AVID:Requests for Comment/New RfC passing requirements: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:08, 28 February 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing proposal as fail, with no support votes. Sickminecraft45 (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we make new requirements for an RfC to pass? I think we should make it so that if there are more support votes than oppose and abstain votes, that will the RfC will pass. if it's a tie with the same amount of support votes as there are oppose and abstain votes, the admins can decide whether the RfC should pass or not. And if there are more oppose and abstain votes than there are support votes, the RfC will fail. So do you think my idea will improve the RfC system? Sickminecraft45 (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

Abstain

Abstain I was thinking a little different. I think we should have "whatever side has the majority, the RFC will close that way. If support as the majority over both, it passes. If abstain has the majority over both, no consensus. If oppose has the majority over both, it fails. This makes it a little more fair and easier to close. (• USER TALK! •) 16:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I might consider that as an alternative! Sickminecraft45 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Can do, I guess. Gilby1385 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose There isn't much of a difference with this system other than the tie requirements (but instead of admins, why not allow one more vote to settle the score?). The pass/fail requirements are basically how every voting process, including RFCs, function. Camenati (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per Camenati. Logohub (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per Logohub and Camenati. · Talk · Edits 18:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Lmao most of your proposals are change for the sake ofnshange but this one doesn't even change anything! You're literally suggesting we replace the old system.... with the old system. Can we get an admin to close this one early? (name change coming soon) 20:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose and speedy close as invalid. This is exactly the same as the current system. Dominicmgm (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: And if this RfC passes, this will be the last RfC under the current system! Sickminecraft45 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

lmao no it won't. This is exactly the same as the old system.

(name change coming soon) 20:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

dang eternity you are one mean bean today

(• USER TALK! •) 21:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Rough week.

(name change coming soon) 21:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment: When he said "Should we make new requirements for an RfC to pass?", it was like AVID's Declaration of Independence. 14:06, 30 December 2022

Like many have pointed out, this is already proxy. I think this RfC is invalid. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 21:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
+:The following discussion is closed. '''Please do not modify it'''. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
+::Closing proposal as '''fail''', with no support votes. [[User:Sickminecraft45|Sickminecraft45]] ([[User talk:Sickminecraft45|talk]]) 16:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 Should we make new requirements for an RfC to pass? I think we should make it so that if there are more support votes than oppose and abstain votes, that will the RfC will pass. if it's a tie with the same amount of support votes as there are oppose and abstain votes, the admins can decide whether the RfC should pass or not. And if there are more oppose and abstain votes than there are support votes, the RfC will fail. So do you think my idea will improve the RfC system? [[User:Sickminecraft45|Sickminecraft45]] ([[User talk:Sickminecraft45|talk]]) 15:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
@@ Line 9: / Line 12: @@
 :Can do, I guess. [[User:Gilby1385|Gilby1385]] ([[User talk:Gilby1385|talk]]) 18:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 ===Oppose===
-{{Oppose}} There isn't much of a difference with this system other than the tie requirements (but instead of admins, why not allow one more vote to settle the score?). The pass/fail requirements are basically how every voting process, including RFCs, function. [[User:Camenati|Camenati]] ([[User talk:Camenati|talk]]) 17:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
+# {{Oppose}} There isn't much of a difference with this system other than the tie requirements (but instead of admins, why not allow one more vote to settle the score?). The pass/fail requirements are basically how every voting process, including RFCs, function. [[User:Camenati|Camenati]] ([[User talk:Camenati|talk]]) 17:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
-{{Oppose}} per Camenati. ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 17:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
+# {{Oppose}} per Camenati. ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 17:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
-{{Oppose}} per Logohub and Camenati. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 18:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
+# {{Oppose}} per Logohub and Camenati. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 18:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
-{{Oppose|Strong}} Lmao most of your proposals are change for the sake ofnshange but this one doesn't even change anything! You're literally suggesting we replace the old system.... with the old system. Can we get an admin to close this one early? [[File:Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png|100px|link=User:MinistrycraftEntertainment]] (name change coming soon) 20:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
+# {{Oppose|Strong}} Lmao most of your proposals are change for the sake ofnshange but this one doesn't even change anything! You're literally suggesting we replace the old system.... with the old system. Can we get an admin to close this one early? [[File:Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png|100px|link=User:MinistrycraftEntertainment]] (name change coming soon) 20:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
+# {{Oppose|strongest}} and '''speedy close''' as invalid. This is exactly the same as the current system. [[User:Dominicmgm|Dominicmgm]] ([[User talk:Dominicmgm|talk]]) 06:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 ===Comments===
@@ Line 25: / Line 30: @@
 {{Comment}} When he said "Should we make new requirements for an RfC to pass?", it was like AVID's Declaration of Independence. [[File:Chiagozie Elobuike signature.png|150px|link=User talk:Chiagozie Elobuike]] 14:06, 30 December 2022
+Like many have pointed out, this is already proxy. I think this RfC is invalid.  --''[[User:Blad|<span style="font-weight: bold; background:linear-gradient(#ff00ff,#c800c8,purple,#c800c8,#ff00ff);; -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Blad</span>]]'' ([[User_talk:Blad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Blad|contribs]] • [[mh:meta:Special:CentralAuth/Blad|global]])  21:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 [[Category:Requests for Comment]]
+[[Category:Failed Requests for Comment]]