Wiki: New Rule Protocol. CCC Members Only!

[Lisa0315]

This wiki is to write up a New Rule Protocol. The scope of this wiki will cover the steps needed to create a new rule for the CCC forum.

We need to debate these steps one at a time, so PLEASE, let's write each step one at a time. When we all agree to the wording and order of each step, then, and only then are we will be able to move on to the next step.

Please do not set up polls for this. Let's hammer it out here. The key to wiki success is that members be willing to compromise. Okay?

Please DO discuss the protocol by asking "Who", "Where", "What", "How", and "Why" and answering with these in mind.

Why: The reason we need a protocol is because we have experienced a level of chaos and confusion in CCC regarding open/closed membership among other issues. There have been rule changes while polls were still open for example. The purpose of a new rule protocol is to provide a step by step process by which a new rule is established. It will insure that no step is skipped. Members will have something to reference to insure the integrity of the rule-making process.

Conservative Christian Congregation Rule Changes

CCC Member suggests a new rule and begins a thread to discuss it with other members. This suggestion post will include a proposed poll question and options which will also be discussed by the membership to make it more clear what the membership will be voting for. Discussion should continue for no less than three days and no more than 1 week.
Once discussion in the thread has ended, a poll with the pre-determined question and options will be set up. The poll must be public. All polls must remain open for ten days.
At the end of the poll, it will be examined by a moderator to ensure the integrity of the poll. The moderator will compare the poll voters to the current membership list and exclude any votes made by non-members. The moderator will publish the list of names that were removed, and the choices that were affected. The mod will publish the forumula used to arrive at the final poll results as well.
Simple Majority / Supermajority rule: Rules with a majority of 50%+1 cannot be changed for a period of three months. Rules with a majority of at least 2/3 (66.7%) cannot be changed for a period of six months.
Polls that have two options are preferable. For polls that contain more than two options, unless there is a clear winner (as defined in the Simple Majority / Supermajority rule) the options with the fewest votes will be eliminated, leaving the two most popular options. A new poll with the two winning options will then be opened to determine the final winning option. In the event that a poll ends with ties that do not allow the elimination process to reach the two most popular options, the poll will be invalidated and a new poll started. (Polls that allow you to pick more than one option follow the same rules.)
Once the poll has been validated by a moderator, the mod will open the Stickied Rules Thread to add the rule, then reclose it. The mod will then announce the new rule in a new thread to make sure it does not get lost in the old poll thread.
For any particular issue, only one discussion thread and one poll thread will be open. Additional discussion/poll threads on the same issue will be closed. Once the results of a poll are final, no more polls on the issue are to be opened until the binding time has expiredForu.ms Site-Wide Rule Changes

If Foru.ms site-wide rules are changed, and members feel that current CCC rules are not compliant, a member should open a discussion for an emergency change to the rules Wiki. All previous steps must still be followed. This is the one exception to the time restraints as outlined above for existing rules.

[Lisa0315]

Okay, Step 1 is the easiest step. A member suggests a new rule and starts a discussion thread about it.

Now, to make sure that we have this step written exactly how we want it, discussion should be about the following:

Who?
What?
How?
When?
Where?

Once we have this finalized, then, we will move on to step #2.

Please do not come to this wiki to say how stupid you think it is. Please do not accuse me of trying to control the forum. Please do not be negative whatsoever.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Another thing, keep in mind all the tools and resources we have.

So, other subjects can be covered under the "How" question, such as, "Request Rule Thread be stickied by mod".

Or, "~Lady Trekki~ has agreed to administer the membership list, and is the only person allowed to make updates." That would be a "Who" answer, perhaps.

See where I am going with this?

Lisa

[Tangeloper]

Hi Lisa. I would suggest that a why in your list should be required when someone suggests a new rule.

I believe the person should be able to tell us why there is a definite and good reason to change a rule or add another. Also, we can better discuss the actual rule and solutions to the problem if we knew why it was being proposed and exactly what situation the rule was expected to correct.

Does this make sense? I've never participated in a WIKI before, so please bear with me if I'm out-of-order or anything.

[Lisa0315]

Hi Lisa. I would suggest that a why in your list should be required when someone suggests a new rule.

I believe the person should be able to tell us why there is a definite and good reason to change a rule or add another. Also, we can better discuss the actual rule and solutions to the problem if we knew why it was being proposed and exactly what situation the rule was expected to correct.

Does this make sense? I've never participated in a WIKI before, so please bear with me if I'm out-of-order or anything.

That is an excellent and very productive suggestion. That is exactly how the wiki is supposed to work.

I am going to add the "why" to the wiki now.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Try that out, Tange. See if you like the "Why" I added.

Lisa

[Tangeloper]

Try that out, Tange. See if you like the "Why" I added.

Lisa
I've read it Lisa. That's exactly what I was talking about! :)

[Lisa0315]

I've read it Lisa. That's exactly what I was talking about! :)

Cool. :) I do wish more people would participate.

It just irks me because the same people who do not participate are the most negative. I just got slammed again. :sigh:

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

I would include in step 1 that whoever suggests the rule includes a proposal of what the actual poll question will be and what the voting options will be. That way, along with discussing just the rule, we can sort of pre-organize the poll as well - Lord knows we don't want any more "binding polls, take 2" fiascos again. ;)

Then for step 2 (I don't know if you want a set time for this pre-poll discussion, something like 2 days, or just until we feel comfortable it's been discussed enough) have someone post the actual poll thread. We should probably have a standard time for how long all rule polls are open, like 10 days maybe, or 2 weeks.

[Lisa0315]

I would include in step 1 that whoever suggests the rule includes a proposal of what the actual poll question will be and what the voting options will be. That way, along with discussing just the rule, we can sort of pre-organize the poll as well - Lord knows we don't want any more "binding polls, take 2" fiascos again. ;)

Then for step 2 (I don't know if you want a set time for this pre-poll discussion, something like 2 days, or just until we feel comfortable it's been discussed enough) have someone post the actual poll thread. We should probably have a standard time for how long all rule polls are open, like 10 days maybe, or 2 weeks.

Good suggestions. Let me see if I can incorporate those ideas into the wiki.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I would include in step 1 that whoever suggests the rule includes a proposal of what the actual poll question will be and what the voting options will be. That way, along with discussing just the rule, we can sort of pre-organize the poll as well - Lord knows we don't want any more "binding polls, take 2" fiascos again. ;)

Then for step 2 (I don't know if you want a set time for this pre-poll discussion, something like 2 days, or just until we feel comfortable it's been discussed enough) have someone post the actual poll thread. We should probably have a standard time for how long all rule polls are open, like 10 days maybe, or 2 weeks.

Okay, please read and see if you would like any changes.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

I changed "the poll should be public" to "the poll must be public".

[Lisa0315]

I changed "the poll should be public" to "the poll must be public".

Good job! Syntax is very important in this because improper wording will lead to loopholes. "Should be" could have been disasterous. :thumbsup:

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

Do you think the whole "integrity check" would be a separate step? It's basically for after the poll closes, so that and giving the results seem like a separate step. Don't know if that really matters, but, anyway.

[Lisa0315]

Do you think the whole "integrity check" would be a separate step? It's basically for after the poll closes, so that and giving the results seem like a separate step. Don't know if that really matters, but, anyway.

Yes, I do think it is a good idea. It makes it more legible.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Step 4 should be about the binding of the poll in regards to percentages and how long the results are binding. I am praying that we will go with NYJ's suggestion.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

Ok, first, you need to stop giving him credit for my idea. ;)

Yeah, that seems good for the next step, but I think we need to hammer out the results of those polls about binding and for how long first. Heck, we may even need a new poll because the whole "variable binding" thing wasn't even an option.

[Lisa0315]

Ok, first, you need to stop giving him credit for my idea. ;)

Yeah, that seems good for the next step, but I think we need to hammer out the results of those polls about binding and for how long first. Heck, we may even need a new poll because the whole "variable binding" thing wasn't even an option.

I know, and technically, if we let that poll finish, I wonder if it does not become a rule.

Sorry, I did not mean to give credit to someone else!

Oh, and I was thinking that we need to say something about the poll itself.

For example, polls can be so confusing, just like the one we have now. Polls should be Yes or No.

Proposed: Should a 2/3 majority vote be required to make a poll binding?

Yes or No. Instead of all the crazy in betweens. If it is "No", then, another proposal should occur.

Oh, and what about having more than one poll going on at the same time on the same subject. I think we should have a rule that says only one thread and one poll per issue.

Of course, those may be beyond the scope of this "How To". I don't know. What do you think?

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

Do we need to specify the formula, and that the Mod that does the check needs to show their work in the results post?

The formula, I believe, is:
(# of valid votes for an option) / (total # of valid voters in the poll)
= % that voted for that option

And then, for example, in the results post the Mod would have -
After removing "so-and-so" (should actually say who was removed and from which option)

Option 1:
4 votes / 12 members = 33%

Option 2:
6 votes / 12 members = 50%

Option 3:
2 votes / 12 members = 17%

(33 + 50 + 17 = 100)

Option 2 wins. (If applicable, add "and is binding for x months")

[HypnoToad]

For example, polls can be so confusing, just like the one we have now. Polls should be Yes or No.

Proposed: Should a 2/3 majority vote be required to make a poll binding?

Yes or No. Instead of all the crazy in betweens. If it is "No", then, another proposal should occur.
I think we should make it a guideline to try to get it down to a "yes/no" option, but I think there may be cases where it won't work, and I think it may be easiest sometimes to just use 3 (or more) options at once instead of adding more polls.

Oh, and what about having more than one poll going on at the same time on the same subject. I think we should have a rule that says only one thread and one poll per issue.
Yeah, a particular issue should only have one open poll at a time.

Of course, those may be beyond the scope of this "How To". I don't know. What do you think?
I think we can work it in.

[Lisa0315]

Do we need to specify the formula, and that the Mod that does the check needs to show their work in the results post?

The formula, I believe, is:
(# of valid votes for an option) / (total # of valid voters in the poll)
= % that voted for that option

And then, for example, in the results post the Mod would have -

Oh, yes, absolutely.

Lisa

[Tangeloper]

I like your suggestions XianJedi. Also, once the percentage poll is determined this should be added to the information about the polls, IMHO -- especially if we end up with a 70% or 66% rule or something to make the poll binding.

I have more ideas, but I've got a headache and it'll take a little more concentration to propose them than I feeling up to right now. I'll be back though! LOL ;)

[Lisa0315]

I like your suggestions XianJedi. Also, once the percentage poll is determined this should be added to the information about the polls, IMHO -- especially if we end up with a 70% or 66% rule or something to make the poll binding.

I have more ideas, but I've got a headache and it'll take a little more concentration to propose them than I feeling up to right now. I'll be back though! LOL ;)

:) Hope you feel better.

Lisa

[Albion]

Having just taken a look at the Wiki, it looks fine to me. You're doing good work.

I do feel that polls should have only 2 choices for answers, although not exclusively yes-no. This may obligate us to running more polls before anything is finalized, but it's better than the polls with many choices that leave uncertainty as to what the membership's will actually is. For example,

"What percentage is needed for making rules changes?"

1. 70%
2. 66%
3. 50+1

Well if 3 edges out 1+2, I'd say that most of us are saying we need more than 50+1. Isn't that right? But that desire is twarted by the poll offering two choices for that position as against only one for simple majority. It helps to have stated in advance what percentage is needed for passage, but that still allows the number of possible choices to affect the outcome unfairly.

Much better to have it be, in this illustration, simple majority vs. supermajority and then a follow-up poll if supermajority wins out. Possibly you could incorporate the follow-up into the original as some of your polls have done (If yes for supermajority, now vote on this also, but if no, that's it and you've recorded your preference as simple majority), and save time.

This takes more care, however, in getting the wording just right, which is why I support the idea of placing the proposed poll language before the membership for discussion and corrections, not just having a discussion on the general ideas that lead to a poll.

And we absolutely have to understand, although there's no need for writing it into the Wiki, that the existing rules operate until they are changed. That's the way any parliamentary body governs itself. So no more "There is confusion about what our rules are" the minute someone proposes a change and treating the rules as inoperable for that reason.

On another matter, I am now of the opinion that the 5 supporter rule doesn't matter much. Out of the large and unscreened membership we now have on our rolls, I don't doubt for a moment that 5 people will vouch for just about anyone who is alive, period. Since I wouldn't expect much sympathy for having, let's say, 15 supporters--and it would be burdensome to keep the tally--we might just as well live with the possibility of a few halfway, uncertain or confused types, so long as they are Christian and not activists for the opposition by having joined the Lib forum.

[Lisa0315]

Having just taken a look at the Wiki, it looks fine to me. You're doing good work.

I do feel that polls should have only 2 choices for answers, although not exclusively yes-no. This may obligate us to running more polls before anything is finalized, but it's better than the polls with many choices that leave uncertainty as to what the membership's will actually is. For example,

"What percentage is needed for making rules changes?"

1. 70%
2. 66%
3. 50+1

Well if 3 edges out 1+2, I'd say that most of us are saying we need more than 50+1. Isn't that right? But that desire is twarted by the poll offering two choices for that position as against only one for simple majority. It helps to have stated in advance what percentage is needed for passage, but that still allows the number of possible choices to affect the outcome unfairly.

Much better to have it be, in this illustration, simple majority vs. supermajority and then a follow-up poll if supermajority wins out. Possibly you could incorporate the follow-up into the original as some of your polls have done (If yes for supermajority, now vote on this also, but if no, that's it and you've recorded your preference as simple majority), and save time.

This takes more care, however, in getting the wording just right, which is why I support the idea of placing the proposed poll language before the membership for discussion and corrections, not just having a discussion on the general ideas that lead to a poll.

And we absolutely have to understand, although there's no need for writing it into the Wiki, that the existing rules operate until they are changed. That's the way any parliamentary body governs itself. So no more "There is confusion about what our rules are" the minute someone proposes a change and treating the rules as inoperable for that reason.

On another matter, I am now of the opinion that the 5 supporter rule doesn't matter much. Out of the large and unscreened membership we now have on our rolls, I don't doubt for a moment that 5 people will vouch for just about anyone who is alive, period. Since I wouldn't expect much sympathy for having, let's say, 15 supporters--and it would be burdensome to keep the tally--we might just as well live with the possibility of a few halfway, uncertain or confused types, so long as they are Christian and not activists for the opposition by having joined the Lib forum.

Well, one of the things that I dislike about polls is that if a better idea comes out of the discussion, then, we are helpless to do anything about it. That is why discussion prior to the thread is so necessary.

For example, in the percentages poll, the idea of making all poll results binding, but expressing a time limit based on how wide the margin is, that was an excellent idea. I am just not sure how we can do that without making people mad who participated in the poll. (Without doing yet another poll)

What do y'all think about me going out on a limb and adding this as Rule #4:

4. All polls that have a majority are binding. However, the length of time that the resulting rule is binding depends on how large the majority is. 51% Binding for Three months, 67% Binding for 6 months, 80% Binding for 1 year.


Lisa

[Hentenza]

Well, one of the things that I dislike about polls is that if a better idea comes out of the discussion, then, we are helpless to do anything about it. That is why discussion prior to the thread is so necessary.

For example, in the percentages poll, the idea of making all poll results binding, but expressing a time limit based on how wide the margin is, that was an excellent idea. I am just not sure how we can do that without making people mad who participated in the poll. (Without doing yet another poll)

What do y'all think about me going out on a limb and adding this as Rule #4:

4. All polls that have a majority are binding. However, the length of time that the resulting rule is binding depends on how large the majority is. 51% Binding for Three months, 67% Binding for 6 months, 80% Binding for 1 year.


Lisa

Hi Lisa,

I agree with the tiered margins. Based on how the poll results are now, it seems that it might be the cure all, however, I think maybe a 51, 60, 70 might be more realistic. I have not seen many polls that have gotten close to a 80% number. We also have to take into consideration that only a small percentage of the total membership actually participates, so 1 or 2 votes do make a difference and changes the percentages substantially.

[Lisa0315]

Hi Lisa,

I agree with the tiered margins. Based on how the poll results are now, it seems that it might be the cure all, however, I think maybe a 51, 60, 70 might be more realistic. I have not seen many polls that have gotten close to a 80% number. We also have to take into consideration that only a small percentage of the total membership actually participates, so 1 or 2 votes do make a difference and changes the percentages substantially.

Well, let's give this some more thought. I do not want to be accused of "taking over" or not doing what the membership wants. I wish more people would come in and comment. Maybe, I will make the rule and then post it in the percentage poll thread.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Well, let's give this some more thought. I do not want to be accused of "taking over" or not doing what the membership wants. I wish more people would come in and comment. Maybe, I will make the rule and then post it in the percentage poll thread.

Lisa

That might be a good idea. Maybe we will get some comments there.;)

[Hentenza]

Maybe we also need to think about how to work a poll with more than two options like Albion suggested. While I think most polls should only have two options there might be times when more than two options are needed. The first suggestion that comes to mind would be dropping the option or options with the least amount of votes if there is no clear winner and re-voting on the two remaining options. Just a thought.

[HypnoToad]

51-60-70 seems fine

dropping the option or options with the least amount of votes if there is no clear winner and re-voting on the two remaining options.
also fine

[Lisa0315]

Maybe we also need to think about how to work a poll with more than two options like Albion suggested. While I think most polls should only have two options there might be times when more than two options are needed. The first suggestion that comes to mind would be dropping the option or options with the least amount of votes if there is no clear winner and re-voting on the two remaining options. Just a thought.

Good idea. Will you work on that? Come up with some ideas on multi-options, and also multi-choice voting. Make it clear that two-option voting is preferable, but when absolutely necessary, here are the parameters that must be used.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

51-60-70 seems fineThe only problem with a 51-60-70 differential is that given so few people vote, for the most part, that 9 or 10 per cent could be made up by only a couple of people, and that's not enough to really determine what the membership are thinking.

For the second tier, we do need it to step up to two thirds, at least. Maybe the increments could be 51, 66 and 75%. Half, two thirds and three quarters is more telling, and it's neater.

[HypnoToad]

If we aren't getting "the membership's thinking", then it's their own fault for not voting if we get a rule they don't like. All we can do is stress the importance of participating. If they don't, that's their choice and I don't have a problem letting them lie in the bed they made.

But whether it's 51-60-70, or 51-66-70, or 51-66-75, doesn't make much difference for me, I don't prefer one over the other.

[Debi1967]

Hi Lisa,

I agree with the tiered margins. Based on how the poll results are now, it seems that it might be the cure all, however, I think maybe a 51, 60, 70 might be more realistic. I have not seen many polls that have gotten close to a 80% number. We also have to take into consideration that only a small percentage of the total membership actually participates, so 1 or 2 votes do make a difference and changes the percentages substantially.
I also think this is a more realistic goal.

[Lisa0315]

The only problem with a 51-60-70 differential is that given so few people vote, for the most part, that 9 or 10 per cent could be made up by only a couple of people, and that's not enough to really determine what the membership are thinking.

For the second tier, we do need it to step up to two thirds, at least. Maybe the increments could be 51, 66 and 75%. Half, two thirds and three quarters is more telling, and it's neater.

Oops! I see your little green butt was already here when I posted on the other thread! :D

I agree that it should be 51, 66, and 75. What about the 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year? Do you think that is a good plan?

Lisa

[NewGuy101]

Well, let's give this some more thought. I do not want to be accused of "taking over" or not doing what the membership wants. I wish more people would come in and comment. Maybe, I will make the rule and then post it in the percentage poll thread.

Lisa
This is exactly what I was talking about is the problem in the first place. I think we are going to need some leadership to atleast establish a standard first since obviously the rest of the forum is not getting involved.

I more than anyone wants this problem resolved.

[GreenMunchkin]

Oops! I see your little green butt was already here when I posted on the other thread! :D

I agree that it should be 51, 66, and 75. What about the 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year? Do you think that is a good plan?

LisaPerfectico! :D Plus, it's just mathematically neat, and the clean-freak in me likes that :D

[Lisa0315]

This is exactly what I was talking about is the problem in the first place. I think we are going to need some leadership to atleast establish a standard first since obviously the rest of the forum is not getting involved.

I more than anyone wants this problem resolved.

We are all the leaders. We do not need anyone "in charge". We just need everyone to participate. It only looks like someone is "taking over" when the group has not participated and a decision is made. That is both the beauty and the evil of the wiki. It is great if EVERYONE participates. It is terrible if only one or two people do it.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Oops! I see your little green butt was already here when I posted on the other thread! :D

I agree that it should be 51, 66, and 75. What about the 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year? Do you think that is a good plan?

Lisa

That's reasonable.:)

[Hentenza]

Here is wording concerning the decision process for different option polls. Thoughts?


"Polls that have two options are preferable. Polls that contain more than two options will be decided by removing the options with the least amount of votes leaving the two most popular options, unless there is a winning option. A new poll with the two remaining options will then be opened to declare a winning option. Multi-choice polls fall under the same category as multi-option polls and follow the same process."

[GreenMunchkin]

Here is wording concerning the decision process for different option polls. Thoughts?


"Polls that have two options are preferable. Polls that contain more than two options will be decided by removing the options with the least amount of votes leaving the two most popular options, unless there is a winning option. A new poll with the two remaining options will then be opened to declare a winning option. Multi-choice polls fall under the same category as multi-option polls and follow the same process."Do you know, for some reason, I struggled slightly to wrap my head around it? :scratch: It sounds really complicated, somehow.

It's like a tournament system, right? Where the "loser of the match" is disqualified, an the winners go on to the next round?

[Hentenza]

Do you know, for some reason, I struggled slightly to wrap my head around it? :scratch: It sounds really complicated, somehow.

It's like a tournament system, right? Where the "loser of the match" is disqualified, an the winners go on to the next round?
mmmm..... It is a tournament match.^_^^_^^_^:P

Let me reword it and then let me know what you think. Here are my thoughts, the process for multi-option polls does need to include a clause addressing what happens when the agreed upon winning percentages are not reached. The only fair option that I see is one of elimination to arrive at two options where a clear winning option can be determined.
I welcome your thoughts.:)

[Lisa0315]

Do you know, for some reason, I struggled slightly to wrap my head around it? :scratch: It sounds really complicated, somehow.

It's like a tournament system, right? Where the "loser of the match" is disqualified, an the winners go on to the next round?

It is complex: Let me see if I can break it down to make it easier to understand for the reader.

Polls with a Pro and Con options are the preference of this forum. However in cases in which more than two choices must be offered, there will be a run off between the choices until items are eliminated down to a final two.

Multiple Choice Polls should be only used in rare circumstances. If used, the discussion thread should be used to determine the exact process of getting to the final choice(s).


Does this cover it? Does it need to be tweaked. Ask the Who, Why, What, Where, and When questions to test it.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

mmmm..... It is a tournament match.^_^^_^^_^:P

Let me reword it and then let me know what you think. Here are my thoughts, the process for multi-option polls does need to include a clause addressing what happens when the agreed upon winning percentages are not reached. The only fair option that I see is one of elimination to arrive at two options where a clear winning option can be determined.
I welcome your thoughts.:)Am probably gonna be no help, at all, bro. Got a mental picture of the tournament score-board in Karate Kid, with the fella gradually rising in the ranks :scratch: Weirdest link ever and I can only apologize :D

Yah, the system you're proposing is by far the best option. It'll keep things tidy when it crops up - which, knowing CC, it inevitably will :P - but am struggling with the wording, maybe. The word "eliminate" should be in there because that succinctly explains the process with just that one word.

Am I making any sense, at all? If not, it's cos in my head, am fighting a ninja.

[Hentenza]

It is complex: Let me see if I can break it down to make it easier to understand for the reader.

Polls with a Pro and Con options are the preference of this forum. However in cases in which more than two choices must be offered, there will be a run off between the choices until items are eliminated down to a final two.

Multiple Choice Polls should be only used in rare circumstances. If used, the discussion thread should be used to determine the exact process of getting to the final choice(s).


Does this cover it? Does it need to be tweaked. Ask the Who, Why, What, Where, and When questions to test it.

Lisa

Need to define what choices are to be included in a run off. The way you have it is not clear.

For example, in a five option poll:
Option 1=40%
Option 2=20%
Option 3=15%
Option 4=15%
Option 5=10%

There is no clear winner under a 51,66,75 rule. What I am proposing is that options 3-5 be dropped leaving options 1 and 2 with the most votes. Then a new poll is opened to decide the winning option. That is what I thought I wrote. Do you all agree or disagree?:wave:

[Hentenza]

Am probably gonna be no help, at all, bro. Got a mental picture of the tournament score-board in Karate Kid, with the fella gradually rising in the ranks :scratch: Weirdest link ever and I can only apologize :D

Yah, the system you're proposing is by far the best option. It'll keep things tidy when it crops up - which, knowing CC, it inevitably will :P - but am struggling with the wording, maybe. The word "eliminate" should be in there because that succinctly explains the process with just that one word.

Am I making any sense, at all? If not, it's cos in my head, am fighting a ninja.



Fair enough and please don't say that you are no help. I won't let you.:hug:

How about this one:

"Polls that have two options are preferable. Polls that contain more than two options will be decided by eliminating the options with the least amount of votes leaving the two most popular options, unless there is a winning option. A new poll with the two remaining options will then be opened to declare a winning option. Multi-choice polls fall under the same category as multi-option polls and follow the same process."

[GreenMunchkin]

Need to define what choices are to be included in a run off. The way you have it is not clear.

For example, in a five option poll:
Option 1=40%
Option 2=20%
Option 3=15%
Option 4=15%
Option 5=10%

There is no clear winner under a 51,66,75 rule. What I am proposing is that options 3-5 be dropped leaving options 1 and 2 with the most votes. Then a new poll is opened to decide the winning option. That is what I thought I wrote. Do you all agree or disagree?:wave:Agree 100% :P If only they could all be that easy... *happy sigh*

[GreenMunchkin]

Fair enough and please don't say that you are no help. I won't let you.:hug:

How about this one:

"Polls that have two options are preferable. Polls that contain more than two options will be decided by eliminating the options with the least amount of votes leaving the two most popular options, unless there is a winning option. A new poll with the two remaining options will then be opened to declare a winning option. Multi-choice polls fall under the same category as multi-option polls and follow the same process."

The one tiny thing I'd change - for some reason - is the bit I bolded, and only to put that at the beginning of the sentence. So:

"Polls that have two options are preferable. For polls that contain more than two options, unless there is a clear winner, the options with the least amount of votes will be eliminated, leaving the two most popular options. A new poll with the two winning options will then be opened to declare the final winning option. Multi-choice polls fall under the same category as multi-option polls and follow the same process."

Is it ok that I've suggested that? :hug: Don't want to step on your toes n stuff :hug:

[Lisa0315]

Fair enough and please don't say that you are no help. I won't let you.:hug:

How about this one:

"Polls that have two options are preferable. Polls that contain more than two options will be decided by eliminating the options with the least amount of votes leaving the two most popular options, unless there is a winning option. A new poll with the two remaining options will then be opened to declare a winning option. Multi-choice polls fall under the same category as multi-option polls and follow the same process."

This is getting better. What if there is a tie leaving no two winning options? What if it were

Option 1 40%
Option 2 20%
Option 3 20%
Option 4 20%

Lisa

[Hentenza]

The one tiny thing I'd change - for some reason - is the bit I bolded, and only to put that at the beginning of the sentence. So:

"Polls that have two options are preferable. For polls that contain more than two options, unless there is a clear winner, the options with the least amount of votes will be eliminated, leaving the two most popular options. A new poll with the two winning options will then be opened to declare the final winning option. Multi-choice polls fall under the same category as multi-option polls and follow the same process."

Is it ok that I've suggested that? :hug: Don't want to step on your toes n stuff :hug:

I have big toes, no worries.^_^^_^

That works for me. :thumbsup:

I am an engineer which means that I got an A in technical writing and a F in creative writing.:P^_^^_^

[Hentenza]

This is getting better. What if there is a tie leaving no two winning options? What if it were

Option 1 40%
Option 2 20%
Option 3 20%
Option 4 20%

Lisa

Always the accountant.:D
In a case like this then, as far as I am concerned, the poll should be redone from scratch because it would entail running another poll to choose which option would run against option 1, and if there is a tie on that one, then run yet another poll to then decide the winning option that would finally run against option 1. Remember that statistically speaking every time you have a multiple option poll there are chances of ties. I think that if the results of a multiple option poll does not allow us to only leave the two must popular options, then the poll should be invalidated and a new poll started.

[Lisa0315]

Always the accountant.:D
In a case like this then, as far as I am concerned, the poll should be redone from scratch because it would entail running another poll to choose which option would run against option 1, and if there is a tie on that one, then run yet another poll to then decide the winning option that would finally run against option 1. Remember that statistically speaking every time you have a multiple option poll there are chances of ties. I think that if the results of a multiple option poll does not allow us to only leave the two must popular options, then the poll should be invalidated and a new poll started. If you want this wording, I will be happy to write it.

Lisa's my Name. Number's r my game!

I completely agree. I think if a tie exists and no clear winner is found, then, it should be back to the discussion thread. I think it should be that it would be declared invalid and everyone has to start over. No rule results.

Please do write it up.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

How about this one.

"Polls that have two options are preferable. For polls that contain more than two options, unless there is a clear winner, the options with the least amount of votes will be eliminated, leaving the two most popular options. A new poll with the two winning options will then be opened to declare the final winning option. In the event that a poll ends with ties that do not allow the elimination process to reach the two most popular options, the poll will be invalidated and a new poll started.
Multi-choice polls fall under the same category as multi-option polls and follow the same process."

[Lisa0315]

How about this one.

"Polls that have two options are preferable. For polls that contain more than two options, unless there is a clear winner,(as defined in the 51/67/75 rule) the options with the least amount of votes will be eliminated, leaving the two most popular options. A new poll with the two winning options will then be opened to declare the final winning option. In the event that a poll ends with ties that do not allow the elimination process to reach the two most popular options, the poll will be invalidated and a new poll started.
Multi-choice polls fall under the same category as multi-option polls and follow the same process."


Only one more thing...I have inserted it above...

If you are all good with this, I am going to go write the 51/67/75 rule, and also add this one.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Only one more thing...I have inserted it above...

If you are all good with this, I am going to go write the 51/67/75 rule, and also add this one.

Lisa

Yes, I was going to add that when it was decided. Good call. I am fine with it but I think we need a few more folks to chime in.

[Lisa0315]

Yes, I was going to add that when it was decided. Good call. I am fine with it but I think we need a few more folks to chime in.

Well, I have added it. We can always take it out if people disagree.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Ok then.:wave:

[NewGuy101]

We are all the leaders. We do not need anyone "in charge". We just need everyone to participate. It only looks like someone is "taking over" when the group has not participated and a decision is made. That is both the beauty and the evil of the wiki. It is great if EVERYONE participates. It is terrible if only one or two people do it.

Lisa
Alright...well my suggestion to appoint someone to lead goes out the window then.

[Lisa0315]

Alright...well my suggest to appoint someone to lead goes out the window then.

Committees were suggested at some point, or representatives, and people hated the idea.

Lisa

[Nicki4Christ]

Only one more thing...I have inserted it above...

If you are all good with this, I am going to go write the 51/67/75 rule, and also add this one.

Lisa
Originally Posted by Hentenza http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=38057275#post38057275)
How about this one.

"Polls that have two options are preferable. For polls that contain more than two options, unless there is a clear winner,(as defined in the 51/67/75 rule) the options with the least amount of votes will be eliminated, leaving the two most popular options. A new poll with the two winning options will then be opened to declare the final winning option. In the event that a poll ends with ties that do not allow the elimination process to reach the two most popular options, the poll will be invalidated and a new poll started.
Multi-choice polls fall under the same category as multi-option polls and follow the same process."




:thumbsup: This looks really Good!! Good Work. It makes sense. :clap:

[Albion]

What do y'all think about me going out on a limb and adding this as Rule #4:

4. All polls that have a majority are binding. However, the length of time that the resulting rule is binding depends on how large the majority is. 51% Binding for Three months, 67% Binding for 6 months, 80% Binding for 1 year.


Lisa

I personally think this isn't a good idea. ANY change can look not so terrific after it is put into effect--one that barely slipped by or one that looked great to almost everyone at the beginning. This shouldn't govern the longevity of the issue IMO, and it makes for additional complexities.

[Lisa0315]

I personally think this isn't a good idea. ANY change can look not so terrific after it is put into effect--one that barely slipped by or one that looked great to almost everyone at the beginning. This shouldn't govern the longevity of the issue IMO, and it makes for additional complexities.

Okay, let's hear you out. What additional complexities do you foresee?

What we are trying to do is eliminate what happened with the membership open/closed fiasco.

What if we added a rule that stated that a rule could come back to the table prior to the stated terms if 80% of the participating membership agreed? Participating Membership would be those who post here at least once a week.

Now, the question would be, is this do-able? Is there a way to tell who is a participating member, or can we add a tool to tell us that?

Lisa

[nyj]

What if we added a rule that stated that a rule could come back to the table prior to the stated terms if 80%...A vote to see if we should take a vote?

Mama mia!

[GreenMunchkin]

A vote to see if we should take a vote?

Mama mia!Seriously. Also, oy vey, and ooh la la.

This process is meant to be simplifying stuff! :D

[Lisa0315]

Seriously. Also, oy vey, and ooh la la.

This process is meant to be simplifying stuff! :D
:P Just trying to address concerns...:P

Seriously, what happens if one of our rules does become bad, and we want to change it before the time is up?

Like, what if Erwin made an announcement...hmm...Perhaps, that is what we should do. Put in a provision that rules can be overturned early if a site wide announcement forces the rule change.

For example, what if this forum had existed prior to 7-7-07, and we had our own rules, but they stated, "No atheists allowed ever!" With Erwin's announcement, that would have to change regardless if we had 364 days left in the rule.

Lisa

[nyj]

Simple: If there is a conflict between the CC rules and the site-wide rules, the site-wide rules take precedent and the conflicting CC rule will be removed from the WIKI.

Easy enough fix, and no voting required.

[Lisa0315]

Simple: If there is a conflict between the CC rules and the site-wide rules, the site-wide rules take precedent and the conflicting CC rule will be removed from the WIKI.

Easy enough fix, and no voting required.

Maybe I am overcomplicating this...I do not know. However, in the case that I mentioned, it is pretty black and white, but what if the issue was more grayish? Keep what we have until the time runs out? That is fine with me. I just want to think this through.

I am an analyst and I do tend to take everything apart, examine it, then, put it back together. So, please do not take offense. I just want to make sure this really is as simple as you are making it.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Maybe I am overcomplicating this...I do not know. However, in the case that I mentioned, it is pretty black and white, but what if the issue was more grayish? Keep what we have until the time runs out? That is fine with me. I just want to think this through.

I am an analyst and I do tend to take everything apart, examine it, then, put it back together. So, please do not take offense. I just want to make sure this really is as simple as you are making it.

LisaDiscussing a potential grey area that may probably not happen is making it all pretty nebulous, though. Under what circumstance would it be a grey area, for example?

I tend to think, given the new 7-point structure Erwin created, our rules will never go against the site-wide rules, and if for some reason they do, we defer. Even if it's a grey area, because site-wide rules will ultimately take precedence.

[nyj]

I'd say that since the moderators would be enforcing said rule, they'd be the best ones to know if there is a conflict or not. I'd leave it up to them, but with input from the congregation.

[Hentenza]

I'd say that since the moderators would be enforcing said rule, they'd be the best ones to know if there is a conflict or not. I'd leave it up to them, but with input from the congregation.

I can agree with that!!!:thumbsup:

[Lisa0315]

I'd say that since the moderators would be enforcing said rule, they'd be the best ones to know if there is a conflict or not. I'd leave it up to them, but with input from the congregation.

Okay, how about this.

"Staff may suggest that a rule be reconsidered early if site wide rules change and have an impact on the CCC."

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Oh, and y'all PLEASE do me a favor. Purdy Please?

Add something to the wiki. I don't care if it is changing a comma to a period or hilighting something. Just change something so you will be listed as a contributor.

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I havent contributed to this because of what's happened in the past in regards to people making things overly complicated. I don't want to do that and sometimes that can happen without even trying. :doh:

But....I am a member of this forum and as such I have a responsibility to help in whatever way I can. :)

So let me just say I like what I've read so far...and I really, really like the unity I'm seeing here. :thumbsup: I hope this continues! :clap:

[Lisa0315]

Awesome! Thanks for adding your names to the list of contributors.

I agree Lady T. We have had great unity here. I think CCC is the best forum here on CF. The best people, the kindest people, and the least arguments between us.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Okay, for Step 6 and 7:

6. Once the poll has been validated by a moderator, the mod will open the Rules Wiki and add the rule, then reclose the wiki. The mod will then announce the new rule in a new thread to make sure it does not get lost in the old poll thread.

7. If Forum Wide rules are changed, and mods feel that current CCC rules are not compliant, mods will open a discussion for an emergency change to the Rules Wiki. All previous steps must still be followed.

Every one agree with this? If so, let me know if it is okay to add these two new steps.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

The only thing that i would change for the sake of clarity is adding the following,

7. If Foru.ms Site Wide rules are changed, and mods feel that current CCC rules are not compliant, mods will open a discussion for an emergency change to the Rules Wiki. All previous steps must still be followed.

The rest looks great!!:wave:

[HypnoToad]

So, when did 66% get changed to 67%? I don't see it discussed anywhere, other than when someone said they were going to post the "51/67/75 rule" to the wiki.

And what is the difference between a "multi-choice" poll and a "multi-option" poll?

[GreenMunchkin]

The only thing that i would change for the sake of clarity is adding the following,

7. If Foru.ms Site Wide rules are changed, and mods feel that current CCC rules are not compliant, mods will open a discussion for an emergency change to the Rules Wiki. All previous steps must still be followed.

The rest looks great!!:wave:Good afternoon, bro! :hug: The only thing am unsure about is specifying that only mods can start that dicussion... I think it's important that everyone be able to, otherwise we're creating a sort of hierarchy... if that makes any sense.

[Lisa0315]

So, when did 66% get changed to 67%? I don't see it discussed anywhere, other than when someone said they were going to post the "51/67/75 rule" to the wiki.

And what is the difference between a "multi-choice" poll and a "multi-option" poll?

I can change it back to 66%, but technically, 2/3 majority is 66.6666666% or rounded up to 67%.

Multi-Option is like this:

Pick the graphic design you like best:

Dove
Cross
Bridge
Hands

Multiple Choice would be:

Pick the 3 people you think post the most often in CCC:

Lisa0315
XianJedi
JimFromOhio
GreenMunchkin
nyj
Lady Trekki
Hentenza

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Good afternoon, bro! :hug: The only thing am unsure about is specifying that only mods can start that dicussion... I think it's important that everyone be able to, otherwise we're creating a sort of hierarchy... if that makes any sense.

It was suggested, I think my nyj. Kind of making it the mods job to keep up with Forum Wide rules in addition to CCC ones.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

It was suggested, I think my nyj. Kind of making it the mods job to keep up with Forum Wide rules in addition to CCC ones.

LisaOh, no, I agree that it'll most likely be the mods who are made aware of any discrepancy, but I'm just unsure as to whether we should make it law that only mods can start a discussion. :scratch: Dunno. I guess I don't think we should be limiting the members of the forum in any capacity like that.

[Lisa0315]

Okay, y'all read it. Are there any other steps? Are we done?

Do we now put this to a poll before making it a rule? It seems that we should and test the process that we have here.

Lisa

[Tangeloper]

Okay, y'all read it. Are there any other steps? Are we done?

Do we now put this to a poll before making it a rule? It seems that we should and test the process that we have here.

Lisa
I'll have to read through it in a moment, and see if I have any suggestions or ideas, etc... I didn't see any at first read-through though. Oh, and I added some formatting (spaces between the numbered list items). So, I'm listed now! LOL

[HypnoToad]

I can change it back to 66%, but technically, 2/3 majority is 66.6666666% or rounded up to 67%.

Multi-Option is like this:

Pick the graphic design you like best:

Dove
Cross
Bridge
Hands

Multiple Choice would be:

Pick the 3 people you think post the most often in CCC:

Lisa0315
XianJedi
JimFromOhio
GreenMunchkin
nyj
Lady Trekki
Hentenza

Lisa
When you set up a poll, does it ask you that in that language? Because the words "multi-choice" and "multi-option" really do mean the same thing. If the server doesn't use that language when you make a poll, we shouldn't use that terminology in the Wiki, because it's confusing. Should be changed to something like "polls where you can vote for more than one option".

[Tangeloper]

6. Once the poll has been validated by a moderator, the mod will open the Rules Wiki and add the rule, then reclose the wiki. The mod will then announce the new rule in a new thread to make sure it does not get lost in the old poll thread.

************************************
The last big problem we ran into was that the person in charge of snapshotting the rules did so when the rules were in a "rough draft" state (i.e. rules were taken out before a decision was made).

I don't know if you meant to say will reopen the stickied rules thread, or the WIKI. Because the WIKI can be changed, but the snapshat rules might not, and vice versa.

So, I guess what I would propose is that whomever is in charge of snapshotting the Rules should be contacted at some point if we can't access the stickied rules thread through a different mod.

Of course, this is all a moot point, if that's what you already meant in #6! LOL

I definitely think the new thread announcing a change is important!

[HypnoToad]

Oh, no, I agree that it'll most likely be the mods who are made aware of any discrepancy, but I'm just unsure as to whether we should make it law that only mods can start a discussion. :scratch: Dunno. I guess I don't think we should be limiting the members of the forum in any capacity like that.
While it is the Mods' job to make sure people follow the rules, I also don't see why they should be the only ones who can start a thread about a rule that needs to be changed.

[Lisa0315]

Okay, let me see if I can incorporate those two suggestions.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

While it is the Mods' job to make sure people follow the rules, I also don't see why they should be the only ones who can start a thread about a rule that needs to be changed.


The is only for emergency rule changes. We can change it if you like, though.

I mean the point is that no one can poll an existing rule until the time limit on the rule is up unless there is significant cause to do so like a Forum Wide Rule change that impacts CCC.

An emergency rule change thread and poll would still follow the same protocol. Only it would be up to staff to initiate an emergency rule change.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Okay, I have added the suggested changes.

Please read and let me know if you think they still need to be tweaked some.

Okay, and the issue of mods initiating emergency rule threads and polls...so far there seems to be little support for that.

What rule should we put in its place?

Another thing...what about when more than one person opens a thread or poll about the same issue.

Remember when we were trying to decide on the Statement whether tradition should be added or not? We had one poll going and then another member started another poll because he did not like the results of the first poll.

So, what should we do about multiple threads and polls?

I think we should write something about that.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

Another thing...what about when more than one person opens a thread or poll about the same issue.
Just have the later-opened thread closed.

Something like:

"For any particular issue, only one discussion thread and one poll thread will be open. Additional discussion/poll threads on the same issue will be closed. Once the results of a poll are final, no more polls on the issue are to be opened until the binding time has expired."

[Lisa0315]

Just have the later-opened thread closed.

Something like:

"For any particular issue, only one discussion thread and one poll thread will be open. Additional discussion/poll threads on the same issue will be closed. Once the results of a poll are final, no more polls on the issue are to be opened until the binding time has expired."

Added.

[Lisa0315]

So what about the emergency rule changes by mods? Keep it? Get rid of it? Change it?

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Just have the later-opened thread closed.

Something like:

"For any particular issue, only one discussion thread and one poll thread will be open. Additional discussion/poll threads on the same issue will be closed. Once the results of a poll are final, no more polls on the issue are to be opened until the binding time has expired."Absolutely agree. I also think it should be wiki'd that it is at the mods' discretion to summarily close a duplicate poll as soon as they see it. Opening a second poll is disingenuous and will just cause arguments.

The wiki still says only mods will start a discussion, for some reason.

[GreenMunchkin]

So what about the emergency rule changes by mods? Keep it? Get rid of it? Change it?

LisaAnyone should be able to.

[Lisa0315]

Absolutely agree. I also think it should be wiki'd that it is at the mods' discretion to summarily close a duplicate poll as soon as they see it. Opening a second poll is disingenuous and will just cause arguments.

The wiki still says only mods will start a discussion, for some reason.

No, hon, it doesn't. It says that mods will only start discussion and polls for EMERGENCY rules. This will only happen when and if something happens on the site that would override the time limit on one of our existing rules. Maybe, I should reword it to say that Mods will watch for announcements and bring it to the attention of membership. Is that better?

The Emergency Rule part is not about regular rule changes or new rule ideas.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

No, hon, it doesn't. It says that mods will only start discussion and polls for EMERGENCY rules. This will only happen when and if something happens on the site that would override the time limit on one of our existing rules. Maybe, I should reword it to say that Mods will watch for announcements and bring it to the attention of membership. Is that better?

The Emergency Rule part is not about regular rule changes or new rule ideas.

LisaAm getting brain-freeze :(

I think we need to differentiate between the two categorically, yeah. Have been involved in the discussion and I still thought it applied to the site-wide/CC rule issue.

[Lisa0315]

Am getting brain-freeze :(

I think we need to differentiate between the two categorically, yeah. Have been involved in the discussion and I still thought it applied to the site-wide/CC rule issue.

Let me see if I can make it more clear.

That is what the wiki is good for. We need to test how people interpret what we have written, so its all good.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Am getting brain-freeze :(

I think we need to differentiate between the two categorically, yeah. Have been involved in the discussion and I still thought it applied to the site-wide/CC rule issue.

See if that is better now.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

For site-wide rule conflicts, if our rule just needs minor rewording, probably do our rule process with a re-worded version.

If the whole thing needs to just be scrapped, then we'll discuss if we need some kind of replacement rule. If yes, then start the rule process, if not, well that's it. Just delete the old one from the wiki.

[Lisa0315]

For site-wide rule conflicts, if our rule just needs minor rewording, probably do our rule process with a re-worded version.

If the whole thing needs to just be scrapped, then we'll discuss if we need some kind of replacement rule. If yes, then start the rule process, if not, well that's it. Just delete the old one from the wiki.

Okay, but who? Staff or anyone? I just do not want there to be any confusion on this one exception to the time limits.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

Okay, but who? Staff or anyone? I just do not want there to be any confusion on this one exception to the time limits.

Lisa
I don't see why anyone can't say "hey, this is against site rules". Let anyone start the discussion.

[Lisa0315]

I don't see why anyone can't say "hey, this is against site rules". Let anyone start the discussion.

Okay, going to go change it, then.

[Lisa0315]

Okay, go read it and see if that is better.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

Looks ok.

[Lisa0315]

Looks ok.

Changed a couple of "Should be's" to "Will be's"

Okay, let's let this stew overnight. If anyone has any other suggestions, we can come back.

Since we did this by wiki, does this count as the discussion thread?

Should we add that into the rules? Make it "Discussion Thread or Wiki"?

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Changed a couple of "Should be's" to "Will be's"

Okay, let's let this stew overnight. If anyone has any other suggestions, we can come back.

Since we did this by wiki, does this count as the discussion thread?

Should we add that into the rules? Make it "Discussion Thread or Wiki"?

Lisa
Since not everyone in the forum has read the wiki...perhaps discuss it in the forum first.

[Lisa0315]

Since not everyone in the forum has read the wiki...perhaps discuss it in the forum first.

Not from a lack of trying. ;)

Now, or let it sit for awhile?

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Not from a lack of trying. ;)

Now, or let it sit for awhile?

Lisa
Well...I'm wondering why wait?

[Lisa0315]

Well...I'm wondering why wait?

Job Habit. Letting things stew overnight when it is a tricky problem. Even when the solution is at hand, it is just something we do, and sometimes it keeps us from making a mistake.

<shrug> Going to go make the thread now.

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Job Habit. Letting things stew overnight when it is a tricky problem. Even when the solution is at hand, it is just something we do, and sometimes it keeps us from making a mistake.

<shrug> Going to go make the thread now.

Lisa
Ah! Well...you may have a point. *shrug* Doesn't matter to me none. :)

[jameseb]

CCC Rule #5:

Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.


Can we just simplify this--and by doing so cut down on "gaps" that some non-CC might use to get around the rule---by rewording the rule as follows:


Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts only. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

[GreenMunchkin]

CCC Rule #5:



Can we just simplify this--and by doing so cut down on "gaps" that some non-CC might use to get around the rule---by rewording the rule as follows:Agreed.

Some folks are slippery :P

[Lisa0315]

CCC Rule #5:

[/font]


Can we just simplify this--and by doing so cut down on "gaps" that some non-CC might use to get around the rule---by rewording the rule as follows:

[/font]

Sure. The rules in this wiki are not voted upon yet, but I strongly recommend using them anyway to get this changed.

Lisa

[jameseb]

Sure. The rules in this wiki are not voted upon yet, but I strongly recommend using them anyway to get this changed.

Lisa


I'm still not clear on this whole WIKI procedure and stuff. What did you mean by that reply? Thanks. :)

[Lisa0315]

I'm still not clear on this whole WIKI procedure and stuff. What did you mean by that reply? Thanks. :)

Well, this wiki is about protocol, not actual rules. This wiki is only stating how to go about changing rules and how to go about adding new rules. That is why I said to use this wiki as a guideline.

Lisa

[jameseb]

Well, this wiki is about protocol, not actual rules. This wiki is only stating how to go about changing rules and how to go about adding new rules. That is why I said to use this wiki as a guideline.

Lisa

Ah. So that means someone can just go edit Rule #5 right now? If it's a locked thread, I can't, but if there's no objection to the change I mentioned, I'd be happy with anyone going ahead and editing the rule.

[Lisa0315]

Ah. So that means someone can just go edit Rule #5 right now? If it's a locked thread, I can't, but if there's no objection to the change I mentioned, I'd be happy with anyone going ahead and editing the rule.

No, hon. Those rules are locked for a reason. We do not want to change the rules on a whim. That is why we are writing protocol.

So, what I recommend is that you start a discussion thread about this rule change. Follow the guidelines in this wiki to do that. Then, you will have a poll. Then, if passed, it will become a rule.

Kind of like lobbying, a bill, then a law.

Lisa

[jameseb]

No, hon. Those rules are locked for a reason. We do not want to change the rules on a whim. That is why we are writing protocol.

So, what I recommend is that you start a discussion thread about this rule change. Follow the guidelines in this wiki to do that. Then, you will have a poll. Then, if passed, it will become a rule.

Kind of like lobbying, a bill, then a law.

Lisa

Oi vei!

This new WIKI-ness is so confusing. I thought there was something weird about just walking into the rule thread and changing it, but that's what I was confused about in regard to your reply.

I'll leave it for someone else to herald if they like. Sounds way too time consuming. Thank you for the replies though.

[HypnoToad]

Kind of like lobbying, a bill, then a law.

Lisa
I hope and pray that I will
but today I am still
just a bill

- Schoolhouse Rock

Yeah, that's right, I'm kickin' it old school.

[Lisa0315]

I hope and pray that I will
but today I am still
just a bill

- Schoolhouse Rock

Yeah, that's right, I'm kickin' it old school.

Saturday Morning Cartoons! Weren't those the most fun days ever! :clap:

Lisa

[Letalis]

Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts only. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.
I like this. :)

Anyone willing to get the ball rolling on this?

[GreenMunchkin]

If it's still open to being altered, I'll change it :)

Someone will need to tell Sophia7 the rules will need to be snapshooted again, maybe?

[Lisa0315]

If it's still open to being altered, I'll change it :)

Someone will need to tell Sophia7 the rules will need to be snapshooted again, maybe?

Hold on you guys! The whole point of creating this protocol is to avoid sudden and hasty changes to the rules that other members are not aware of. Please, please, use the guidelines in the protocol. They are not rules yet, but we really need to make sure that members have a voice on this.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Hold on you guys! The whole point of creating this protocol is to avoid sudden and hasty changes to the rules that other members are not aware of. Please, please, use the guidelines in the protocol. They are not rules yet, but we really need to make sure that members have a voice on this.

LisaWe altered the wording, not the premise. The wording j suggested is much clearer, and less prone to loop-holes. We can't realistically debate every single word and comma.

[Lisa0315]

We altered the wording, not the premise. The wording j suggested is much clearer, and less prone to loop-holes. We can't realistically debate every single word and comma.

So, you are just adding the word "only" and removing some of the repetitive language?

Well, I guess you are right, but I do think you need to have a thread at least to announce the plans to do this and the reasons for it.

This thread is kind of hidden to the general CCC members. It is not even within CCC, but in Congregation Wiki.

Lisa

[jameseb]

If it's still open to being altered, I'll change it :)

Someone will need to tell Sophia7 the rules will need to be snapshooted again, maybe?


Well, you certainly got my support. :)

[GreenMunchkin]

Well, you certainly got my support. :)Likewise :)