Rule Changes Protocol Poll

[Lisa0315]

Poll Question: Should this protocol be added to our Stickied Rules?
Answers to this poll would be: "Yes" or "No, Go back to wiki to make changes."




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.
51/67/75 rule: Rules with a majority of 51% to 66% cannot be changed for a period of three months. Rules with a majority of 67% to 74% cannot be changed for a period of six months. Rules with a majority of 75% and above cannot be changed for a period of one year.
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 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 an Erwin mandate is issued, or another site-binding guideline, and members feel that current CC rules are not compliant, a member will open a discussion thread 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.

[MrJim]

..so many words...:swoon:

[HypnoToad]

(nvm)

[Tangeloper]

Sounds good to me! I hope more vote on this, I think it's a "necessary evil" to have these protocols in place so we don't have the confusion we have in the past for any reason...

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I think a week is sufficient to keep a poll open. 10 days seems like overkill to me.

[Lisa0315]

I think a week is sufficient to keep a poll open. 10 days seems like overkill to me.

Thank You Trekki! That is exactly how this is supposed to work. If others feel this is an important change, then, they should vote No as well.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

(nvm)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I think the people who are still voting "no" without explanation should be discounted.

I mean, without saying what the problem is, it's impossible to make a correction. It's ridiculous to expect us to just guess what to change.
I would tend to agree with that XJ. Especially polls of any kind of importance.

[Lisa0315]

Well, that is not in the protocol, so even if we end up going back to wiki, we will have something else to add. That's a positive, right?

We have two recommended changes so far: 1) Polls should be conducted for x days, and 2) Those who vote No must state why or their vote will be discounted from the poll.

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Well, that is not in the protocol, so even if we end up going back to wiki, we will have something else to add. That's a positive, right?

We have two recommended changes so far: 1) Polls should be conducted for x days, and 2) Those who vote No must state why or their vote will be discounted from the poll.

Lisa
:clap: :thumbsup:

[HypnoToad]

(nvm)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Hold on.

I'm not talking about adding what I said into the Wiki - I'm talking about THIS poll. There will likely be many polls where "no" is sufficient without explanation. Like the Trinity vote. If most people voted "no", it's not necessary to know "why" in order to carry out the poll results, we simply wouldn't add "Trinity" to the Wiki.

However, in this poll here, it is necessary to know what needs to be fixed if people don't like it.
Well, I think that there are certain threads where you should have to explain your answer. Such as when voting for a moderator and voting on rules. There may be more, just cant think of them at the moment.

[Lisa0315]

Hold on.

I'm not talking about adding what I said into the Wiki - I'm talking about THIS poll. There will likely be many polls where "no" is sufficient without explanation. Like the Trinity vote. If most people voted "no", it's not necessary to know "why" in order to carry out the poll results, we simply wouldn't add "Trinity" to the Wiki.

However, in this poll here, it is necessary to know what needs to be fixed if people don't like it.

Well, that is a good point. My problem is messing with poll results by actual voting members without some kind of warning.

What if we do this: We will keep a list of those who have voted without a reason. We will request that they post a reason here.

Okay? Let's see if we can make it work without discounting votes.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Hold on.

I'm not talking about adding what I said into the Wiki - I'm talking about THIS poll. There will likely be many polls where "no" is sufficient without explanation. Like the Trinity vote. If most people voted "no", it's not necessary to know "why" in order to carry out the poll results, we simply wouldn't add "Trinity" to the Wiki.

However, in this poll here, it is necessary to know what needs to be fixed if people don't like it.

Hi XJ,

The problem will be defining which polls. For example, the Trinity poll that you used as an example is a "rule change" poll so we can't use "rule change" polls as a blanket statement.
Well, I guess we will discuss that if we have to go back to the wiki.:)

[HypnoToad]

(nvm)

[HypnoToad]

(nvm)

[Lisa0315]

That's all well and good. I'm not concerned with that right now. If someone wants to eventually add something like that to the Wiki, great.

My specific issue is THIS poll. It needs to be settled now in order to carry out this poll. We don't need to have the Warren Commission go into it first. I think it's totally inane to just scrap all the work we've done without knowing what needs to be changed.

I have PM'd the two members and asked them to return here with their reasons for voting No.

Lisa

[Letalis]

You can't discount legitimate member votes.

[HypnoToad]

(nvm)

[HypnoToad]

(nvm)

[Lisa0315]

Can't be done, Xian.

Lisa

[Letalis]

Of course we can.
And what protocol gives you that authority? No one is compelled to justify their votes to you or anyone else.

[Lisa0315]

Albion has let me know that he has some concerns over the Rule percentages.

Lisa

[Albion]

Of course we can.

Again, it would be totally stupid to just throw out the entire proposed protocol without knowing WHY. If we are expected to change it, how is that possible without a clue as to what needs to be changed??

Duh! That comes after it is thrown out. At least, there's the hope that everyone's input will be valued THEN.

[HypnoToad]

(nvm)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

We can give ourselves whatever "authority" we want. There's no law of the universe that says we can't throw out meaningless votes.

If you guys want to go on with a bass-ackwords method, then have your way, I won't participate anymore. I'm not going to keep investing time an energy coming up with a system, and then be told "it's not right" when no one offers explanation of what they want, and then have to revamp the whole thing blindly, just so after another month of work, I can be told "it's still not right" with no explanation. That is totally unacceptable.

So go do whatever you guys want, I'm not contributing any more.
We need your input XJ...please don't quit trying. I know it's frustrating when you put so much time into something and nobody seems to care a wit. :hug:

[Criada]

XJ - I don't think anyone is suggesting that it should be scrapped and re-done on guesswork! If it does need changing, then discussion will be necessary before it is reworked, so that it isn't rejected a second time.
At the moment, though, the 'yes' votes are winning!

And your hard work on this is very much appreciated! Please don't give up on it now - you have contributed a huge amount to this forum already, and we need you!! Cos there are many like myself who are willing to contribute to discussion etc, but really don't have the ability or know-how to do all that you and a few others are doing.
Stick with it, brother - we will get there in the end! :hug:

[Albion]

We can give ourselves whatever "authority" we want. There's no law of the universe that says we can't throw out meaningless votes.

If you guys want to go on with a bass-ackwords method, then have your way, I won't participate anymore. I'm not going to keep investing time an energy coming up with a system, and then be told "it's not right" when no one offers explanation of what they want, and then have to revamp the whole thing blindly, just so after another month of work, I can be told "it's still not right" with no explanation. That is totally unacceptable.

So go do whatever you guys want, I'm not contributing any more.

Some system. Vote the way some self-appointed censor says to vote, or you're "meaningless."

BTW, anyone know of any election referendum in the real world where your vote counts only if you justify it to the folks voting the other way? I can't think of one either.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

XJ - I don't think anyone is suggesting that it should be scrapped and re-done on guesswork! If it does need changing, then discussion will be necessary before it is reworked, so that it isn't rejected a second time.
At the moment, though, the 'yes' votes are winning!

And your hard work on this is very much appreciated! Please don't give up on it now - you have contributed a huge amount to this forum already, and we need you!! Cos there are many like myself who are willing to contribute to discussion etc, but really don't have the ability or know-how to do all that you and a few others are doing.
Stick with it, brother - we will get there in the end! :hug:
Exactly...everyone has different giftings. :)

Sometimes though I think it's true that if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem. We need to ALL give our input when the question arises. We can't simply let other people do it, and then complain when we don't like it.

[Criada]

This poll is slightly hard to vote on tho - since there seems to be a choice between keeping it exactly as it stands, or repeating a verry long and laborious process...*

I haven't voted - as I don't want it scrapped - I think it is excellent on the whole, but the poll time needs to be shorter (a week at the most) and I think the three time periods for different majorities is a little complex! Could we not simply implement the rule on a simple majority, and allow debate on changing it after 6 months?

Edit - *I know that is not how the poll is worded, but it seems to be being interpreted that way!

[Albion]

Sometimes though I think it's true that if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem. We need to ALL give our input when the question arises. We can't simply let other people do it, and then complain when we don't like it.
What makes you think we DIDN'T give it?

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Some system. Vote the way some self-appointed censor says to vote, or you're "meaningless."

BTW, anyone know of any election referendum in the real world where your vote counts only if you justify it to the folks voting the other way? I can't think of one either.
Nobody said your vote was meaningless Albion. Just like our votes aren't meaningless during a Presidential election. Your guy might not get it...but you did your duty by voting. In this case however, we need to vocalize our concerns if we don't like something so that a viable solution can be found.

[Albion]

and I think the three time periods for different majorities is a little complex! Could we not simply implement the rule on a simple majority, and allow debate on changing it after 6 months?

Sorry. No, that isn't allowed.

What you asked for was in the Wiki, believe it or not, but mysteriously got removed so that it would not be voted on.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

What makes you think we DIDN'T give it?
Look, I'm not trying to point a finger at anyone. I'm not playing the blame game. Just saying that in this particular thread, nobody has been all that active in giving their opinion. Me included until today.

[Lisa0315]

Sorry. No, that isn't allowed.

What you asked for was in the Wiki, believe it or not, but mysteriously got removed so that it would not be voted on.

I never saw that in the wiki. If it was added or removed, I didn't know about it.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I am going to go do some rollback detective work to see the various versions of the wiki and when it was changed.

Lisa

[Albion]

Nobody said your vote was meaningless Albion.

I beg your pardon. Xtian Jedi just said that exact thing (There's no law of the universe that says we can't throw out meaningless votes.)

Just like our votes aren't meaningless during a Presidential election. Your guy might not get it...but you did your duty by voting.

Are you also required to explain why you voted for the Dem or the Republican--or your vote doesn't count?

In this case however, we need to vocalize our concerns if we don't like something so that a viable solution can be found.

My suggestion would be to have the discussion before the thing is put to a vote. And certainly not to have complaints about being part of the solution and not the problem when input that was given was pushed aside without even a mention to the contributor.

[Lisa0315]

Peace Out, you guys!

[Lisa0315]

Okay, after doing some detective work on the history, here is what happened.

The last change that I was aware of being made to the wiki was on August 24th at 4:33pm. I started a discussion thread on that same day. I posted the wiki as it was at that moment in time.

On August 28th at 4:02 pm, Albion made changes to the wiki. I did not check to see if discussion occurred on this or not, but I assume there was.

Yesterday, I started this poll quite unaware that the wiki had changed. I copied the wiki from the discussion thread rather than the updated wiki.

So, this was an honest mistake, and people need to settle down a little.

A simple question such as "Why doesn't this match what the current wiki says?" would have sufficed and led to the same research.

Rather than getting angry, let's give each other the benefit of the doubt and if we must assume anything, let's try to assume there is a logical reason for everything that happens.

26th August 2007, 12:02 PM (http://foru.ms/nuwiki.php?do=history.viewrevision&t=5960351&revisionid=0) (Current Revision) 24th August 2007, 04:33 PM (http://foru.ms/nuwiki.php?do=history.viewrevision&t=5960351&revisionid=3140) (revision #3140) 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.

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.
+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.
51/67/75 rule: Rules with a majority of 51% to 66% cannot be changed for a period of three months. Rules with a majority of 67% to 74% cannot be changed for a period of six months. Rules with a majority of 75% and above cannot be changed for a period of one year.
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 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.


Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I beg your pardon. Xtian Jedi just said that exact thing (There's no law of the universe that says we can't throw out meaningless votes.)



Are you also required to explain why you voted for the Dem or the Republican--or your vote doesn't count?



My suggestion would be to have the discussion before the thing is put to a vote. And certainly not to have complaints about being part of the solution and not the problem when input that was given was pushed aside without even a mention to the contributor.

Ah...I hadn't seen that. Sorry. :sorry: And no...don't have to explain my vote to the Rep/Dem party but I sure would like to! ;) And you have made a good suggestion here. :thumbsup:

[Criada]

:scratch:
Now I'm really confused!

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

:scratch:
Now I'm really confused!
You and me both...:hug: ;)

[Lisa0315]

Okay, for those who are confused, let me try to clarify.

When we all agreed that the wiki was ready, I took it to a discussion thread. After discussion made some minor changes, I took that OP and copied it to this poll. What I was uaware of was that the wiki had been changed between the time of the discussion thread and the set up of this poll.

The final question is this: Was the change to the wiki made with discussion?

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Okay, for those who are confused, let me try to clarify.

When we all agreed that the wiki was ready, I took it to a discussion thread. After discussion made some minor changes, I took that OP and copied it to this poll. What I was uaware of was that the wiki had been changed between the time of the discussion thread and the set up of this poll.

The final question is this: Was the change to the wiki made with discussion?

Lisa
Oh! :D

Thanks for the clarification Lisa. :)

[GreenMunchkin]

I'm dying a little on the inside.

Why is it this complicated and wordy and rule-tastic?

[Lisa0315]

I'm dying a little on the inside.

Why is it this complicated and wordy and rule-tastic?

Baited, but I'm not biting.

Lisa

[thereselittleflower]

Um, this entire poll is invalid given the post that mnphysicist put up was it yesterday regarding the absolute right of any member to edit the post with explicit instructions that all protocols that restrict the right of members regarding the wiki's in any way are immediately invalidated.

This was posted in the All Staff forum.
http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38290627&postcount=1

Guidline for wiki participation in forums and subforums

Neither members nor Forums Staff (“Foru.ms Staff”) may exclude any other member from editing forum or sub-forum rules or policies with the single exception that an individual forum or sub-forum wiki may exclude members which are not participants in that individual sub-forum.

Under no circumstances may Foru.ms Staff restrict participation in sub-forum wikis, such that only Foru.ms Staff can edit them except it be done by Erwin’s mandate or design. Wiki's are not to be closed or protected at any time with the exception of short cool-off periods due to troll attacks, wiki-wars, or for maintenance activities.




in the next post he says:
http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38290642&postcount=2

Currently, there exists some wiki's which only allow for staff edits. Such statements in the wiki articles are to be removed immediately. While the existing snap shots will still contain text to that effect, they are now non-enforceable as far as staff only edits, and new snap shots should be taken within the next 20 days to rectify such matters.



So, what is the purpose of this poll given the above?


.

[Tangeloper]

Um, this entire poll is invalid given the post that mnphysicist put up was it yesterday regarding the absolute right of any member to edit the post with explicit instructions that all protocols that restrict the right of members regarding the wiki's in any way are immediately invalidated.

This was posted in the All Staff forum.
http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38290627&postcount=1

Guidline for wiki participation in forums and subforums


Neither members nor Forums Staff (“Foru.ms Staff”) may exclude any other member from editing forum or sub-forum rules or policies with the single exception that an individual forum or sub-forum wiki may exclude members which are not participants in that individual sub-forum.


Under no circumstances may Foru.ms Staff restrict participation in sub-forum wikis, such that only Foru.ms Staff can edit them except it be done by Erwin’s mandate or design. Wiki's are not to be closed or protected at any time with the exception of short cool-off periods due to troll attacks, wiki-wars, or for maintenance activities.



in the next post he says:
http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38290642&postcount=2

Currently, there exists some wiki's which only allow for staff edits. Such statements in the wiki articles are to be removed immediately. While the existing snap shots will still contain text to that effect, they are now non-enforceable as far as staff only edits, and new snap shots should be taken within the next 20 days to rectify such matters.


So, what is the purpose of this poll given the above?


.

TLF,

The above rules have nothing to do with what we have proposed. It does NOT restrict ANYONE from editing the WIKI. What is DOES do is prevent screenshots from being taken of the rules BEFORE a change is indeed "ratified" by members.

This all came up due to the problems we had with the membership rules over the last month (I.e. the stickied rules NOT reflecting what we had decided on as a group -- the snapshot taken before rules were "finalized" in the polls, and then changed AGAIN, and snapshat AGAIN, when there were still polls open. AND then the sign-up thread was closed at the same time so we were left with NO WAY of knowing how new members were supposed to sign up. AND, this lead to a tremendous amount of confusion.

This is NOT about preventing people from participating in the WIKI. This is about preventing the confusion that comes from people editing the WIKI and others taking the snapshot when a rule change is still in the process of being DISCUSSED.

As for the moderator changing the rules once a change is decided upon -- we are talking about the STICKY RULES THREAD and NOT the WIKI itself...

I hope this makes more sense. As far as I can see it in no way violates Erwin or MNPhysicist's posts you quoted above.

[thereselittleflower]

TLF,

The above rules have nothing to do with what we have proposed. It does NOT restrict ANYONE from editing the WIKI. What is DOES do is prevent screenshots from being taken of the rules BEFORE a change is indeed "ratified" by members.

This all came up due to the problems we had with the membership rules over the last month (I.e. the stickied rules NOT reflecting what we had decided on as a group -- the snapshot taken before rules were "finalized" in the polls, and then changed AGAIN, and snapshat AGAIN, when there were still polls open. AND then the sign-up thread was closed at the same time so we were left with NO WAY of knowing how new members were supposed to sign up. AND, this lead to a tremendous amount of confusion.

This is NOT about preventing people from participating in the WIKI. This is about preventing the confusion that comes from people editing the WIKI and others taking the snapshot when a rule change is still in the process of being DISCUSSED.

As for the moderator changing the rules once a change is decided upon -- we are talking about the STICKY RULES THREAD and NOT the WIKI itself...

I hope this makes more sense. As far as I can see it in no way violates Erwin or MNPhysicist's posts you quoted above.

So, what you are saying is that we are going to have snapshots, but the mods can go in and edit the snap shot, so it is not longer the snapshot actualy taken?

Well, that is different than what I originally understood, but still a gross violation of the rules for wiki participation put up yesterday.

I
To edit the snapshot is to violate this rule mnphysicist put up in the first post quoted above:

Foru.ms Staff shall use the snap shot of the sub-forum wiki as protocol, policy, or rules in its entirety,


If it is being edited, then it is not being used in its entirety.

Further:

Foru.ms Staff shall not vote as to which parts they wish to apply. Foru.ms Staff are not permitted to modify wiki snap shots, other than to add a date / time stamp and/or revision identifier.

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38290627&postcount=1


So see, this poll even as you describe its purposes is entirely against the rules just put up yesterday and invalidated by them.

So, why is this poll and proposal being still considered?

.

[Tangeloper]

So, what you are saying is that we are going to have snapshots, but the mods can go in and edit the snap shot, so it is not longer the snapshot actualy taken?

Well, that is different than what I originally understood, but still a gross violation of the rules for wiki participation put up yesterday.

I
To edit the snapshot is to violate this rule mnphysicist put up in the first post quoted above:

Foru.ms Staff shall use the snap shot of the sub-forum wiki as protocol, policy, or rules in its entirety,

If it is being edited, then it is not being used in its entirety.

Further:

Foru.ms Staff shall not vote as to which parts they wish to apply. Foru.ms Staff are not permitted to modify wiki snap shots, other than to add a date / time stamp and/or revision identifier.


http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38290627&postcount=1

So see, this poll even as you describe its purposes is entirely against the rules just put up yesterday and invalidated by them.

So, why is this poll and proposal being still considered?

.

Well, in answer to your last question: probably because we weren't aware of the changes Erwin and MNPhysicist had made...

Honestly, IMO, this is getting ridiculous... The whole idea of a WIKI, Rules Protocol, and Snapshot/Stickied FSRs is to prevent confusion. If a WIKI can be edited from one day to the next, and a mod comes in and takes a snapshot without notice then rules could be implemented without any awareness at all of what has been done, and without our forum being prepared for the consequences of said rule changes (just like what we had happen with the membership stuff).

I'll let Lisa and others address this all tomorrow, and see what Erwin and MNPhysicist say about this.

Frankly, I HATE the WIKIs (ALL WIKIs actually -- like WIKIPEDIA for instance), and the way all these rules are currently set up. There is no accountability, no oversight for making sure rules are not changed on whim, etc... But, that is JMHO, of course.

I thought personally this would be a great way to assure that rules are actually finalized before they are snapshat. And, it would prevent people from screwing with the rules too much as well...

Perhaps there is something going on in another forum that Erwin and MNPhysicist are trying to address, but this really puts other sub-forums in a bind as basically any member could come in, edit the WIKI, and then a snapshot is taken and no-one knows why or how the rules were changed -- or even if they were!!!

UGH... OK, I'm done ranting now (I think). Thanks for pointing out the thread Erwin and MNPhysicist put up... It seems unless someone spends all their time reading the announcements threads it's hopeless to keep track of what goes on here from one day to the next.

I would suggest that next time you perhaps word your post differently, as it sounds to me (and yes, maybe it's just me), but it sounds to me like you are taking a condescending tone instead of providing information that might make this poll and the rules protocol idea invalid now.. (which it wasn't a day ago!).

[Lisa0315]

Okay, I just woke up and I don't really know what the argument is about, but THIS mod is not going to prevent anyone from working on the wiki, and I am not going to snapshot a wiki without membership approval.

As I explained earlier, there was a misunderstaning and a timing fluke. If you want to go back to wiki, just vote No. I have no problem with that.

I put up this poll based on what the wiki was at the time of the discussion thread. The wiki was changed between the time of the discussion thread and this poll.

Lisa

[Tangeloper]

Okay, I just woke up and I don't really know what the argument is about, but THIS mod is not going to prevent anyone from working on the wiki, and I am not going to snapshot a wiki without membership approval.

As I explained earlier, there was a misunderstaning and a timing fluke. If you want to go back to wiki, just vote No. I have no problem with that.

I put up this poll based on what the wiki was at the time of the discussion thread. The wiki was changed between the time of the discussion thread and this poll.

Lisa
Hi Lisa,
I think TLF's post is stemming from a new rule that Erwin and MNPhysicist put up yesterday. Apparently there is some concern that the Rules Protocol is automatically invalidated by something in the site-wide rules... I really don't understand it all either.

Perhaps someone who knows the site-wide rules better than I should go and read Erwin/MNPhysicist's new post and see if we can even propose a rules protocol anymore.

It's not like we're trying to prevent anyone from being involved in the WIKI process, and I don't know if TLF misunderstood what I was saying, or if I perhaps worded my explanation wrong...

Sorry if I stirred up more trouble here...

Talk to you soon,
Tangeloper

[Criada]

:scratch: :scratch:

[HypnoToad]

Since I'm no longer participating in rule formation, please discount my vote in this poll. Thank you.

[Criada]

Since I'm no longer participating in rule formation, please discount my vote in this poll. Thank you.
:(

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Since I'm no longer participating in rule formation, please discount my vote in this poll. Thank you.
Double :( :(

[thereselittleflower]

Well, in answer to your last question: probably because we weren't aware of the changes Erwin and MNPhysicist had made...

Honestly, IMO, this is getting ridiculous... The whole idea of a WIKI, Rules Protocol, and Snapshot/Stickied FSRs is to prevent confusion. If a WIKI can be edited from one day to the next, and a mod comes in and takes a snapshot without notice then rules could be implemented without any awareness at all of what has been done, and without our forum being prepared for the consequences of said rule changes (just like what we had happen with the membership stuff).

I'll let Lisa and others address this all tomorrow, and see what Erwin and MNPhysicist say about this.

Frankly, I HATE the WIKIs (ALL WIKIs actually -- like WIKIPEDIA for instance), and the way all these rules are currently set up. There is no accountability, no oversight for making sure rules are not changed on whim, etc... But, that is JMHO, of course.

I thought personally this would be a great way to assure that rules are actually finalized before they are snapshat. And, it would prevent people from screwing with the rules too much as well...

Perhaps there is something going on in another forum that Erwin and MNPhysicist are trying to address, but this really puts other sub-forums in a bind as basically any member could come in, edit the WIKI, and then a snapshot is taken and no-one knows why or how the rules were changed -- or even if they were!!!

UGH... OK, I'm done ranting now (I think). Thanks for pointing out the thread Erwin and MNPhysicist put up... It seems unless someone spends all their time reading the announcements threads it's hopeless to keep track of what goes on here from one day to the next.

I would suggest that next time you perhaps word your post differently, as it sounds to me (and yes, maybe it's just me), but it sounds to me like you are taking a condescending tone instead of providing information that might make this poll and the rules protocol idea invalid now.. (which it wasn't a day ago!).

I appreciate your feelings on the matter of the wiki's . . . all I was doing was pointing out that this proposal is invalid under the current rules. I would appreciate it if you would keep your personal comments/attacks to yourself though.

Thanks

.

[thereselittleflower]

Lisa, your proposal allows for staff to edit the snapshot stickied rules . . . the post mnphysicist explictly states this is not allowed.

I am simply bringing this all to your attention.

Voting one way or the other is immaterial, as the clarification posted by mnphysicist makes voting on this proposal frivolous.

.

[Tangeloper]

Hi Lisa,
I think TLF's post is stemming from a new rule that Erwin and MNPhysicist put up yesterday. Apparently there is some concern that the Rules Protocol is automatically invalidated by something in the site-wide rules... I really don't understand it all either.

Perhaps someone who knows the site-wide rules better than I should go and read Erwin/MNPhysicist's new post and see if we can even propose a rules protocol anymore.

It's not like we're trying to prevent anyone from being involved in the WIKI process, and I don't know if TLF misunderstood what I was saying, or if I perhaps worded my explanation wrong...

Sorry if I stirred up more trouble here...

Talk to you soon,
Tangeloper
I just re-read MNPhysicist's post. And, if I'm reading it correctly TLF is right about this. We CAN'T have this rules protocol in place as MNPhysicist's rules state that we cannot change a rule and then have a snapshot taken right afterwards -- even though THIS rules protocol clearly takes away the risks MNPhysicist is obviously trying to prevent with his new rule...

We were trying to establish something that ends confusion and changing of rules on whim, and make it fair to all concerned -- and now all the work on this is for naught.

Just a side note: Perhaps MNPhysicist and Erwin should just make site-wide rules and be done with it. There is no way people can keep up with all the changes, and having different rules in every area of this place is IMHO pretty silly...

I'm joining XianJedi in removing myself from all rules making activities at this point.

I'll follow whatever the rules are but I honestly can't "work" this way when everything changes from day to day. Too much stress, and it's not worth it to my sanity to try and make sense of it all and correct what is wrong at this point.

I'm sorry if others see this as giving up, but at this point in my walk with Jesus, I need to concentrate on learning more about God's rules for me, and his wishes in my life, and not worry about the rules on an internet forum. I hope you all understand...

Again, sorry if I added to confusion on this thread in my response to TLF.

~~ Tangeloper

[GreenMunchkin]

Double :( :(:( :( :( Thirded. Please stay, XJ :hug:

[Lisa0315]

Okay, that is not the way that I read MNPhysicist's thread, but I am going to ask him to step in here and tell us if this would break his rule or not.

Lisa

[mnphysicist]

The poll as written is a problem....

However, there are many good ideas there, and I think with some modifications, it would be quite workable.

Let me address each section:


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.
That would give anyone a major headache. What you need is a protocol for taking snap shots, so that your polls aren't subject to changes on the fly. One possibility, is to create a snap shot protocol, that states snap shots cannot be taken, while polls are open.

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.

Very good

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.
Very good, but do feel free to tweak the timing as you feel realistic. Some polls might take a while, others are simple. On the other hand, if you want a fixed time period as above, no problem.
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.

Seems reasonable
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.

Cool idea
51/67/75 rule: Rules with a majority of 51% to 66% cannot be changed for a period of three months. Rules with a majority of 67% to 74% cannot be changed for a period of six months. Rules with a majority of 75% and above cannot be changed for a period of one year.The above is a problem.... perhaps one solution, is to fix your snap shot interval at 3 months, and then colorize specific rules, that have larger majorities, so folks are aware any changes to them would take significant discussion.
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 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.)
No problem, although it should be noted polls are not consensus, but are a way to gather information as part of building consensus. Again, no problem with the text.
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.
Big problem there, snap shots are all or none type of events. If you want something non-negotiable, include it within your snap shot protocol. Ie, if section ABC changes, it is grounds for a snap shot to be deferred until further discussion can ensue. It has to be open to change... but with discussion, perhaps folks will understand it is best to remain non-negotiable, or maybe it really does need to be changed.
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 expiredSeems reasonable

[Lisa0315]

Thank You, MNPhysicist.

It looks like this poll needs to be closed and we have some work to do to make this follow the site wide protocol.

Lisa

[Tonks]

I voted no. While I think that the intent is good point 4 concern me as it is possible that you'll be stuck with rules which - after they've been created and been in force for a while - you may realize are 1) bad rules 2) not enforcable or 3) otherwise need changing outside of Erwin's directives.

Trust me, it will happen. I think that point 4 needs some serious work or at least some reflection. Before pushing a change such as this I think that this forums new mods (once all are selected) need some time in the saddle to get used to the flow and to see what does and does not work.

This is entirely too legalistic for my taste.