Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election close on Sunday.

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

User:Lumenos/Debate Map:Measuring consensus

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This material is based on a merging of this older page and this newer page at RationalWiki. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, Version 3.0 (CC-BY-SA 3.0) or any later version. A complete copy of the license can be read at Creative Commons Legal Code.



The following wiki dialogs began after "June 2010 Revamp" apparently initiated by User:Π (not user:Pi) on a RationalWiki Community Standards talk page. Lumenos copied that section to a subpage in their userspace. Since then there were "complaints" of Lumenos "rewriting history", etc, so Lumenos restored this page to the last version by Bob and merged in the only comments Lumenos had deleted. Lumenos has created a fork that is more representative of eir own preferences (it has improved arguments, clarifications, or strikeouts). That can be found here, at Lumeniki. Ace McWicked and maybe Gooniepunk, would prefer you "argue" at Lumeniki. Lumenos would prefer you edit the talk page on Lumeniki (in case the fork has not been merged with any edits made to the RationalWiki version).


Measuring consensus (with polls)[edit]

It is kinda looking like consensus isn't going to be possible. [1] Perhaps we could change the wording to say this is majority rule. Much like "troll" the term "consensus" is a cliche that has lost its meaning in wiki culture. Lumenos (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The nature of consensus & "majority rule" at RW is covered in RationalWiki:Community Standards#How RationalWiki is run. If you think it needs rewording, start a new section for it. If you have productive suggestions about the "advice when writing articles" section, put them here. Thanks. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I was commenting on the phrase "per longstanding community consensus". I think I'm in agreement with this edit note, "(Advice when writing articles: This was not adequately discussed prior to inclusion & is not uncontroversial. It can be reinstated if there is widespread support.)" I think the best way to measure "widespread support" is by using polls (that are always open and linked from Community Standards). I'm not here to say that you should start using polls; I'm saying if you don't use polls, you probably don't have a good measure of "long-standing community consensus" or "widespread support", therefore this "standard" should not make this claim. Lumenos (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Look at the edit history of metapedia. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If we drop the "per longstanding community consensus" part, will you stop making long posts about it? - π 04:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Well of course, but unless you make me think you were doing it because you found it reasonable I will conclude that making meaningless long posts is just as "productive" as writing ones that seem to make sense. :-) Perhaps a better way to get me to shut up is to say, "I haven't found your posts all that helpful and you seem to be getting in the way of this process, could you limit your comments to about what others (besides Human) write?" ;-) Lumenos (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
God you are an idiot. - π 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I admire your humility in addressing me as God, har har! I will put my next comment in a new location if that will help. Lumenos (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC) This is no time for praying, we have work to do! Lumenos (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I was not addressing you as God; if I did there would have been a comma. - π 02:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you but this time I didn't need the obvious spelled out. Lumenos (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess you don't think I'm helping. So now I'm off of your Community Standards talk page. Lumenos (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Lumenos (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Human, I am of the opinion that polls measure consensus, regardless of the history. Lumenos (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure you are. But you're wrong, when it comes to a wiki where people can edit as as many usernames as they want. Also, polling is less useful that intelligent commentary and arguments. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Socks can be used for writing just as for "voting". You have that problem either way. A new person might not know how active all these usernames are, so socks may be deceptive, but should be less deceptive to experienced users. Polling is better to measure consensus. How do you measure consensus with arguments? Do you pick the arguments you like and say consensus has been reached? Is the last comment assumed to reflect everyone's will unless someone disagrees? I'm not saying take a vote, count the pseudonyms, and write whatever the "majority" vote for, as policy. I'm saying if we have a list of nyms that anyone can add/subtract theirs to at any time, we would have a much better idea of the community's will. As new information comes out, old polls may become obsolete. But if we don't vote on the version that goes to the policy page how will we know there is consensus? And what about everyone who wasn't around at that time? The primary problem with your approach is that it favors people like you and I, who feel more "entitled" to "attention". Pi is giving me the feeling I shouldn't post. I think the more polite/timid among us would be more inclined to cast a vote rather than bring the issue out to the talk page or even comment here. A editor may see no reason to bring it up unless they can look at the poll and see that there is significant support for their position. Lumenos (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
When consensus is not apparent, we make no decision. Often, as it forms, people "outside" the developing consensus rethink their view and approve the decision. You might want to explore the archives of this talk page, which is where we did this quite successfully. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
In theory? We already know that there was something on the Community Standards page that did not enjoy majority support. Lumenos (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is a myth and does not exist. Usually it merely represents the wishes of the more forceful members of the community. 86.40.195.134 (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you support polls, to correct or expose this? Lumenos (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't we normally poll issues, like delete/keep, merge/split and voting for crats? Although I have noticed in the later case people ignoring the vote and doing what they feel. Lumenous, it is not that I mind you posting, it is that you post some much and say so very little. I imagine that if we continue to follow your ideas we will get dragged down into a bureaucratic nightmare of endless polling over the smallest things. - π 02:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
We've been down this road before (e.g. RationalWiki:Voting Procedure proposals). Excessive polling isn't helpful. We only need to vote in cases where it's otherwise hard to gauge consensus. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
What teh mustelid said. 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

(Pi wrote) "I imagine that if we continue to follow your ideas we will get dragged down into a bureaucratic nightmare of endless polling over the smallest things." Anyone who finds a poll to be a nightmare could ignore it. If they ignore polls when writing "community standards" then maybe we should call them something other than "community standards".

If all Human and Weaseloid mean by "consensus" or "community standards" is what some little group like this, has in mind, then it may be easy to gauge without polls. But that didn't seem to work with the racism issue. I don't see the disadvantage of having polls, but I think I need to refocus what the issue is so I will try a new subsection.

Lumenos (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We are going to vote on the new standards before they are going to be adopted if that was the point of your latest wall of text. We will however venture to modify them to the point were nearly everyone is voting yes, or as few people as possible are voting no, so we will not be satisfied a simple majority. - π 02:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a start but it doesn't have most of the advantages I listed below. Lumenos (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
What advantage? It seems to me that all that is discussed these days is endless policy bickering and you want to make it a perpetual state. I just want to get some policies down and get back to the site's mission instead of constantly debating the site itself. Take that shit to RationalWikiWiki if you are that interested. - π 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Well one curiously ironic advantage (which is listed below) is that you could put any issues that you are interested in on your watchlist and exclude this one. Lumenos (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Using subpages to show supporters/detractors of "Community Standards"[edit]

Forget about using voting to determine what to put on the community standards page. I propose anyone has the option of making a link from any of the "[Community Standards]", to a subpage containing evidence of supporters or detractors. This page may (or may not) contain:

  • Polls that are always open, and have various versions of the community standard for people to sign to indicate they support or detract.
  • Other evidence of community opinion such as diffs that show editors statements on the subject.
  • (Original) comments.

There are a few advantages of this:

  • Those who are interested in the subject can add it to their watchlist without getting alerts for everything they're not interested in.
  • Single issue subpages keep everything more organized and require less archiving.
  • (New) users can more easily find all discussions on the community standard and can comment or "vote" on it. (Again the "votes" are not necessarily binding.) Users can also easily find those who agree or disagree, in order to contact them directly, or notify them of the discussion.

Lumenos (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to set this up in your user space go ahead, it however to me seems like a huge waste of time and overly bureaucratic to do this in project space. - π 02:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are saying it would be okay to link to my user space from some issues on the community standards page. I'm guessing you are not. I assume it would be alright to put footnotes in the community standards pages, to the discussions in the archives. I may want to post footnotes of community members breaking the "rules" but that would probably be a can of worms. Lumenos (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think links to your user space from the community standard would be a good. You can keep lists of everyone breaking the rules if you like, when you are a pariah that nobody wants to talk to I'll give you hints why. As I said before RationalWikiWiki needs some love if pointless documenting is your thing. - π 02:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean. Maybe I will do that. Thanks. Lumenos (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hardly anyone uses watchlist email alerts, & most who are interested in the rewrite will be interested in all of it, not just single issues.
  • When the rewrite is complete, the discussion should be archived here, all in one place, not scattered across the wiki.
  • New users can more easily find the discussion if it's all in one place, which regularly shows up in RC, not scattered across the wiki. If we hack this into subpages, some will inevitably get neglected. Discussion about the CS should be open & in as few locations as possible so that it is easy for anyone to follow. Users contacting each other about it elsewhere to form alliances is not desirable. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess the difference is that I value the long-term benefits. The subpages would always be easy to find because they would be forever linked from the individual community standards. Once this stuff gets scattered across the forums and archives, you have to know what to search for. The only disadvantage of subpages is we would have to click more. (This is easier if you use a watchlist, etc.) A proposal such as this should be more neglected if you are a good judge of what most/everyone wants/does.
I don't see a problem with alliances. The forum on the racist linking could have been a subpage where all that discussion would have taken place. Now that discussion is also on this page, in the last archive, and in some other archive for the discussion before it was added.
Lumenos (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem with alliances is we are suppose to be working together as one community. What happens when your subpages get archived? The discussion will be even more defuse. Also the subpages assumes that these ideas are discrete, separate and independent. Whereas I think the entire of the Community Standards is one document and the sections are interdependent. - π 10:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe everyone is going to agree on many of these things. If you are hoping I will "come around" on this issue, it isn't likely. I'm not trying to push it, or be in the spotlight. It seems the way you are doing it would stifle dissent and alternative forks. Like the way you are saying I post walls of text and "will I quit posting if...?" You prefer an environment where I have to choose between not participating, and being "tolerated" by a few people who are opposed and don't seem very interested in my ideas. If I put an idea on a subpage, it could sit there for a year until some other conehead arrives and suggests we develop it further.
The subpages would require much less archiving (if any). I would have some parts of the page be edited like a wiki article, and archive discussion. I would put the archives in the subpages so things wouldn't be lost/mixed in the archive; it is all one topic.
I would link interdependent sections using interwiki links and categories, just like articles. But if this were to happen here (doesn't look like it will) there may only be subpages for a few issues (of interest to me). The proposal is to allow people to do this, not to implement it across the board.
Lumenos (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I just don't see what your idea will achieve besides a large, unwieldy, and confusing set of community standards. How do we know which are current policy and which are in a state of flux? Also what is an "alternative fork"? Do people get to have their own private set of community standards or something? I prefer one clean, simple set of standards and if there is a problem we discuss changing them. - π 12:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
People get to represent their own standards, which would be the actual "community standards" even if those are not really a neat and "consistent" list. Presumably the real [community] standards should be the ones on the Community Standards page, not the stuff on the subpages. But that depends on how we would judge what would be moved to the "Community Standards" page. I think with polling we would have a deadly accurate measure of how much a "community standard" a "Community Standard" really was, insofar as editors really follow the principles they "vote" for. The point is, no matter what we put on the Community Standards page, anyone could easily have a look at any polls or discussion, relating to any issue that links to a subpage on the "Community Standards" page.
There is an advantage of your current system that comes to mind. It seems to allow a bit more privacy/obscurity. I guess there is always a trade off between privacy and an open, democratic approach, but if that is important to anyone, they may be able to remain pseudonymous while here or use a sock for "policy" involvement. Editors who use socks would not be able to represent their full edit history, but if they use their primary pseudonym with your current system, they only really have a bit more obscurity to protect them.
Lumenos (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[ETA bracketed bold text, etc. That blind moron (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)][ETA strikeout. That advantage is already possible due to the distinct archives for pass, fail, and revamp, although everything in the standard archives are still more difficult to find as compared with my proposal (as far as everyone who wants their comments represented there and therefore puts them in the location I suggest). But the other advantages I listed at "Using subpages to show supporters/detractors of "Community Standards"" are not possible with the current system. ~ That blind moron (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC) ]
Your suggestions are not useful or popular. Please get over it. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I was never under it. If you would like to explain how you know this, feel free. Lumenos (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably because no one is using or applauding them, I'd guess. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
That could be because they aren't aware of them, they don't understand them, they are prevented from posting, or they don't bother with trying to change or participate in these things because they perceive it as futile. Lumenos (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (It seems you are referring only to the evidence of "popularity".) Lumenos (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, a poll. Who likes Lumenos's idea?

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

  • Tis' shite. - π 22:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to explain "my idea" in your own words, this would be appreciated. And/or what disadvantages you see, or evaluate above response to your "criticism". (One wonders why you continue to show an interest in "my idea" unless it has some notability.) Lumenos (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, let's all keep talking about Lumenos and his wonderful fucking idea. Clearly that's what this revamp thing is all about. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC) @Lumenos It is a poll, you vote, leave a short comment if you want, this is how we gauge consensus. Because I oppose your idea and I don't want it to pass by my apathy. - π 23:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this parody? The whole "Community Standards" page was passed by my apathy. Does it matter? Would anyone important/intelligent presume that it represented me, a majority, or some "rulers"? What's it mean? Lumenos (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You fucking idiot, it was agreed upon like three years ago, when you were in diapers. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure it was agreed upon by someone and I suspect that you would have played a large role. I wouldn't assume that anything I saw on the community standards page represented Pi's vote. It seems like Pi was concerned that if something passes then someone will think it represents the whole community. Only a presumptuous person would presume this. So Pi has "nothing" to worry about, that I can see. Perhaps you see something that I don't. Lumenos (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Tis shite. Let the record show that the following comment is a lie. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Let the record show, the vote was a draw, then (as you can see) consensus comments were heading in favour of my proposal. So they black bagged me to this secret page, Man! That blind moron (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What is it?[edit]

Is the question, "What is Pi voting on?" or is the question "What would I currently propose?" Assuming the later, I still think my proposal under "Using subpages to show supporters/detractors of "Community Standards" is a good idea. Unless anyone has a better method that would fulfill the three bulleted advantages listed there, then that is my proposal. ~ That blind moron (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


If there be no more activity.

Since all objections have been answered, yet no one has posted anything favorable to it, I may just do it in subpages of my userspace and alert people about them in my posts in the Saloon Bar, the Community Standards talk page, or other talk pages. Or maybe I will put it in my signature. All those in favor: I. All those opposed: <tumbleweeds>. The resolution passes and Lumenos is victorious over the liars, once again! ~ That blind moron (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why bother?[edit]

Polling the idea just validates the idea. Plus it's a waste of everyone's time. If anyone does support Lumenos's idea, they have every opportunity to say so, just by saying so. There's nothing you can say with a voting * that you can't also say in words. Since nobody other than Lumenos has expressed support for this idea, and until such time as anybody else does, can't we just draw a line under this & get back to actually discussing & updating the Community Standards? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would rather just run a poll and that way he can't complain about his idea not being discussed (even though it is now the most discussed idea at the expense of the actual standards). This will probably go the way of CUR's idea that got his 2 for a about 10 or more against before it was voted that it was archived. - π 23:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
But it's still humiliating for editors to have to express their objection to unnecessary polling by engaging in an unnecessary poll. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to drive home the point. - π 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to post some evidence that I have ever "complained" about anything, this would be appreciated. Lumenos (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I agree with Weaseloid. I have a new proposal. That there be a footnote from the term "Community Standards" to say that these do not necessarily reflect the community at large (unless someone has some empirical verification of this). Lumenos (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
They do reflect the community at large. That is why I opened this discussion, to ensure that on key points they still do and change them if necessary. - π 23:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying this is empirically verified by the archives? Lumenos (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Read through them if you want. They had the support of most of the people that commented. There were a few noisy belligerent dissenters like yourself, but they were consensus at the time of passing. - π 23:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Do not want. Disorder it is. Lumenos (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (I forgot about the pass/fail/revamp discussions, thus me new nicky name --> ~ That blind moron (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
Well if you don't want to read through the archives, then I don't care about your claim of in not being empirically verified. - π 00:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I would venture to guess that a small percentage of usernames participated. Lumenos (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I didn't claim that it wasn't empirically verified I proposed that we note that it wasn't necessarily empirically verified; meaning that we don't know. If you believe you do know you could indicate this in the poll I've created (currently) at the bottom of this section. Lumenos (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Why "guess", idiot? Some of us were there and it was heavily participated in. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I was only here for the part where a poll demonstrated that something somehow got onto that page when "four" bureaucrats later voted against it, and no one exactly voted "for" it (except you). Thus I created the following poll to ask the experienced community here what their perception is. Lumenos (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


Poll created by Lumenos: Have you seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that all the Community Standards are supported by the large majority of editors at this site?

Yea:

  • See the links AT THE TOP OF THIS FUCKING TALK PAGE YOU MORON! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I have been here more than five minutes and did not come with my own preconceived notions of how this wiki should be run, so I was able to see them being formed and debated. I also bothered to read the archives fully. - π 12:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nay:



'Reply to Human's "vote" note: I must apologize and concur that I had assumed you were talking about the "archives" in the upper right corner. I have located the passed, failed, and the revamps. I had seen them before but somehow missed them until now (when I get into these Internet social lifestyles I get highly sleep deprived which is rather enjoyable for the most part). I am changing my sig in observance of this blunder. This serves one of the primary functions of my proposal, which is to have a reference location for the evidence of "consensus".

There are however other advantages of my proposal which have already been listed here. (None of these people care.)

Secondly, we are off-topic as far as this poll. I maintain that the CS does not necessarily reflect a majority but it occurs to me that this is so obvious as to not require mention, particularly since you have the pass, fail, revamp organized (for reference). Assuming you were voting and not only commenting, I doubt your claim that "all the Community Standards are supported by the large majority of editors at this site", as the poll stated. We can now look at the discussions and see that many were visited by a minority of editors. What indicates that the larger majority who did not post on many issues, agree with them?

That blind moron (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

[Refocus][edit]

I'm sure it's in here somewhere but in the vast number of words above I can't seem to find it. Could Mr Lumenos tell me succinctly (1) exactly what "his idea" is and (2) what significant problem it is intended to solve. Thanks.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Lumenos can tell you his/her own idea. Lumenos can't tell you what Pi was voting against nor can Lumenos tell you which idea you are asking for. If you want to read some of Lumenos' current ideas, here goes: (Expect "the" idea to change a number of times (without notice) unless someone replies (in that case expect it/them to change with notice):
My first idea at the moment, "shouldn't" be controversial, so I tried it and we shall see if no one objects.
~ That blind moron (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you ever wonder why people think you're a twat? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I spend a great deal of time wondering that, in fact, and trying not to be, but manytime I attempt interaction with "humans" (even in this artificially super "consentual" environment) I still manage to induce these sorts of responses, on a regular basis. <shrug> ~ That blind moron (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC) [ETA: link in bold ~ That blind moron (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Survey says, "EEEEEEGGGGGGGG!" So I ask you, am I a member of the RationalWiki communEntity? =) ~ That blind moron (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Weaseloid, I don't mind others editing my comments, but what I usually do is put some indication that I have. I don't usually do this unless someone has responded, but I will do so here, to show you what I mean. Notice the text in bold. I think it more honest if you are altering a quote. ~ That blind moron (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad I didn't delete the brackets around the pointless red links. Although, if I had, I would have left a comment that I did it. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Grammar corrections to my comments (such as this), are appreciated. No need to add a note so long as you are making me look better. ~ That blind moron (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if Mr Lumenos is unable to succinctly state what he is suggesting and what advantage it would bring, there would seem to be little point to any debate - and the question "Why bother?" would seem to be most apt.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, Sir. I was addressing the question of "why bother", when you posed your question here. I suppose my latest suggestion was not clear. I was suggesting we do what I (or Weaseloid) did. Apparently it would be better to discuss changes that would seem noncontroversial to me.
I thought that I had succinctly stated my updated proposal. It can be found in the first post under "Using subpages to show supporters/detractors of "Community Standards"". Pi created a poll; I suppose it was about "my proposal" but from his comments I wonder if he got it right in his mind. He indicated his haste was justified by the threat of something passing without his consent. Ironically, this is one problem that my proposal would address. I suppose you may vote there anyway. Otherwise perhaps you have a question or comment about my updated proposal?
~ That blind moron (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah Now I see it. I'm sorry but, I personally don't like it. The result would be to keep community standards in a constant state of flux which I don't think would be a particularly good idea.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe you mean "Community Standards" not community standards. ;-) ~ That blind moron (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think they mean Lumenity Lumenards. Lumenoid (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)