Forum:Have you ever seen the snow?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Have you ever seen the snow?
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 3 July 2010 by Soldier 1033.

I've grown quite disturbed as of late with the increasing frequency of closure requests and abuse of RS:SNOW. Anytime someone would have requested the early closure of a discussion within a mere 24hrs of its opening in the old days, a healthy bit of mockery and scorn would be see. Now however, we seem to b increasing airing on the "done quickly" rather than "done right". Though I'm sure the best of intentions go into each closure request, we may be inadvertently censoring open discussion through these actions. Yes, there is a concern of cluttering the Yew Grove, however, prematurely closing open discourse is not the way to go. Imagine if this had been the case on the Forum:Splitting familiar pages before the opposition had even commented a mere 24 hours after the opening of the thread.

As such, I'd like to see a modification of RS:Snow to help avoid this. Personally, I'd prefer to see a legitimate discussion left open for a minimum of a week to ensure both sides have ample opportunity to express themselves and legitimate points are not unheard, however, I trust in the community to act accordingly.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

20:03, May 22, 2010 (UTC)


Discussion

Support - Great idea!   Swizz Talk   Events!   20:06, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Support-with modification (see below) - I would agree. But...I would say 72 hours. 168 is just...quite a few more than needed. If someone really likes an idea, they can always phrase it better/state better reasons and make a new thread. HaloTalk 20:07, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

The original issue we had with Snow was the fact that there are many users who are not extremely active, or a conflict of schedule may arise, this helps to negate that.-- 20:10, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
I know...and I think 72 hours is just fine for that. A week is quite long really. HaloTalk 20:51, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Support (+modification) - I would say two weeks standard, unless there is some critical reason that something must be done immediately. HaloTalk 22:24, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Question - One of the common reasons for citing RS:SNOW is that a proposal is functionally identical to one already proposed and shot down. These are cases where the poster didn't do the due diligence (wow alliteration!) to search for similar proposals before starting the new post. Under your proposed modifications, would you suggest we leave these open for a week? Endasil (Talk) @  20:15, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

The word legitimate is placed in my proposal for that very reason, if there is a freshly closed topic, the topic is spamish, or is on our do not suggest without a new argument list, then there is no need to keep the thread open for an extended period.-- 20:18, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It also isn't killing us to keep these open for a week, it's not like we pay for disk space. Ajraddatz Talk 20:18, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Weak Support - I think that something needs to be done about the abuse of RS:SNOW, yet I fear that altering the language could weaken it's potency when it is legitimately useful. 76.100.172.186 20:33, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This probably arose from my premature closing of this forum. I was under the impression that RS:SNOW could be applied to situations where there was utterly no support for a proposal, no matter how long it was open, as long as a good number of people offered their opinions. Now that I look back, I can see why it was over the top for me to close it when it wasn't even open for a day. Who knows, someone who hadn't had the chance to read it might have supported and given a good reason.  Tien  20:46, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Also, in the response to the above, this has been an on-going problem. I think RS:SNOW has been incorrectly applied to numerous threads in the past for months, not just one or two in the past few days. I guess we finally decided that it was time to take action. --Quarenon  Talk 20:50, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

True, that. Clarification for RS:SNOW is much needed.  Tien  21:06, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - With the usage of common sense of when to ignore it but still wait "x" amount of hours. Besides some proposals ending within days, some end in hours after the initial post, leaving some people not capable of contributing to said proposal due to their local time or spare time to edit this project. The only one I can remember that would ignore this was Chiafriend12's proposal of Forum:'Per' votes do not help. Ryan PM 20:50, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

That was an April Fool's Day joke, in case you weren't aware. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 04:42, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
The proposal was issued prior to the first of April. I do not see how it was, I thought it was serious and with the rest made a mockery of that forum. As well, I think this is the first time I've read that it was a joke. Ryan PM 09:54, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
By submitting it before the standard date, no one saw it coming. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. Signatures/Chiafriend12 00:17, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - 24 hours is not enough time to determine whether RS:SNOW applies. Not all wikians check the Yew Grove every day, and it's very possible that one of those wikians has an opposing argument. I'd say three days is enough time for a wikian to check Yew Grove, so I'd support implementing that time frame (a week seems a bit much in my eyes - maybe compromise at 5 days?). Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 22:21, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

What is the rush? - Consider for a moment that policies that we draft and implement today, will be called upon, referenced, and used to shape the course of this wiki for years to come. Years. Is waiting a week to give people time to think really all that long when compared to the years of influence it will have? Yes, policies can be changed/overturned, but that is extremely hard to do here. Once a policy is made, a great many people would like to leave it alone instead of considering all of the ramifications of changing it or altering it completely. I believe we owe it to not just those of us here today, but for the users/editors of next year, the year after, and the year after that, to give proper consideration to proposals, and not shut them down in less than a week. Hell, even a week is the bare minimum and two weeks would not be a horrible idea considering how long we have been here. Some really good minds only pop in from time to time. Were doing ourselves a disservice by not giving them an opportunity at the least to see what we have going on, and maybe throw in some more related good ideas. Whats the rush? If it is a good idea, it will pass.--Degenret01 01:05, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I could be swayed on this. I would even go for 2 weeks (a fortnight does seem a nice standard). However, I think if we do this, we need to take a stronger stance on getting older forum topics closed/getting more people to talk on them/or implemented, because too many are sitting there. It would be nice to have a few less. Now I digress, HaloTalk 01:08, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Three opposes and BOOM, Tsnownami! Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 01:20, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - It is obvious this will pass. RS:SNOW. ONLY JOKING! Before someone jumps down my throat. Lol HaloTalk 01:28, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Damn, you stole my joke -.-   Swizz Talk   Events!   08:20, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
I was actually kind of surprised no one had done this yet. lol. HaloTalk 18:02, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Dammit, I was gonna do that. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 06:59, May 30, 2010 (UTC) 

Support - It is a much needed amendment to the policy. Not any real downsides. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 02:22, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - I was actually considering creating a thread about this issue, after the many users requesting closure here and its early archiving. I think it's very important to let most threads have a chance and let users from all time zones who do not check daily to have their say. Chicken7 >talk 09:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This concept is a good idea only if the threads that it applies to are those that have an overwhelming number of supports. Since we require a consensus to implement something, and one good opposing argument can sway a large number of supports, positive threads to need time to play out. On the other hand, threads with a large number of opposes have little chance of passing, since even if a large number of supports comes later, there is a good chance that the thread will end up as a no consensus. Thus, while threads with lots of support should be open for a decent length of time, I see little reason to keep threads with overwhelming numbers of opposes open.

That being said, I believe that RS:SNOW only says that if the process doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving, then there is no need to put it through that process. That wording has always striken me as if a proposal has a terrible chance of surviving, not if it has a terrible chance of not surviving. Therefore, threads that have a large number of supports cannot be closed with RS:SNOW anyways. This proposal will only force hopeless threads to eat up more of our time and resources. --LiquidTalk 17:40, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I disagree. A thread with an overwhelming number of opposes generally has one good opposing argument and fifteen "Oppose per Leftiness" comments following it. I'd like to draw attention to RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY and RS:CONSENSUS when I say that one good supporting argument can turn the entire situation from "Not a snowball's chance in hell" to "Well, look at that: we have a discussion!" Personally, I'd rather give that one good supporting argument a chance to get written; would you seriously say that we have limited time and resources? Leftiness 17:56, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not resources, but we certainly have limited time. Threads with 15 "Strong opposes" have little chance of passing, so there is no point in following through on it. On the other hand, threads with 15 "Strong supports" may not pass. As a rule of thumb, when someone votes oppose, it's a lot more permanent than if someone votes support. --LiquidTalk 18:54, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Personally, I don't like it when people argue things are a waste of time... We use consensus; we get what's best for the wiki, not what the most people like. When fifteen users vote strong oppose on an issue because one user actually has a good opposing point, a good supporting point does not weigh any less... And, I'd have to say, opposes are just as likely to change in the face of a strong point as supports are; most people don't watch the threads close enough to see the whole discussion, and then there's the good amount of people who vote the same way that their friend/etc voted because they don't understand the issue or don't feel like posting their actual opinion... Not that any of that matters; we use consensus. Leftiness 13:16, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - it disgusts me even more when I see people requesting early RfA closures due to RS:SNOW. Back when I joined every RfA went for two weeks period, not 3 days or a week and a half unless the person nominated actually requested it. RS:SNOW is only useful if you wait until everyone has said what they want to say. Andrew talk 19:51, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...I've been here since 2010 started basically. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember a single RfA that didn't last two weeks (other than users withdrawing of course). HaloTalk 19:53, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
No, what I am saying is that there have been several RfAs over the past 6 months to a year that have had requests for closure per RS:SNOW. Not that the b'crats listened to them, but people still made the requests. Andrew talk 20:14, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's just preposterous. HaloTalk 20:20, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
What is, me suggesting that isn't fair for them to do that or them doing that? Andrew talk 20:23, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
That people would even think about using RS:SNOW for RfAs. HaloTalk 20:28, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Surprisingly, there's been at least one case where an RfA was closed early because of an overwhelming number of supports. What would that be called, and would it also require a minimum time frame before it could be applied?  Tien  20:30, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, and despite RS:CONSENSUS, someone could take advantage of this using sockpuppets (multiple accounts). That is also one reason why it is crucial that we get this sorted. Ajraddatz Talk 22:12, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Question - I have a feeling that I'm misunderstanding something else. Does RS:SNOW apply to early closures based on supports, opposes, or both? I've always thought that it applied only to proposals that would obviously be shot down.  Tien  23:40, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

You thought correctly. But people are closing threads within 24 hours and such. So...I guess some people think that's a problem. HaloTalk 23:44, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
It should, and does apply to closures on both support and opposed threads. The point of this forum, however, is to ensure that the opposition is equally represented. ajr 23:35, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- How about this: image  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mythbusterma (talk).

Image removed, and a link to the image added in its place. Sorry, but that image is rather large and disruptive. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 06:35, May 31, 2010 (UTC) 
Very much so :D 03:31, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This has died down quite a bit lately. I would say 2 weeks standard for anything. Now, that does not mean everything will take 2 weeks, some things may need 2 months, some things may be slightly more urgent. But I think a 2 week standard would be good. Is anyone opposed to this (and why if you are)? HaloTalk 13:51, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I no this thread started about me but I think 2 weeks is a bit excessive. I think a week or 10 days would be better because otherwise consensus would be reached before RS:SNOW is even needed.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:55, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You're saying we should shorten it to 10 days so that we can revel in the glory of closing a discussion with RS:SNOW? What, exactly, is wrong with reaching consensus before RS:SNOW gets used, and, if the discussion is moving towards consensus, shouldn't we be avoiding RS:SNOW? Leftiness 13:48, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
What i am saying is that if we have the 14day limit then RS:SNOW wouldn't be needed because by the time 14days is up consensus would have already been reached (in cases where RS:SNOW could be used) which would mean that snow doesn't need to be used.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:40, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Seeing all of the requests for closure per RS:SNOW really grinds my gears sometimes. Every thread I've seen calling for it has had a sysop/b'crat in it, so I see a request for SNOW to be pointless in them. Personally, I think that before SNOW is even called, a request should be made on this page or another rank be contacted that is neutral in said discussion. SNOW always seemed like an emergency/last ditch effort thing just in case there were completely pointless threads and whatnot to save space. Regardless, something should be done as Azaz said above. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 18:22, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm fine with the guidelines proposed so far, but at this point I really think the policy should just be deleted. It's not really benefiting us. The limited valid uses of it fit well within our general understanding of RS:UCS and could be a minor point or at most a subsection of that page. Other than that, we use it to shoot down duplicates (a site-wide policy is not needed for this, it's better off as a rule for the specific site area, like a specific "Yew Grove" rule). I do slightly oppose putting a specific time minimum since that should be handled in an arena-specific way (YG != VFD != an article's talk page). Endasil (Talk) @  04:26, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support and comment - In my personal opinion, RS:SNOW should only be used in situations of clear common sense that something is clearly not going to pass, An example can be seen in Parsonsda's RfA. Clearly, at the point of this self nomination, Parsonsda had only a few mere edits and requested admin powers, which clearly takes a few thousand to be considered. But as per above, this links in very well into RS:UCS, so really, I would need to see a complete rework of the policy so it clearly describes the over situation, or as per above again, be merged into RS:UCS. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 00:36, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Per RS:SNOW, ironically. This forum has been open for a while, and everyone is onboard. ajr 21:13, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone, and there is still slight confusion over how many weeks the thread should be open for, or even if we should totally banish RS:SNOW. Chicken7 >talk 06:03, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose closure - once again per RS:SNOW, in that this seems to need further discussion 03:31, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
This isn't under RS:SNOW as there isn't clear consensus and yeh what myth said.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 04:24, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean, still discussion going on and further discussion needed? There are a whole bunch of people supporting a minimum of one week for "things", and some people making comments, all of which have been sorted? Is there some hidden discussion going on somewhere that I don't know about, or are people who have an idea just not expressing it clearly? ajr 00:12, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Is there still time for this vote? SplâshTâlkSîgn hêrê 18:40, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Suggestion - A thread must stay open for at least 10 days, on the 8th day a template is posted by a bot saying that the thread should be closed soon. A link is on this template saying "request to stay open" and if enough people (10 should be enough) click this link then the thread stays open. If not the thread is locked to normal accounts and b'crats and sysops are left to decide what happens, and then post the decision on the community noticeboard. This is only a suggestion and I don't know if it would be any good, and whether it would be any good. Rune hatchet.png The Gedge Tinderbox.png 15:13, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Too much effort really. Why do we need a bot to do it? And that makes it so general. Also, you can post on archives (if you didn't know-but you aren't supposed to-they are only semi-protected). The current method of closing is fine. It's just that they were being closed too soon. Just making it a mandatory week is fine. HaloTalk 15:25, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Request Closure - Unless anyone has a very good reason why we shouldn't say a minimum of a week? (Unless the forum is urgent.) Then I believe this should be closed. HaloTalk 19:34, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Seeing as the discussion has been pretty much dead for the past few weeks besides the occasional comment and since there is almost unanimous support I think it's safe to archive this one. Legitimate discussions must now be open for a minimum of one week, and after that if they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of going a certain way then they can be closed. Andrew talk 03:30, July 3, 2010 (UTC)