted for the simple majority option. The 'simpler' the better so we can just get back to discussing issues and not the rules! LOLThat could ostracize almost a majority (49% of the forum) on any single issue. We SHOULD NOT go this route. I'd vote for either 66% or 70% to help keep from fragmenting the forum on an issue.

[Debi1967]

That could ostracize almost a majority (49% of the forum) on any single issue. We SHOULD NOT go this route. I'd vote for either 66% or 70% to help keep from fragmenting the forum on an issue.
Anyway you do it you are going to fragment part of the forum, whether it be 49 % or it be 33% or it be 30% someone is going to feel that they have been cheated out of how they feel on the situation.

You are always the one about talking of keeping things simple this keeps them really simple and many organizations work on the 51% majority principle.

[Hentenza]

That could ostracize almost a majority (49% of the forum) on any single issue. We SHOULD NOT go this route. I'd vote for either 66% or 70% to help keep from fragmenting the forum on an issue.

I agree. I think a simple majority could polarize the fora. It seems that a 2/3 majority would show more unity.

[Lisa0315]

Well, right now, we have a tie between 51% and 2/3. What percentage majority do we need to have a consensus on these? ^_^ Should I start another poll?:D

Lisa

[nyj]

Anyway you do it you are going to fragment part of the forum, whether it be 49 % or it be 33% or it be 30% someone is going to feel that they have been cheated out of how they feel on the situation.The two latter options force both sides to come together and work out a compromise, or better yet, collaborate (read Stephen Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People). It works especially well because even if the vote is 59% to 41%, it's a no-go and people have to go back to the table and revisit the situation.

If you go by a simple majority, you have one vote and then something is added or changed. Even if almost half of the forum HATES IT. Something which can turn out to be much more reasonable, when looked through the eyes of collaboration and approved by all, doesn't get brought to the table and the entire forum suffers.

You are always the one about talking of keeping things simple this keeps them really simple and many organizations work on the 51% majority principle.Wrong. A simple majority means that every time there is a vote, there is a new rule or a change. That is a guarantee and it HARDLY keeps things simple.

[Hentenza]

Well, right now, we have a tie between 51% and 2/3. What percentage majority do we need to have a consensus on these? ^_^ Should I start another poll?:D

Lisa

No kidding^_^^_^ If we can't even decide on a margin percentage, then the only option left is:

http://sp1.mm-a2.yimg.com/image/2364897559

Come on guys, lets show some unity here. :groupray:

This is OUR forum and is up to us to make it what we want. :clap::clap::amen:

We need ALL the members to vote!!!!:thumbsup:

[nyj]

Well, right now, we have a tie between 51% and 2/3. What percentage majority do we need to have a consensus on these? ^_^ Should I start another poll?:D

LisaYou're kidding about another poll, right?

This very poll is going to be used to determine consensus for us. What comes first, the chicken or the egg? I'd say we have a fair standard right now in how consensus is determined in the moderator voting guidelines.

[HypnoToad]

That could ostracize almost a majority (49% of the forum) on any single issue. We SHOULD NOT go this route. I'd vote for either 66% or 70% to help keep from fragmenting the forum on an issue.
"Almost a majority" - yeah, that's called a "minority".

The problem with 66% or more, is that you can set up a system where the minority gets their way all the time. So now you just ostracize even more people, the majority of people.

[HypnoToad]

The two latter options force both sides to come together and work out a compromise,
Or you just keep talking over and over and nothing gets done.

If you go by a simple majority, you have one vote and then something is added or changed. Even if almost half of the forum HATES IT.
But if 60% want something, it won't get done, and now you have far more than half who'll hate it.

Wrong. A simple majority means that every time there is a vote, there is a new rule or a change. That is a guarantee and it HARDLY keeps things simple.
No, because one of the options can always be for "not changing". So, a poll will certainly not always bring a change.

[FriendsFellowship]

It will be interesting if this option two (66%) wins, but wins by a margin that is less than 66%! :D

What would we do then?

If option 2 wins, but doesn't reach 66% then the results shouldn't be valid, according to the poll's own result! :scratch:

Sort of a catch 22!

[Tangeloper]

It will be interesting if this option two (66%) wins, but wins by a margin that is less than 66%! :D

What would we do then?

If option 2 wins, but doesn't reach 66% then the results shouldn't be valid, according to the poll's own result! :scratch:

Sort of a catch 22!
:doh: ^_^

Seriously folks, I don't understand how we could ever hope to enforce a QUORUM on an online forum! Too many coming and going without notifying in some cases, as well! (Especially due to the changes recently).

Maybe I'm just tired and not understanding this well tonight... Are we talking about a Quorum -- or just one option reaching 66%? The more I think about this the more I'm convinced you all mean 66% and nothing about a quorum!!! OK, I'm not voting in any more polls tonight! LOL

Anyway, your points are very valid, even if they are quite hysterical, IMHO, FriendsFellowship.

[nyj]

"Almost a majority" - yeah, that's called a "minority".Ok. Mr. Smartypants.

If a 100 people vote, and it's 51 to 49%, that's only a difference of 2 people, which translates into one swing vote. Calling those 49 a "minority" make be technically true, but it's a far cry from a consensus, which is what we're striving for here.

The problem with 66% or more, is that you can set up a system where the minority gets their way all the time. So now you just ostracize even more people, the majority of people.So you must really hate how the United States considers and adds Amendments to the Constitution, eh?

[nyj]

:doh: ^_^
Are we talking about a Quorum -- or just one option reaching 66%? The more I think about this the more I'm convinced you all mean 66% and nothing about a quorum!!!
Not knowing how many "active members" we have at any particular time, we'll never be able to establish a quorum. However, I do think we should consider at some point, having a minimum number of votes (in addition to the threshold) to make a change to the WIKI.

Though, why we can't just discuss this in the WIKI without all these polls is beyond me.

Changing the WIKI shouldn't be an "easy" process. It's the rules which bind and protect our forum. If they're too easy to change, someone could theoretically come in and muck the entire forum up.

[HypnoToad]

Ok. Mr. Smartypants.

If a 100 people vote, and it's 51 to 49%, that's only a difference of 2 people, which translates into one swing vote. Calling those 49 a "minority" make be technically true, but it's a far cry from a consensus, which is what we're striving for here.
Still doesn't address a lot of what I brought up.

With a 66% system, you can have the minority getting their way all the time. Is that MORE fair than simply not getting "consensus"?

If 60% wants something, too bad, the 40% gets their way. Come on now, is that really MORE fair than 51% getting their way?

So you must really hate how the United States considers and adds Amendments to the Constitution, eh?
Do you really think running the CC forum is comparable to running AN ENTIRE COUNTRY???

[Hentenza]

Still doesn't address a lot of what I brought up.

With a 66% system, you can have the minority getting their way all the time. Is that MORE fair than simply not getting "consensus"?

If 60% wants something, too bad, the 40% gets their way. Come on now, is that really MORE fair than 51% getting their way?


Do you really think running the CC forum is comparable to running AN ENTIRE COUNTRY???

XianJedi, I am confused by your post. How does the minority get their way if 66% is needed to enact a new rule? How does the 34% get their way?:scratch:
I would think that having a 66% margin to win would be more indicative of unity versus having 51% which would leave 49% out. That is hardly unity.
I guess you are going to have to explain your reasoning cause you lost me.:wave:

[HypnoToad]

XianJedi, I am confused by your post. How does the minority get their way if 66% is needed to enact a new rule? How does the 34% get their way?:scratch:
It may somewhat depend on the options, but if only 60%, or even as much as 65% want the new rule, the 35% who didn't want the rule get their result - no new rule, since it didn't get 66%.

Suppose an existing rule needs to be changed. If 65% vote to change it, too bad, the rule stays as is for the 35%.

I would think that having a 66% margin to win would be more indicative of unity versus having 51% which would leave 49% out. That is hardly unity.
I guess you are going to have to explain your reasoning cause you lost me.:wave:It MIGHT show unity, sure, but you also set up a system where the majority can get screwed quite a bit. You'll have your unity then - most members united in being ticked off.

[Hentenza]

It may somewhat depend on the options, but if only 60%, or even as much as 65% want the new rule, the 35% who didn't want the rule get their result - no new rule, since it didn't get 66%.

Suppose an existing rule needs to be changed. If 65% vote to change it, too bad, the rule stays as is for the 35%.

It MIGHT show unity, sure, but you also set up a system where the majority can get screwed quite a bit. You'll have your unity then - most members united in being ticked off.

XianJedi, that can happen with any margin. Is like voting for moderator, if the poll closes at 69.99% the moderator is not elected. Heck, we have one right now in theology that ended at 69.64%.
Like with any voting, the results will be determined by who votes which is why most of the members should vote. People are going to have to accept the results with a Christian attitude.
I can tell you this. I was a senior manager for a large corporation and there is absolutely no way to please everyone. All we can do is make the system just and democratic.

[Tangeloper]

It may somewhat depend on the options, but if only 60%, or even as much as 65% want the new rule, the 35% who didn't want the rule get their result - no new rule, since it didn't get 66%.

Suppose an existing rule needs to be changed. If 65% vote to change it, too bad, the rule stays as is for the 35%.

It MIGHT show unity, sure, but you also set up a system where the majority can get screwed quite a bit. You'll have your unity then - most members united in being ticked off.
Good points. This is why I voted 50+1... Nice and simple like our electoral system. If it's good enough to elect a President and Congressmen, and governors, and mayors, then it should be good enough for an online forum.

[Lisa0315]

XianJedi, that can happen with any margin. Is like voting for moderator, if the poll closes at 69.99% the moderator is not elected. Heck, we have one right now in theology that ended at 69.64%.
Like with any voting, the results will be determined by who votes which is why most of the members should vote. People are going to have to accept the results with a Christian attitude.
I can tell you this. I was a senior manager for a large corporation and there is absolutely no way to please everyone. All we can do is make the system just and democratic.

I think I should start a poll to see if we should round up poll percentages.;) j/k

Lisa

[nyj]

With a 66% system, you can have the minority getting their way all the time. Is that MORE fair than simply not getting "consensus"?

If 60% wants something, too bad, the 40% gets their way. Come on now, is that really MORE fair than 51% getting their way?Who says the 40% all have the same opinion? We know the 60% agree, it's just a matter of discussing the issue a little bit more to convince some of the 40% to come over once their concerns have been addressed.

Yes, you won't be able to please everyone, but the point of the 70% (or 2/3rds criteria) is to avoid a massive polarization which can happen when the groups are split essentially in half.

Do you really think running the CC forum is comparable to running AN ENTIRE COUNTRY???No, but one can obviously see the wisdom behind the formulations used, and then apply that to situations where it might be applicable.

[Letalis]

I've been working on 70% consensus. Anything less, and people are going to kick and scream.

Anyway, by what margin should we determine that this poll is binding?

[HypnoToad]

XianJedi, that can happen with any margin. Is like voting for moderator, if the poll closes at 69.99% the moderator is not elected. Heck, we have one right now in theology that ended at 69.64%.
But which is MORE fair? Having something that 49% want and gets rejected -OR- having something that 65% want and gets rejected?

And don't try to disguise it as "we can't please everyone". That's fine when a few people don't get what they want. But your system allows for a large majority to not get what they want. How that can be seen as more fair just baffles me.

[Lisa0315]

I've been working on 70% consensus. Anything less, and people are going to kick and scream.

Anyway, by what margin should we determine that this poll is binding?

:D I was wondering that myself!

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

Who says the 40% all have the same opinion? We know the 60% agree, it's just a matter of discussing the issue a little bit more to convince some of the 40% to come over once their concerns have been addressed.
They don't have to have the same opinion - as long as it's not the 60% opinion, same result.

I also see no guarantee of any kind that it simply takes "a little discussing". Case in point - you will NEVER change my mind on this issue. Discuss all you want, aint gonna happen.

Yes, you won't be able to please everyone, but the point of the 70% (or 2/3rds criteria) is to avoid a massive polarization which can happen when the groups are split essentially in half.
And you think having 60% get screwed over will make them happier??

[HypnoToad]

Anyway, by what margin should we determine that this poll is binding?
If the 66% (or higher) club wants to not be hypocritical, then if they don't get that percent in this vote, simple majority should be the accepted system.

[nyj]

They don't have to have the same opinion - as long as it's not the 60% opinion, same result.No, not really. I'd recommend Stephen Covey's 7 Habits of High Effective People. Especially is his chapter on "synergy".

People tend to listen to themselves, and not others. This is where 51% v. 49% splits occur, often. The losing party feels betrayed and ignored. Not the type of environment which will foster effective communication and friendships.

Raising the bar will more than likely result in having to go back to the table and rediscuss the issue. If people go to that table looking to collaborate, rather than force their POV on everyone else ... a discussion even more productive and better than the first round, will result. This will result in a better idea and better improvement in the WIKI.

You won't be able to sway everyone necessarily, but at least they've been given another shot at having a say and have their concerns heard and addressed in some fashion.

I also see no guarantee of any kind that it simply takes "a little discussing". Case in point - you will NEVER change my mind on this issue. Discuss all you want, aint gonna happen.Figures.

And you think having 60% get screwed over will make them happier??I think it's the duty of the majority to ensure the minority that their concerns are addressed adequately, which will probably entail lots of discussion and voting.

Which is the point ... these rules should hopefully remain STATIC. If you put in a simple majority rules, they'll be changing all the time. We DON'T WANT OR NEED that happening. The harder it is to gain consensus, the harder it will be to change the rules, the more stable this forum will be.

When big issues hit, I imagine we'll reach a consensus PDQ.

[Hentenza]

They don't have to have the same opinion - as long as it's not the 60% opinion, same result.

I also see no guarantee of any kind that it simply takes "a little discussing". Case in point - you will NEVER change my mind on this issue. Discuss all you want, aint gonna happen.


And you think having 60% get screwed over will make them happier??

The democratic process is designed so that the majority opinion wins and the minority opinion looses. There is no way around that.
You know the funny thing is that only a handful of members are actually voting and discussing which means that the majority of the members don't particularly care. I don't blame them because we can't even agree on how to vote. Pitiful.:(

[HypnoToad]

Which is the point ... these rules should hopefully remain STATIC. If you put in a simple majority rules, they'll be changing all the time.
FALSE.

We're already working on the binding issue which will keep rules from changing "all the time".

[Letalis]

If the 66% (or higher) club wants to not be hypocritical, then if they don't get that percent in this vote, simple majority should be the accepted system.
So you're saying that 66% (or higher) voters need that much of a consensus, but the voters in favor of a simple majority only needs 51%?

If voters in favor of a simple majority don't want to be hypocritical, they should accept that if 66% (or higher) voters get a simple majority, then their votes will be binding.

Is that fair?

There should be a 70% consensus to make this poll binding. That way no one can claim the results are invalid or non-binding.

[nyj]

The democratic process is designed so that the majority opinion wins and the minority opinion looses. There is no way around that.
You know the funny thing is that only a handful of members are actually voting and discussing which means that the majority of the members don't particularly care. I don't blame them because we can't even agree on how to vote. Pitiful.:(The funny thing is, XianJedi is wrong when he says "If it's good enough for the election of US presidents, it should be good enough for us."

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic, and it's set up the way it is specifically to ensure against the "tyranny of the majority". The closest I think we can come to approximating a fairness seen in the wisdom of the US Constitution, is to set the bar above a "simple 51% and that's that" sort of scenario.

[HypnoToad]

So you're saying that 66% (or higher) voters need that much of a consensus, but the voters in favor of a simple majority only needs 51%?

If voters in favor of a simple majority don't want to be hypocritical, they should accept that if 66% (or higher) voters get a simple majority, then their votes will be binding.

Is that fair?

There should be a 70% consensus to make this poll binding. That way no one can claim the results are invalid or non-binding.
I'm saying that simple majority should be the default, as it makes the most sense for a "default" position.

So, if the 66%'ers actually believe in what they claim, but don't get that percent here, then the default kicks in - because we have to still be able to do things if you don't get your result in this particular poll.

[nyj]

FALSE.

We're already working on the binding issue which will keep rules from changing "all the time".Being able to change a rule once every six months? I don't consider that a "long term" solution. Having people happy with a rule so it doesn't come up for a revote every 6 months (because we worked out a consensus through reasoned discussions) ... IS a long term solution.

[HypnoToad]

The funny thing is, XianJedi is wrong when he says "If it's good enough for the election of US presidents, it should be good enough for us."
Funny thing is, I never said that.

[Letalis]

The default should be the most stringent standards possible, and according to this poll, that's 70% consensus.

[HypnoToad]

Being able to change a rule once every six months? I don't consider that a "long term" solution. Having people happy with a rule so it doesn't come up for a revote every 6 months (because we worked out a consensus through reasoned discussions) ... IS a long term solution.
I never said it was "long term", but having several months in between is hardly "all the time" as you claim.

[nyj]

Ah, it was Tangeloper. Well, Tangeloper is wrong ... and it's directly related to your 51% stance. 51% leads to mob rule. I'd like to think we would want to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Anyone can raise a mob to swing a close vote. It's much more difficult to do that when the standards are set higher.

[Lisa0315]

The problem with trying to make this like the US government is that we do not have the safeguards in place that the government does.

It is not a popular vote that elects a president, but an electoral college. As we have seen in recent history, the electoral college may or may not follow the popular vote.

Then, we have separate branches of the government that act as oversight protection so that no one body has immoral power.

Finally, we have a Constitution in which all laws are held against and in which minority rights are protected.

Much, much more than these, but it is not a simply majority regardless of the spread.

So, my suggestion is to create a Constitution first, i.e., a wiki in which the process of rule making is written down. One step at a time...I have started this wiki already, but not alot of participation yet...

http://foru.ms/t5960351-wiki-new-rule-protocol-ccc-members-only.html#post37974095

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

The default should be the most stringent standards possible, and according to this poll, that's 70% consensus.
Oh that's just bull.

You think things should be voted in by 70%, but then want it automatically even when only 13% voted for it??

[HypnoToad]

Ah, it was Tangeloper. Well, Tangeloper is wrong ... and it's directly related to your 51% stance. 51% leads to mob rule. I'd like to think we would want to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Anyone can raise a mob to swing a close vote. It's much more difficult to do that when the standards are set higher.
Your position is just a bigger mob.

[nyj]

Your position is just a bigger mob.
It's called bipartisanship.

We cannot ensure that everyone (100%) will be happy, but we should strive to have as much of the forum happy as possible. If we only have to shoot for the lowest common denominator, it may ensure that things get done ... but it won't mean they'll get done right.

[Letalis]

Oh that's just bull.

You think things should be voted in by 70%, but then want it automatically even when only 13% voted for it??
No, what I'm saying is, this poll can't be binding if we can't agree on a standard by which to judge the results. 70% is the most stringent standard that this poll allows for. That way, for example, if the "simple majority" option wins a 70% consensus, everyone can agree that the results of the poll are binding. However, if the "simple majority" option wins only by 53%, those that voted for a higher consensus could argue that since not everyone agreed to using a simple majority consensus to determine the results, they're non-binding.

Sorry if that's confusing.

[nyj]

Plus, the 70% criteria has precedent. It's already used on the site, so adopting it and going from there seems reasonable.

[HypnoToad]

It's called bipartisanship.

We cannot ensure that everyone (100%) will be happy, but we should strive to have as much of the forum happy as possible.
Giving 35% the result they want does not accomplish that.

[HypnoToad]

No, what I'm saying is, this poll can't be binding if we can't agree on a standard by which to judge the results.
But there IS a standard that everyone agrees to - a majority. They just disagree as to how big. By going with 66% or 70%, you'll end up giving the minority what they want on everything that doesn't reach your "consensus". And minority rule should not be the standard.

[Hentenza]

Plus, the 70% criteria has precedent. It's already used on the site, so adopting it and going from there seems reasonable.
Yes, I agree.

[HypnoToad]

If the current trend in the binding poll continues, then a rule is only binding for 3 months. So if we go simple majority, and you don't like that 49% might not get their way, well in just three months there can be a re-vote, and they could just as easily get their opportunity then. And we also get three months to evaluate how a rule actually works, which may easily lead to the re-vote being a consensus.

Another thing which hasn't been considered - we can go the simple majority route, but anytime there is a consensus, we extend the binding time. If there's a consensus, keep the rule for at least six monts, or 9, or a year. That way, consensus still counts for something.

[nyj]

51% - 3 months
66% - 6 months
75% - 12 months

[Lisa0315]

51% - 3 months
66% - 6 months
75% - 12 months

I like that!!!! :thumbsup: That has got to be the most fair of all!

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

51% - 3 months
66% - 6 months
75% - 12 months
:idea: Hmmm...that actually makes sense. :thumbsup:

[Hentenza]

Bump

[HypnoToad]

Let's all remember the important thing - if you like it, remember it was my idea.

[nyj]

You can take all the credit in the world you want. That and $8 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

[GreenMunchkin]

Actually, not to throw a spanner in the works, but for normal votey things, I reckon it should be 50+1 :D :hug:

But with mod votes, I think the margin needs to be much higher, because we can't have a mod who split the forum in half. They're here to *keep* the peace, no more no less. So if their very application vote is split so closely, if as many people don't want them as do, it'll cause tension. I think that should maybe even be about 80% :scratch: If that's workable.

[Lisa0315]

Actually, not to throw a spanner in the works, but for normal votey things, I reckon it should be 50+1 :D :hug:

But with mod votes, I think the margin needs to be much higher, because we can't have a mod who split the forum in half. They're here to *keep* the peace, no more no less. So if their very application vote is split so closely, if as many people don't want them as do, it'll cause tension. I think that should maybe even be about 80% :scratch: If that's workable.

It is set at 70% sitewide as far as I know. I think 80% is too high.

I also fear 50+1 as the one and only rule. I really like the NYJ's idea of:

50+1 Rule is locked for 3 months
2/3 Rule is locked for 6 months
75% Rule is locked for 1 year

This means that all polls will be binding as long as we have a 51% margin, but the results of the polls will determine how long before the rule can be changed. It gives the rule time to be tested.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

It is set at 70% sitewide as far as I know. I think 80% is too high.Except if we're re-writing our membership rules, we still need to safeguard mod apps. It's by far and away one of the most important votingy things.

I also fear 50+1 as the one and only rule. I really like the NYJ's idea of:

50+1 Rule is locked for 3 months
2/3 Rule is locked for 6 months
75% Rule is locked for 1 yearOoooh, didn't see that! Gosh, I like that very much :D Cheers for showing it to me :)

[Lisa0315]

Except if we're re-writing our membership rules, we still need to safeguard mod apps. It's by far and away one of the most important votingy things.

Ooooh, didn't see that! Gosh, I like that very much :D Cheers for showing it to me :)

Well, I would personally wait until January to implement that. The reason is that every single mod is going to be up for election, and we may want to wait to see if Erwin or Admins give directives on this.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Well, I would personally wait until January to implement that. The reason is that every single mod is going to be up for election, and we may want to wait to see if Erwin or Admins give directives on this.

LisaSite-wide directives wouldn't impact upon forum-specific rules.

[Lisa0315]

Site-wide directives wouldn't impact upon forum-specific rules.

I don't know Greenie. I did get above 80%, but I don't thing Newguy101 did. If the polls were exactly the same, then, Newguy101 would be out.

I think 70% is the right way to go.

Lisa

[Debi1967]

70% is enough of a forum consensus to elect mods around here ..... next everyone will be looking for 100% consensus and then nobody will be able to mod this area.

[HypnoToad]

There's a vote for 70% from someone not listed in the membership.

[Lisa0315]

There's a vote for 70% from someone not listed in the membership.

At the end of the poll, I, or another mod will review and make sure that all the names are on the membership list.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

Well, I checked a bit more, and she's a member of the Liberal forum, she calls herself "liberal" in her profile. So, it kinda seems like she's deliberately messing with the poll.

[Lisa0315]

Well, I checked a bit more, and she's a member of the Liberal forum, she calls herself "liberal" in her profile. So, it kinda seems like she's deliberately messing with the poll.

PM me the name, and I will take care of it.

Lisa

[nyj]

IMO there's no need to take care of anything until the poll is closed. Then, it can be modified and the moderator who edits the poll can make a final post as to which votes were excluded. Makes it easier that way IMO.

[nyj]

PS: The irony of this poll is, with all our arguing about 51%, this poll could conceivably have all options below that threshold.

[Lisa0315]

IMO there's no need to take care of anything until the poll is closed. Then, it can be modified and the moderator who edits the poll can make a final post as to which votes were excluded. Makes it easier that way IMO.

Okay, you are right.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

PS: The irony of this poll is, with all our arguing about 51%, this poll could conceivably have all options below that threshold.

Yeah, we probably do need to address that in some way.

Either just take what was more popular. Otherwise we have to eliminate either an option or votes based on some criteria. Like, throw out the least popular option, or eliminate votes based on seniority. If we dump an option, we need to decide if we just recalculate the percentages of the remaining options, or re-vote altogether so those who voted for the thrown-out option still get to vote for another.

[GreenMunchkin]

Does anybody else feel like this is turning into a Monty Python sketch?

[HypnoToad]

Oh, btw, in our Wiki on making new rules, we are possibly going to include that we will attempt to get polls down to two options when possible, which will also help minimize ending up with a "winning" option that has less than 51%.

And, yes, it is kinda messy right now, but it's to be expected when we're just starting up with this new system.

[Lisa0315]

Oh, btw, in our Wiki on making new rules, we are possibly going to include that we will attempt to get polls down to two options when possible, which will also help minimize ending up with a "winning" option that has less than 51%.

And, yes, it is kinda messy right now, but it's to be expected when we're just starting up with this new system.

It would be helpful if more of our members would participate. There are so many good ideas and I am afraid that we may be missing something.

Lisa

[nyj]

If we had polls which had a PRO position and a CON position, then that would be that.

[Lisa0315]

If we had polls which had a PRO position and a CON position, then that would be that.

That is one of the things that about 3 of us are working on in the wiki. It is one of the suggestions. We want a clear question which would be answered, "Yes" or "No". The problem is that I feel uncomfortable with only 3 people participating in the wiki. We really need you guys to come over and have your say about it.

Lisa