RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive25

LANCB

if people lancb the site for a period of time, say a month or two, should it be that they have wait to get sysop status, like a new user? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

they certainly shouldnt get to vote on anything. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about the second proposal...but I am always okay with waiting to give user rights. Not being a sysop for a few test days does little harm for anyone.-Flandres (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

it should act like a reset. so edit count for the purpose of voter eligibility would be set to zero. say a month after retired template appearing on someones user page. plenty of time for people to reconsider if done in a fit of pique AMassiveGay (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized we might want to take this to the community standards...though I also think they are discussing another proposal so attention might be slow.-Flandres (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-upping this eminently sensible proposal from @Bob M back in June:

"Any user who posts a LANCB notice on their user page will be promoted to Normal User for the time that the notice remains on their user page and for one month after it is removed. Once the month has passed they will not necessary be demoted to any previous status they may have held."

I'd incorporate AMG's proposal as follows:

"Any user who posts a LANCB notice on their user page will be promoted to Normal User and lose their voting franchise for the time that the notice remains on their user page and for one month after it is removed. Once the month has passed, they will regain their voting franchise, but will not necessarily be demoted to any previous status they may have held.

Requests to be indefinitely blocked will be treated as equivalent to posting a LANCB notice, and will incur the same restrictions. A subsequent unblock request will be treated as equivalent to removal of the LANCB notice."

I think the drama reduction potential is obvious. If nothing else, it incentivises people to fuck off quietly. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I was not too big on this last time, but in light of the last few months it seems significantly more reasonable.-Flandres (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. Your good health, sir. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

i feel there should a period of grace for people to cool off before anything to kick in. things can get heated and rash decisions can be made. hence i am suggesting one month after the lancb notice is posted before anything to take effect. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Would you look at that, a serious and eminently sane proposal for change to community standards from HBC. I'll drink to that. I'll also support the proposal. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 23:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Likewise.Spud (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with AMG's proposal. I also agree with his proposal that a user when they come back from LANCB or a request for "permanently blocked" have their account reset in terms of voting and have to wait the appropriate amount of months as a user and edits before they can vote. A 24 hour (or perhaps 48 hours) "cooling off" period also makes a lot of sense before their demotion and reset kicks in. ShabiDOO 00:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That "cooling off" grace period would rather defeat most of the drama reduction potential, though, wouldn't it? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with HBC. Like, if a overwhelming majority of the community demands a waiting period I won't vote against the finished bill...but some things should be prompt and ruthless.-Flandres (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly people who cares--Hastur! (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

lol

is this the fourth time you are trying to modify the community standards to get me banned or disenfranchise me? this is pathetic. but be careful what you wish for, this could affect your unstable mascot, who tends to lancb. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 07:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Lol: banned anyway. The proposal was irrelevant. Bongolian (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Vote: Should we change the 48-hour Coop rule?

Vote

I think we should hold a vote to see what we and the mob think. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 19:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Coop cases can now have a vote after 24 hours on a 12-3 overall and a 12-3 for 24 hours specifically. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 12:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Leave the 48-hour rule as-is Aye A decent amount of time given the multiple timezones involved, as well as the occasional surge in passions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Ban everyone immediately and shut this embarrassment down. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC) What GC said. — Oxyaena Harass 19:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Nay It makes Coop cases run on for too long; methinks 48 hours is a bit excessive. It should instead be 24 hours IMO. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularRasoningSteal my ideas 20:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Like, I get the whole "we need 48 hours for everyone to explain themselves" thing sounds good...but most coop cases have descended into bitter flame wars with no constructive arguments long before two days have passed. Besides, penalty votes at minimum last a week. Why do we NEED this extra 48 hour period?--Flandres (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Has proven excessive in my experience. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 21:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Change the rule to 24 hours Aye --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularRasoningSteal my ideas 19:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC) ShabiDOO 19:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC) A period of time to discus and debate before voting seems sensible. But 48 hours seems excessive, especially when certain votes can remain open for 14 days. --RWRW (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC) -Flandres (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Sure. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 10:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Definitely. Spud (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Low objections to this, although I'd obv have preferred a better writing more in-line with the intent rather than lowering the guideline to something arbitrary again. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 12:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC) 48 hours seems a tad too long, and a coop with a vote going out from the start is pretty kangaroo-ish. This looks like an acceptable compromise. ElectrosPardon? 20:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Yep... AceModerator 21:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC) 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 23:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC) — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 06:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Nay Nutty Roux (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 20:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Goat This vote should be on the Community Standards talkpage. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Agree. AceModerator 19:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Alright. Moving now. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularRasoningSteal my ideas 19:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC) @Ace McWicked@GrammarCommie@Flandres I've just moved this to the community standards talkpage, as requested. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularRasoningSteal my ideas 19:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC) I don't see the need for this. — Oxyaena Harass 19:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Ineligible I'm a BoN lurker and I'm reading Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage. at the top of every page. If you're going to say that on unregistered users' screens, I'm going to voice my opinion, and that is no, leave the rules the fuck alone and stop being a bunch of fucking drama queens. Fuck this shit with people trying to make it easier to put permabans in place; you want to feel important getting people banned go to Wikipedia and be an RC patrol. 71.215.100.2 (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC) You are not eligible to vote, I'm afraid.-Flandres (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC) So you ask for me to vote only to tell me I can't? Brilliant! Looks like something else you people need to fix. 71.215.100.2 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Um...it's in the community standards-you are not eligible. If you feel that strongly about it, make an account, start contributing, and wait three months. Also, actually reading the document you so prize might help(just a thought).-Flandres (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Since it looks like "Aye" is winning by a landslide

@Bongolian@Spud@Ace McWicked@Sirius Should I close this vote and change the rule? --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 23:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Policy votes have the same week-minimum guideline as penalty votes, I believe.-Flandres (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Correct. 1 week is the minimum rule. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

No more votes are coming in, and it's been a week. Motion to close the vote and change the policy. Electros^Pardon? 11:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Motion seconded. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 11:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Policy enacted, vote closed. The new rule is 24 hours. I'll instate this in the CS and update the coop accordingly. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes made. On the CS it also applies to ATIM, given ATIM is somewhat of a bonafide coop sometimes and occasionally deals with penalty votes. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)