Forum:Proposal of the "Conclusion Policy"
Because of the nature of this proposal, the conclusion to this proposal will use consensus and votes (Supports, opposes
After discussing with Rsa on his proposal on Consensus, and my support of a semi-democratic view of concluding a proposal/issue on the RSC wiki, I have though up of a policy which would use both tools on providing a fair and just way of choosing a conclusion for issues on our wiki: The Conclusion Policy/System. It is still a work-in-progress, yet with other editors inputs, it may well be a very useful tool. Here what it basically is:
- A combination of a consensus and a democratic vote/discussion vote, which would be used as a overall conclusion to an issue on our wiki.
- It would consist of the combined use of the Maple Grove (for a consensus view) and the Vote Box (for a democracy view).
- A conclusion to an issue would be made on a review of the thread, what is thought to be best for the wiki (consensus view), and the overall discussion-based votes (democratic) on both the Maple Grove and Vote Box.
One issue I have noticed with the entire policy is that the Maple Grove and Vote Box don't fit together, and the votes from both the Maple Grove and Vote Box would be separate and would complicate the matter of choosing a conclusion even harder. So, I propose the combination of both the Maple Grove and Vote Box into an entirely new system, one which would state the request/issue, have editors give their vote (like the Vote Box) and opinion (like the Maple Grove), and then would come to a fair and just conclusion by an admin (most likely) by using the Conclusion Policy. The only thing I have not figured out yet for this new system is a name, but it will defiantly not have the word "grove" in it. :D
This entire proposal may sound confusing, but please hear me out and add your input. --09:21, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
Support - As nominator. I will continually add parts to my developing idea later on. --09:21, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Oh my god, enough with the god damn vote box. It is not for changes, understand that. You can't just randomly make something and say that it's now integral to the wiki. Votes can be manipulated, I've said that like 3 times now but you don't seem to understand. Plus, I made Forum:Consensus for this very proposal. Nex UndiqueTalk 12:43, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Rsa, your proposal is for a consensus-based conclusion, not a combination of both. I though of this idea so we may incorporate the best parts of both systems. Also, I specifically said that any editor can add their input to the idea, which means that if you don't like poll voting because of manipulation, propose it to be discussion-based! Also, another reason for the proposal of this policy is the separate ideas of the Maple Grove and Vote Box, they simply don't work as a system of resolving issues on our wiki separately. But, combined in a fair, just, and secure system, we may actually have a useful tool which can be used to resolve any issue, no matter what the size. I want this thread to have ideas of all editors, so it can be community-based with everybody agreeing (for they had their ideas added). -- 21:11, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Due to inactivity. No consensus was reached so decisions will continue to follow standards similar to Wikipedia and the RuneScape wiki.