Fandom

Call of Duty Wiki

9,253pages
Add New Page

Call of Duty Wiki

Forum:Defining consensus

English

Defining consensus

Forum page

9,253pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.
Forums: Index War Room Defining consensus
Forum logo

I have seen quite some thread closes for which the final outcome was mainly based on the amounts of votes. I have re-read your consensus policy, and I saw the words "Most issues are mediated by a neutral administrator, who will determine what the consensus is by considering points made by both sides of the argument.". Here, this does not seem to happen a lot, but only the "alternative" is used, in case considering the points would not create a consensus either way: "In the event that a consensus cannot be reached in a voting process, such as a request for adminship, a rough consensus of 70% of the votes should be used to determine the outcome.". As the policy says, this is only in case consensus cannot be reached considering the arguments, and if there were votes on the thread (this is the case anywhere, so you could reduce that sentence to "In the event that a consensus cannot be reached, a rough consensus ....". Anyway, this alternative is used quite often, even though arguments could be weighed easily, and a consensus could easily be obtained that way.

In my opinion, counting the votes everywhere is exactly what the second line of the policy says not to do: "This method of settlement is different from a "majority rules" system". Only looking at wether the supports are 70% or not is almost exactly a "majority rules" system. You are turning your consensus-based community into a democracy that way, even though COD:NOT#DEMO clearly states you are not a democracy.

What I propose is that the consensus policy is clarified, so that it is clearer that the amount of votes should only be voted when consensus can't be reached by weighing arguments. Joeytje50talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA
08:08, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

tl;dr, Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — ^.^ 1358 (Talk) 11:48, September 9, 2011 (UTC). Invalid reason for opposing. Sgt. S.S. 19:29, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Wut?Major Rank MarinesReznov115TalkTactical Nuke inventory icon MW2 16:30, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Eh, we've gone by 70% rough consensus forever. The key word is "rough", it's functioned perfectly fine for as long as this wiki has existed and I'm sure if those 70% in support are using stupid points, the vote will still fail.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  16:46, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

You're only bringing this up because you lost your pony forum, so w/e. It's fine as it is; if we see fit we use COD:IAR Smuff[citation provided] 17:29, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

I am not doing it because I "lost" the pony thread. I can see there are arguments that weigh more in that thread, so even weighing reasons would not let it pass. I did have this idea of proposing this for a bit longer already, when I saw other closes that were based on votes (I have discussed this in IRC a while ago, also before the pony thread was closed). After seeing the amount of votes being mentioned as main reason in that closing I did think it was good to throw up this forum. Note that I am mainly proposing that reasons will be counted, like the policy says, but I am fine too with fixing the policy to let it actually say what the reality is: that counting the votes is the main method of getting consensus. Joeytje50talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA
19:35, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Smuff: Lrn2assume good faith, pl0x. Sgt. S.S. 19:38, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
+1 _Sp3cTalk_ 20:07, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
You two at the bottom, you can lrn2stfu kthnx, I've stated multiple times on forums I don't believe in assume good faith. It's not a fully fledged policy, it's a guideline and I have the right to reserve its use. Smuff[citation provided] 20:24, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
It's on our list of policies, so in my mind, it's a policy. You can't just decide what policies you are and aren't going to follow. Sgt. S.S. 20:32, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
[21:17:51]	Rainbow_Dash	AGF is a guideline isn't it?
[21:23:46]	Ditzy_Doo	Smuff - yes

So yeah, you can shut up and move along now. Smuff[citation provided] 20:36, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Smuff, no offense but you're starting to be a dick here. - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 20:38, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, because users waving random policies in my face is really making things better here isn't it, yeah? So tell you what, since you're just feeding this, you aren't helping by any stretch of the imagination. Smuff[citation provided] 20:41, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
He wasn't "waving random policies in your face", he was citing a poolicy that he felt you were violating. Now, how about we all just drop it, before this row gets too heated. Sgt. S.S. 20:50, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Notice "users" is the plural of the word user. Smuff[citation provided] 20:53, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) Smuff, none of us were "waving random policies" at you. All the policies we cited were valid points - we didn't just scribble down the first policy that popped into our heads. Again, why don't we all just take a deep breath and count to ten? Sgt. S.S. 21:09, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" is a guideline in every wiki. Why? Because assuming bad faith breeds contempt, discourages people from editing and kills the catalysts for change and innovation. A user wants to raise a discussion regarding the possibility of improving a potentially flawed process. The first thing you did, Smuff, was to bring up an entirely different past thread and assume that was his motive, and now you're telling others to "lrn2stfu". If that's not breaking any rules, you're still being a dick. If you can't join the discussion in a civil manner, take a breath and walk away. --Scottie theNerd 01:07, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Bring up something that happened two days ago. Brilliant. Smuff[citation provided] 18:43, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
You talk about it like it was two weeks ago. For the third time, please calm down. Sgt. S.S. 18:47, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
Don't talk to Smuff like that, ok bro? 1358 (Talk) 18:50, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
Or everyone just stops insulting or accusing others of idkwhat and everyone just remains calm. k? Joeytje50talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA
18:53, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
Which is what I've been trying to say this whole time... Sgt. S.S. 18:58, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
You're all acting rather immaturely about this. Smuff needs to learn a lesson, yes, but none of you are helping by pressing the issue into the ground. Shotrocket6 10:24, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

In a related note, what about per all votes? To me it seems like per all voters can misinterpret the vote and still get counted because they gave a reason. I think having the user state what they specifically believe would assure that they understand the vote and would also get more users contributing ideas. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 07:08, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

What? No buddy, I doubt it. The Per X votes count as, if a user agreed with the thoughts already said on the votes mentioned, he doesn't need to say specifically what has been said. It would be redundant and dumb to do it.-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.Personal Diegox223 Deadpool logo18:44, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
^ - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 18:45, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
But what if the user 1 said "per user 2" and user 2 was wrong to begin with? It would've helped if user 1 knew what the vote was about instead of being able just to say "per user 2". Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 18:52, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
Then both votes are striked down and the "Per x" user can change it's vote. I still don't see a problem.-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.Personal Diegox223 Deadpool logo18:56, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Con-sen-sus [kənˈsensəs], noun

A general agreement; a group solidarity of belief or sentiment.

See also: agreement, general opinion. Sig dr feelgood 18:58, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Well according to that definition it sounds like nothing can get passed if somebody opposes. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 19:30, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
That's why it's summarized as a general agreement, not a full-fledged agreement. A few people can disagree, but if the basic idea is that the masses agree amongst themselves then it can be said it's been decided upon a certain way. Well, that's not always the exact case, but you get the idea. US Army WWII MSGTSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 03:13, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
Think of it as a general agreement as compared to a unanimous decision. --Scottie theNerd 08:11, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - A good example of where reasoning can outweigh counting the votes is Forum:Adding code to pages with custom backgrounds. Here, the reasoning eventually convinced the users, but if that would not have happened, the reason would still be equally good, so the proposal should have passed as much as it does now with people changing their mind. Joeytje50talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA
14:21, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying we should add something to the consensus policy to take into account people's reasoning? Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 22:38, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

What Joey wants is already in the policy. Some admins aren't following it correctly. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 11:15, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Like CoD4 said, this has been working since the Wiki started, and it's not like anybody is screaming "ITS RIGGED" or anything. Smuff, SS, and MLG, you all were using policies to enforce what you thought; exept saying "So yeah, you can shut up and move along now." was completley uncalled for Smufferton. SS, it really dosen't help when you go "LETS STOP THE FIGHTING" then feed the flames even more. If you truly wanted to drop it, then you would have just left this page and went to the RC. Slowrider7 11:32, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
How was I feeding the flames in any way? I was trying to calm him down, not rile him up. Sgt. S.S. 16:16, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
In common sense, "stop" usually means "challenge accepted". - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 17:41, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Considering this has simply turned into "Smuff's a dick lol", this doesn't need to be commented upon any further. The standard policy shall continue to stay in place; in extreme circumstances COD:IAR can and will be used. Smuff[citation provided] 17:44, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Reinforcing closure - Because people don't understand that when a forum is closed, it's closed, I'll have to explain it better here. The uncivil behaviour on this forum is enough to get it closed. If someone wants to remake this forum, then they can do so. This specific forum, though, will remain closed. I kindly ask for everyone to stop arguing about it being closed and just accept that it has been closed.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  17:09, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Defining_consensus?t=20120424204434
callofduty.wikia.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-13
249029
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:RN7B4CE7MQW5ZZTW6D3PX3PBGCZ6W33P
<urn:uuid:db3561b5-2143-4561-9438-8bb5d0654011>
2017-03-29T23:02:08Z
151.101.192.194
sha1:FRIWZKSMFH7ZZHILDFWI6NEKGIPEMWEA
<urn:uuid:dd39af93-e516-499c-ab3b-31796254862e>
http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Defining_consensus?t=20120424204434
response
<urn:uuid:994fdd39-727b-4b52-9e56-d6fa5cabf5bc>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-233-31-227.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-13
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for March 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf