RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive15

Proposed addition (racist, sexist, homophobic attacks, others?)
RationalWiki has a low tolerance policy for editing that is demeaning ad hominems abouts its editors, such as racist, sexist, and homophobic attacks. The first time an editor who makes such an attack, he or she will be blocked for a week. The second time, he or she will blocked for a month The third time, he or she will be blocked for a year. On rare occasions, a majority of the moderators can overturn such a ban.

Discuss. sterileevolutionist story telling 04:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems ok. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  04:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sexuality and gender orientation should be mentioned as well, otherwise fine by me. Тyrannis Plead 04:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I dislike this proposal. Some of the most fun and exciting debates I have had around here were those that got heated enough as to involve some amount of name-calling. 04:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Listener. We are grown ups.  While racism sucks, unless it's consistent and flagrant, I'm not a fan of booting people for being childish, forgetful, or pissed off.[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot When I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere  01:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do these ad hominems include calling someone a racist?-- 04:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is in reference to your posts where you tried to call other editors racists but then saw the posts themselves called racist? 04:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember comparing some users' attitudes to those of racists (the "Klansman" comparison, for example, was about the outrage some users expressed at not being able to push other users around anymore), but I don't believe I've ever accused another user of racism (excluding the odd "racialist" BoN)-- 04:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gawd, brx, you are an idiot. This is a move to block your asinine self from this wiki, or did you miss that?
 * Also, Sterile is moving tongue in cheek, if I do not guess wrong. Get the authoritarians to come out of their closet and champion RULES, GLORIOUS RULES!  04:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Human, there is a difference between the kind of rules that have everyone wearing uniforms and marching in unison, and the kind of rules that prevent capricious blocks such as they used to deal out to you with regularity over at Conservapedia. 04:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I may remind Mr. Powell that Conservapedia had fewer rules than we do, and was extremely authoritarian. However, I dislike this proposal, a) because of what ListenerX says above, and b) because we should not generally be in the business of creating a penal code. 05:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this seems a ridiculous proposal, people should be allowed to swear, insult and mock others as they see fit. If you want me to take this seriously define what misogynystic statements look like, clarify what can be said for comedic effect and what can't be made fun of, tell me what topics I am allowed to discuss and which are too rude. This will lead to more argument than just letting the mysoginistic/racist/stupid-for-whatever-reason people be made fun of and marginalised in debate. Tielec01 (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No to this. The Chicken Coop is already being used far too much for molehill mountaineering on minor stuff which could otherwise easily be ignored.  If we have to go through the rigmarole and inevitable fallout of blocking whenever somebody says a bad word, things will get a lot worse.  Like Human, I suspect this is not a sincere proposal.  09:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This has all the hallmarks of a solution in search of a problem. DickTurpis (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It does seem that, as Huw suggested, Sterile was being facetious. We already have a clause discouraging racist, sexist and homophobic attacks; creating a penal code is too over-the-top. 00:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Getting rid of Brx would be a good tradeoff to have.  I know of no non-profit that tolerates bigots in its ranks, and too many people vote to not ban him. sterileevolutionist story telling 01:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The next time he does something grossly objectionable - which shouldn't be too long - I expect you will find the voting in the Coop will go differently.  Incidents like when he insulted Ace's wife and his interminable sneering self-righteousness have probably tipped the balance.-- 01:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair his insulting my wife didn't particularly concern me as I have a hawt wife and he is an unemployed virgin so there isn't really very much for me to be offended at. AceModerator 01:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, we saw the photo, she is very lovely indeed and of course no one gave his insult a thought other than to think that he surely must have been jealous. Kudos to Ace for letting the remark slide off his back without a backward glance. Now on to the proposal... the first time a remark is made, blocked for a week? The second time for a month? That seems a bit harsh - kind of extreme. We are (mostly) adults here, and not that sensitive that we can't take an insult or two, or suppose it was said in jest... just seems a bit too strident to me. Here's a new idea: how about having something like a sh*t list. A page where you can enter someone's name & offense to keep track of a person who is being offensive or whatever... add the person's name/offense, date it, sign it, and if others do the same (different incidents), after 6 or 7 violations, within a set period of time (a week maybe?) then a punitive block. As proposed, longer next time. This can also serve as a running tally and record of the offensive comments without having to look them all up again when someone gets sick of it and wants to present evidence at the coop. Just a random idea. :p Refugee talk page 01:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * heeee... oh wait a minute. I really should have read the whole freaking discussion before commenting, not just the first 3 posts. After I posted my random thought, I started reading again and got to the part where Human says sterile was just kidding, a parody of authoritarianism or whatever. so, nevermind then. Refugee talk page 01:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you specifically put ageist attacks in there? Mr. Anon (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I think that slurs against people with developmental disabilities should be covered under this knew rule. A lot of people here are fond of using the offensive words "aspie" and "retard."  One user even uploaded an image of a sign on his house saying "no retards."  I don't think we should tolerate that sort of abusive language.  We risk hurting some people that don't deserve to be hurt-- 02:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * if you are joking, than i pre appologize for the following: jesus f' dude.  It doesn't matter what anyone says, SOMEONE will get offended.  I am so sick of having to worry about who gets offended by what word.  At least in the US - This whole country needs to grow the fuck up.  (not sure how relevant the whole "whine whine, you offended me" is world wide).  If you can't fucking deal with the fact that some racist, sexist, ignorant, illbred, inbred, fucker of a humanbeing calls you names, then maybe you shoudln't be playing on the internet.  Yes, i know gay kids are bullied.  And geeks are bullied.  and fat kids are bullied.  and dumb kids are bullied, adn that should stop.  But we are not a highschool, and no one here is a child, and at some point you stop protecting everyone and get the fuck on with life. --[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot When I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere  03:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was half-serious. I was exposing the double standard some people here are holding, where they are clean and I am a bigot.  I say the n-word over at ED, a place where you shouldn't be if you're easily offended, and there is uproar (although they don't really think I'm a racist, and nor do they care- they just want to get rid of me, because I try holding them accountable to their words and actions).
 * Actually, Godot, I mentioned people with developmental disabilities. These are people that are effectively children.  Judging from your attitude, I don't think you should be allowed around such people.  Or any people, if you refuse to consider the feelings of others.-- 03:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bricks, for the love of all things holy, shut the fuck up. 03:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What the fuck?! I literally, just five minutes ago, returned from my side job - working with people with developmental disabilities.  And I can assure you, you motherfucking idiot, that they are not children unless they are children, and your patronizing attitude is part of what makes that job so hard.  And this is your attempt at explaining yourself!-- 05:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fuck that. I don't even patronize children.  I take a strong moral stance against condescension.  Maybe I used the wrong words.  But you know what?  You probably don't want to take those people you work with too close to Ace's house, where he keeps that sign.  And you should look at yourself before complaining to other people that they're patronizing.-- 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)  &mdash; Unsigned, by: Brxbrx / talk / contribs 00:18, 06 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You probably don't want to take those people you work with too close to Ace's house, where he keeps that sign. Yup, that's why I have the sign. It even offended my mother, before she sadly passed on, because she thought he cancer came under the bracket of retardation and/or a deformity. We all had a laugh that day. AceModerator 00:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Everytime I think he cannot possibly sink any lower... ArchieGoodwin (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disapprove of more rules. No more fucking rules. I know Sterile expected his proposition to go South. But if there is going to be a rule on this topic, it should be this: we will respect a person for exercising his right of conscience to express his abhorrence of a degenerate sleaze like Brxbrx, while nonetheless bowing our heads to the kind of overblown process favored by a drama queen bent on creating opportunities to inject herself into anything she can overblow, and initiate a coop against a person for doing things we would do ourselves if we had the sack. Hey, what's up? I just got back from vacation. I'm ready to rumble. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 07:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Nutty, welcome back. 07:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh girl. We should talk! [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 07:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you hear about me defending you in the coop? That was some crazy shit. 15:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * May I state something that is obvious at least to most of us, and is critical in this context. This site is largely "free speech" "anything goes".  It's also mob ruled.  not RULES, just "ruled".  The instant I said something off base about transgender people, blue (and others) quickly and rightly were all over my butt about it.  If Blue were to say that "fat people suck", others would be all over her butt about it.  That's how free speech works.  you say something, and prove yourself to be a biggot, or ill-informed, or lazy, or showboaty, or legitimately unaware, and teh mob looks at you and creates a context appropriate response.  Of the ignorant or unaware, they offer information; for the lazy, they offer links or chastisement; for the jerks, they tell them off.  That's the whole point of being part of a group of people like this.  Not only does it protect the speaker's right to speak (and be ignorant or bitchy or jerky), it gives the group a way to kinda "guide" the raging river.  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot When I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere  15:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I view freedom of speech here as sacrosanct (excluding excessively personal info, which I can and will burn), which includes trolling, but that doesn't preclude the use of the trolltop and collapse templates (I made trolltop, back in the Second MarcusCicero Wars, whoohoo), and it's a completely separate issue from abuse of user rights. The community will is also sacrosanct. If the community votes fairly to ban or desysop a user, no one has the right to go against the decision. However, no one has the right to presume to speak for the community and enforce what I call cowboy justice. Cowboy justice, unilateral judgment, whatever you want to call it, let me channel Bricks for a moment and say that it's a cancer on this place. Taking a stab in the dark I'd say 80% of our HCMs have been caused by one or two users abusing their rights in summary judgment of others.
 * It occurs to me that this has gone significantly off track from the topic at hand. 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd take a stab in the dark and say the our worst moments were caused by you and a few others and that since people have openly backlashed at the officious bullshit you all pushed since last May, you look like a douchecanoe for continuing to thrust yourself into these situations in order to satisfy your ego driven obsession to pontificate on your alternate reality and propose even more rules (!!!!!!). Anyhow, we don't ban people and that's not what anyone, including me, was doing. But that's not to say I'm not entitled to stake my rights or whatever on the consensus that we have the moral authority run vile creatures like Brxbrx out on a rail. I've relied on the community will, which is so very much the opposite of what you think it is, for people to do whatever they want to fix or not fix whatever they want. And you know what? The community will was to let Brxbrx dangle and remain blocked and desysopped for several days until he hounded AD enough to lose his patience. You live in lala land, Blue. I boggle at the degree to which your mysterious self importance overrides good sense. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Nutty, where are these new rules I've proposed? Where is the physical evidence of community will? Where do you get off saying you weren't banning Brx? Are you purposefully blacking out the entire period of RW history before last May? Do you even remember my specific actions and proposals during that month? 16:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How does one find physical evidence of consensus? I get off saying I wasn't banning Brxbrx because the standard response is to do what Huw and Trent note: click some buttons and undo whatever one wants. As I said, there's been an open backlash. The coop only ever gets used to carry out grudges, and the whole process being based on new votes everytime ensures that precedent is no necessary part of the criteria for being sanctioned. And how in the world could you possibly say I could forget the prior state of affairs when I'm practically the only one who's so vigorously opposed your rules expansions. Look no further than this turdblossom for you proposing yet more process. And yes, I certainly do remember your specific actions and proposals last May. I remember your ridiculous and hypocritical response to the Sterile incident and, once again, one need look no further than you looking for more rules rules rules when we had one single problem that could have been easily remedied. This is getting hugely off topic. I would be delighted to give you as much as you want on how I feel about your approach. Let me know if you're interested in doing that somewhere else. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, absent actual evidence, your assertions of community consensus are tenuous at best. As for May, I find it hilarious that you blame me for so much. I welcome your essay explaining in great detail and with citations how I am the archvillain of all the evil that has befallen RW in the past year. 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "I don't even." The evidence of consensus is all around you. Look at moderator elections. Look at how this community actually enforces its rules rather than how you seem to think things are going. Despite your best efforts, the moderator role is and has been a farce. What's more, I don't see how you can possibly deny that most of these people lost interest keeping up momentum after they were able to was their hands of the process of coming up with process to invent process. They show up to vote on situations in which they've got no skin in the game.
 * You're not an archvillain, Blue. You're a punk with bad judgment and no talent for legislation. I felt like I was cleaning up your messes last year. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There does not seem to be any broad dislike of Blue or her efforts, which is why she was re-elected to the position of moderator - just about the strongest confirmation of her actions that there could be.  Also, she opposed the proposal here, just like 90% of the people who commented, so it's odd to start hurling accusations about wanting to create more process for its own sake.-- 20:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say she was broadly disliked. I wasn't referring to her at all when I mentioned consensus. The closest I got was mentioning a backlash, which is as clear as day. Nobody gives much of a shit about rules when blocking abuses are worse now than ever and nobody does anything about it. And when I referred to her taking every opportunity to come up with yet more procedures I should have been more clear that you need look no further than the Coop. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it's directly on topic. "do we need a rule of conduct for speech".  Our rule is largely "let the mob have at the person", which i think is appropriate.  part of the mob can be a vote to remove a persons, sure, but by and large, just "bitch slapping" stupidity is usually sufficient for people to rethink what they said. *usually*.[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot When I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere  16:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How come people like you (brx, not blue - i respect her, even when we piss each other off - which we do), can't read. the whole point is that sites like this are not populated by children or people with mental retardation.  Our site has plenty of people with issues, but I dont' think it's a wiki's job to protect people with issues.  They figure out that it's safe for them to play, or they stay home.  While you may think this is not taking consideration of others into account, fine.  But for heaven's sake, at least put that view into the context of the very wiki we are talking about. [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot When I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere  03:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and call this proposal defeated. I don't think it was ever a good faith proposal to begin with, and now it's degraded into just another bitchfest. DickTurpis (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What did you expect anyway, Dick? The whole thing shines a bright light on the fundamentally different positions of people who actually care about the wellbeing of the wiki and those who exult in process and would even propose banning a user for speech, albeit disgusting, using official processes creating that very possibility when it could never conceivably existed before, yet want it both ways by openly participating in running him out on a rail. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If as you say people are proposing "banning a user for speech," they are not doing it here; Sterile was being sarcastic, and no one who has commented here supports this measure. 03:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See comments above by Mikalos209, Tyrannis and Refugee, who appear to support this measure or similar. 07:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Were they being serious? I would be very surprised if Mikalos209, at the very least, was not being sarcastic like Sterile. Refugee's proposal also has that ring to it. 07:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They looked serious to me, but either way it doesn't matter much as this motion clearly isn't going to carry. 12:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you do this so easily, Lx? Go look at the coop page and see how many people are perfectly happy with the notion of banning Brxbrx. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you changed your mind, hmm? Peter Blessed are the cheesemakers 05:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nutty Roux, I think you recognize the difference between a one-off block of a user (which is what is being supported — though not officially proposed — at the Coop) and an official policy to ban users for speech (as is being proposed here). 05:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This place is descending into a mad house. Some of you people need to get out a bit more. 12:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect most who expressed support for it hadn't thought it through. I also don't really consider us to be a "free speech site," as I hope we would ban a stereotypically Stormfront user. There are limits. Yes, dissent, discussion and explanation are one thing. Blatant hate is another. Just sayin'. (Not saying the Brx is a Stormfronter, either.) sterileevolutionist story telling 14:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
Add the following clause to the Community Standards:

It is simple and it does the job. LongStandingUser (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Penalty votes dealing with a user's removal from the site
What does this phrase actually mean? If we mean proposals to block a user, we should say so. If we mean proposals to block a user permanently, that's basically never going to happen. The blocks on MC, SR, UHM, etc. all have expiry dates. 12:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Removals can be temporary (elseways it would have stipulated "permanent removal") and the sole way of accomplishing them is by blocking, so I don't see how it's unclear. 15:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unclear because it doesn't use the word "block" which is used throughout the rest of the standards, and hence implies that something else is meant here. If we mean votes on blocking somebody, let's just say so.  16:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Removal" was originally used because it meant both blocking and stripping of the ability to unblock, i.e. both blocking and removing user rights. Just "blocking" does not necessarily mean desysopping. 16:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but maybe it should say "(temporarily or permanently)" in parenptheses. "Removal" sounds emphatic enough that it could be interpreted as meaning permanent banishment if this isn't made clear.  23:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of essays
What is the policy on deletion of one's own essays? Are essays considered a "user page" (and thus can be self-deleted under the "user page" policy) or are they considered quasi-mainspace (in which case deletion can only happen by consensus). VOX HUMANA  05:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends what ownership tag is put on them. If they're an essay belonging to one person, that person can delete them.  If they're a collaborative/community essay, they should probably be treated like mainspace.  05:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. VOX  HUMANA  06:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal A
Change promotion/demotion to something that makes sense:

Proposal B
Removing the concept of promotion/demotion and just having it as "user powers":

Have at it moral 16:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like Proposal B. Тy JFBAA 17:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no point mentioning the "autopatrolled" group if we're not explaining what it is, + there's no obligation to promote/demote/whatever users to this before making them sysop, since they're autopatrolled automatically after a day & a few edits.  21:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, may as well forget that exists from a CS point of view. Scarlet A.pngpostate silverbrain.png 02:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Autopatrolled <> autoconfirmed -- Nx  / talk 05:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

For me it's B, then current policy, then A. A will confuse things massively because the existing terms will be kept on whether you like it or not. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a little bit concerned that both proposal A and proposal B involve a change from the traditional meaning of promotion/demotion. I think we should keep our history and our weird quirks.  I don't see any pressing need to abandon our traditions, and I don't like the way the two options presented both assume that we are to do this.  DamoHi 06:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The up-is-down nature of the "traditional meanings" is an encumbrance to anybody who wants to talk plainly about user rights without being misunderstood, & outright confusing to anybody new to the site. I suspect it's probably only a few veteran users who really cherish this usage, & nobody's going to stop them from continuing to use it if they want to; I just think it's time to take it out of written guidelines.  06:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well so long as the vote is not just between option A and option B. FWIW I disagree with taking it out of the written guidelines also.  There should remain some unique and traditional features about this place, even if they are a bit quirky.  DamoHi 07:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Voting standards
With the possible exception of the franchise requirements, I suggest we think about scrapping this section. While they were drafted with good intentions, the obligations to run votes for more than week & seek a two thirds majority are actually a hindrance to getting things done, & since we've disregarded them at least a couple of times in the interests of expediency, it's better not to commit ourselves to them at all. 21:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2/3s Majority is quite unnecessary in anything but the most major of site wide policy changes (IE, changing it so only a few people are sysops rather then what is done now). One week voting seems ok, but perhaps combine it with a threshold that ends it if one side runs away with it? --Revolverman (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sitewide policy changes are where two-thirds majority is least practical. Look at the proposed vote here (which fizzled out before coming to a vote anyway, due to lack of interest/momentum) - each question which was to be voted on had at least four or five options; requiring a two-thirds majority for any outcome would have made it all-but-impossible to get a conclusive vote at all.  21:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But isn't that the point? Not arguing for obstruction, but those kinda changes NEED the Super-Majority support, don't they? I mean how else would it be done? A simple Majority vote could lead to a situation where policy is decided by 30% of the vote because its split between many choices? --Revolverman (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any viable mobocracy should eschew the tyranny of the minority...in fact, the very principle is countermand to the organization.-- Seth Peck (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think the two weeks & 2/3 majority requirements are too onerous. One week, with a simple majority is just fine.   22:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Making it really difficult to change policy can be a bad thing. Recent years have seen new governments move away from the American constitutional model, because it's prohibitively difficult to update.  (Imagine for a moment if the California constitution required a two-thirds majority to amend it—and that the anti-gay marriage amendment was passed that way.  It'd take another decade of shifting public opinion to build in order to undo it.)  Policy needs to be adaptable, otherwise it fails its intended purpose, which is to reflect and reinforce an organization's goals and values.   22:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Scrapping the standards is an incredibly bad idea, because then we'd be back to square one where we have no remotely legitimate way of making decisions beyond random ad-hoc-ery. Updating them to make it less onerous to do certain things could be a good idea, though. 00:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think the two weeks & 2/3 majority requirements are too onerous. One week, with a simple majority is just fine Agree 100%. Acei9 01:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately some people are not able to spend all their waking hours hanging around RationalWiki because real-life intervenes. One week is simply too short for serious votes about the site to be decided, and it would be very exceptional that policy changes need to be implemented so quickly. A two thirds majority (or 60/40, 55/45) is much better than a simple majority because it has much more authority. If the vote is decided by one vote in a ~50/50 split then a small change in opinion can swing it back again and you get all the time-wasting see-saw crap that political duopolies engage in. Once you commit to a change then it should stay that way unless there is a massive shift against it. <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 08:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 08:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed vote on previous issues
So after the whole big last kerfuffle, there were some things that we agreed needed to be sorted. These are not all of the issues, but I'll be damned if I am going to sort out everything. This is my proposed vote, adapted from Blue's mid-stream summary.

Question 1: Who is eligible to vote in elections? Question 2: How many moderators should be elected? Question 3: How should moderators be elected? Question 4: How should techs be selected?
 * Current: any editor whose account has existed for more than three months and who has more than 75 edits total.
 * Only those editors whose account has existed for more than three months and who have made at least 75 edits within the last three months before an election.
 * Current system: 7
 * 10
 * 13
 * 20
 * The number of eligible voters, divided by ten (10) and rounded to the nearest whole number.
 * No limit; moderators are elected for life until they resign or are removed.
 * Current system: STV (single transferable vote).
 * Approval voting. First-past-the-post.
 * Simple voting, with each voter casting seven equally weighted positive votes for seven candidates. First-past-the-post.
 * Simple voting, with each voter casting seven equally weighted votes for seven candidates, but they may use their votes to vote for and against candidates. First-past-the-post, but against votes count negatively toward a candidate's total.
 * Current system: Any moderator may appoint a tech or remove a tech.
 * A majority of moderators can appoint or remove a tech.
 * A majority of moderators can appoint a tech, but a community vote must remove a tech.
 * Community votes may appoint or remove any tech.
 * The tech position should be abolished, and its powers merged with moderators'.
 * The Foundation Board should select them and remove techs.

Without getting too much into the merits of the actual positions, which can be argued over later, does this fairly represent the best options for each question?--talk 01:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just don't think it's worth opening this all up again at the moment, when nothing is in pressing need of changes. Whenever it comes up, it causes a certain amount of unnecessary tension, distracts from useful/fun wiki activity, & then peters out with little or nothing being achieved.  Let sleeping dogs lie.  18:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seemed like a good idea to bring it up specifically because it wasn't an issue or an uproar right now. If other folks agree with you, I won't press it, but it just doesn't seem smart to wait for a crisis before making a decision.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 21:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I said last time, & after putting a lot of time into trying to get things moving, it still grinded to a halt. Nevertheless, let's see what others think about discussing it now, or maybe diary it for late Nov/Dec in time for the next mod election.  22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to do anything about sock voting for the next election? 01:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * GO AWAY FASCIST WE DON'T WANT YOUR FASCISM HERE.  01:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what the first question is intended to combat?--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 03:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to me it makes the most sense to fix voting procedures when an election isn't imminent, so yeah, now's as good a time as any. As for sock voting, tweaking the standards won't do much, as anyone can just make enough edits to make sure they qualify. Either more drastic measures need to be taken, or we should just admit it's a problem we can mildly mitigate, but in the end do very little about. DickTurpis (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How about this, anyone who commits voter fraud to rig an election to be a moderator on a website gets "LIFELESS LOSER" stamped across their talkpage. --Revolverman (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * STV is too vulnerable to sock vote-rigging. In a system of equal non-ranked votes, anyone sneaking an extra vote or two would probably have less impact.  10:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh god not this shit again. Pray tell what's wrong with "voting procedures?" We've got a single problem to solve and none of these ponderous proposals addresses it. Let's talk about fixing problems that actually exist, mkay? Please? The only solutions I see are going through the votes by hand to expose fraud when you have cause to believe it exists, which is inaccurate and cumbersome, tying votes to a stronger identifier by running them through the Facebook group, or disincentivizing fraud by making it expensive: put the ballot form on a Google Checkout page that charges a poll fee. We discussed policy solutions to death. There are none. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I've said before, if people are really concerned about voter fraud, scrapping secret ballot is the most effective way to combat it. Most enfranchised sockpuppets are known, and can have their votes discarded (sure, this still won't solve the problem 100%, nothing will). I'll admit it's a rather extreme measure, but if addressing this issue is important to people it at least has to be on the table. I expect it will be dismissed, but I'd view that as a tacit admission that voter fraud isn't a very serious problem. DickTurpis (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, make bots ineligible and change the requirements to something like x edits in the last y months. -- Nx  / talk 13:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The ineligibility of bots should be uncontroversial and very easy to do. In fact, I'd argue the current voting standards, which are specific to users and not accounts, already prohibit bots from voting. This doesn't prevent someone from unbotting their bots for a few minutes while they vote, and then rebotting them later. It would be transparent, but still easy to do. The matter of x edits on y months simply means that users can simply have their socks make a bunch of meaningless edits every now and then to be reenfranchised. If someone really wants their socks to vite they can still do so under this system. But that assumes we have people here who really want their bots to vote. I'm not sure I know of any such people. Do you, Nx? DickTurpis (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Who knows. And the x edits in the last y months thing is to prevent unused old socks from voting. You can't really stop anyone who is really dedicated, but you can make it harder. -- Nx  / talk 16:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing occurred to me: if any rule involving a time period is added, it'll need to include specific details about measuring said period. For instance, the "Only those editors whose account has existed for more than three months and who have made at least 75 edits within the last three months before an election" one - does that mean 3 months before the vote is cast, before the start of the polling period, before the end of the polling period or what? What edits count anyway? Does it include deleted contributions? Reverted contributions? If an editor adds 75 individual cock pictures to Brx's talk page, does that comply with the requirement? And of course, who does the counting? rpeh •T•C•E• 15:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure vote counts and enfranchisement in general is done automatically, so that would presumably hold for further requirements as well. I'd assume the baseline date for "x months prior" would either be to the constantly shifting current date or when the polls officially open. I think any edit to any page is currently counted as an edit, but probably not deleted edits. You'll have to check with the technical staff for that. DickTurpis (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's automatic, and from the current date, so if you're not eligible at the start of the vote, you can't vote, but if you become eligible two days in, you'll be able to vote. -- Nx  / talk 15:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, as long as there's a definite way of making the count. It should be spelled out in the relevant section, though. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nx's idea accomplished nothing, and it doesn't take that much imagination how to abuse it. If anything, it will disenfrachise long time users who are pissed off and not contributing because of it.. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am so glad we are still haggling over an issue the Nx, the douche bag he is, instigated. What an awesome guy. "Look guys, I went and was a complete knob-end and now you fucks have to deal with a problem I created. Here let me help you sort out the problem I created". Acei9 21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not create the problem. It was there all along. -- Nx  / talk 07:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sterile, Nutty has already demonstrated that any system we can put into place here can be abused. All I want to see is that, given the rules will be abused, it's better that everyone knows how to abuse them. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, if Nx isn't going be ethical, we might as well all not be. Joyous. I remember why I wasn't contributing. sterilesporadic heavy hitter
 * Is it still a circlejerk if everybody's planning to fuck everybody else over?  23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now it's a 'fuck you' orgy. Acei9 01:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, "orgy" implies some level of enjoyment for all.  01:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock voting isn't the big scary monster it's being made out to be. If somebody wants to have a spare account or two & use them regularly just in order to cheat their way towards a position with a few extra abilities but no real meaningful authority, so be it. The only real concern here is that, in a system limited to such a small number of moderators, they might win a place ahead of someone more deserving of the role. This is an example of why moderatorship should be widened to more than just seven individuals. This would also leave more mods on the ground to step in as needed if somebody runs amok, like today. 01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How about moderators are appointment only from now on?
That way we can avoid having ding-dongs like Ace going on a wiki-rampage. -- "Shut up, Brx." 13:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But then you and Nx wouldn't be able to vote with sockpuppets and waste lots of people's time trying to fix a problem that just the two of you are responsible for. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Brx didn't vote with his sock puppets. I did not create the problem. I pointed it out two elections ago, and you yourself said it wasn't a problem. Then I showed you that it is a problem. -- Nx  / talk 14:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You did create the problem, quite blatantly. You're a lying scum who was only exposed by Trent looking at the votes. If you hadn't tried to fix the election there'd have been no problem. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, ignorance is bliss. -- Nx  / talk 14:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Brxbrx actually did vote with sockpuppets. And if you two are the ones who tried monkeying with the election by exploiting flaws in be system we've been talking about for a while, I'd say you two are the real cause of the problem. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's news. Do you have evidence for that? -- Nx  / talk 14:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the second part, that's just stupid. The flaw in the system exists whether you exploit it or not. -- Nx  / talk 15:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Something is wrong with you if you're really blaming the existence of the flaw rather than taking responsibility for exploiting it. As for Brxbrx sock voting, my evidence is another conversation with Trent that includes something like "not this fucking guy again." [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pretty weak evidence, especially considering your Brx paranoia (I recall an email in which you basically said that every vandal and troll on RW is Brx, or something like that)
 * I'll tell you a secret. My sock votes did not change the end result. My goal was not to rig the election. I did not even run in the elections. If I wanted to cheat, I would've stayed quiet, raised a few dozen quiet, wiki-gnome socks with just the minimum amount of edits needed to be eligible, and then elected seven of them as mods.
 * Now, if you want to hate me for that, be my guest. But don't forget to actually fix the problem, before you find yourself with 7 mods, all of which are my socks. -- Nx  / talk 15:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrug. Then call me a liar. I'll put conversations with Trent over you knowing jack fucking shit about this except your own part in it. The rest of this is just more evidence that there's really no good point in even interacting with you. You and your little bitch boy cheated in the election. I don't care why you say you did it or whether you succeeded in changing the outcome. You created a problem. And err, the vandalism I've actually blamed on Brxbrx is stuff the RWW server logs support him being responsible for. You guys are both incredibly creepy people. What do you get out of this? [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you were talking about an IP disrupting the coop, and then claiming that IP belongs to Brx, and a bunch of other accounts that you claimed are his socks. You mean to say that you looked at server logs to find out Brx's IP? And you call me creepy? -- Nx  / talk 15:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Enjoy being you, Nx. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

How about we all start behaving like fucking grown-ups for a change. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 14:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is good advice. It's a shame nobody seems to be listening.  16:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Grown ups? Here? When people on the RWF board opening vandal people's pages with shooped pics of penises? HA! --Revolverman (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This was a thread started by Brx whining about a problem that exists only because he and his friends seem to be annoying. Downhill is a mandatory direction for this kind of thread. <font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR lavishly loquacious 01:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fuck that. There are annoying people in the world. Grown-ups accept that and ignore them, try to work around them, or maybe try to reason with them. They don't poke them with a stick. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 02:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KoTL;DR, I can't believe you're blaming this on me. You've got a lot of nerve.-- "Shut up, Brx." 17:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)