Forum:We need a 3/1 majority policy.

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > We need a 3/1 majority policy.
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 26 July 2009 by Azaz129.

Its become clear recently that regardless of what is said or done, if the majority wants it, the majority gets it. It sounds great on paper, but for whatever reason catering to the minority on this wiki is just not within the realm of reason for most users and needs to be amended. I don't really mind losing to the majority or having whatever I say or do completely ignored for no real reason at all, but what drives me over the edge is when we claim very valiantly to be fair and just and strictly neutral and consensus based when we really are not and the majority usually prevails.

Contrary to what many of you may believe (even I did), this is not rough consensus. In fact, our policy surrounding rough consensus is ultimately flawed because we usually interpret rough consensus as the majority when even according to our own policy (and wikipedia which our policy is based off of) its not its purpose.

IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures
Wikipedia:Rough consensus

I also underlined the function of the chair above because of the information found here [1], here [2], and here [[3] indicates the role of a chairman is not only required but much more complicated. In our policy the function of a chairperson is dramatically simplified and is used solely for interpreting what is and isn't rough consensus in all matters. As you can see here the duty of a chairperson is much more involved.

It is also very clear when siding with the majority, many users don't care to support or criticize anyone else's opinions and simply post their- support for reasons as simple as not wanting to talk about it anymore or believing a discussion will yield no results.

Situations where when outnumbered the majority prevailed regardless of what was being discussed or how active the issue was:

[4] (Even when I made it very clear I was actually working on a compromise to present in the discussion, it was closed promptly.)

[5] (had I not taken action without consensus the issue would have been closed for no other reason than the majority said so.)






And thats just within a few weeks of a time period.

I would just prefer we call it as it is and implement a 3 to 1 majority policy/amendment.

The proposal:

  • If it is clear early on that one side outnumbers the other in a discussion 3 to 1, majority prevails and the discussion should be closed.

I realize alot of the way this is worded makes this seem like a personal grudge against people I dont agree with, but it comes from a legitimate want to only solve issues quicker and save everyone a little sanity. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 08:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Support - As nominator.

How is this any different from the 70% rough consensus? Current policy is that if a discussion isn't moving, and there is a 70% majority, then the discussion can be closed... --Serenity1137 08:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Because as you can see from the quoted policies and links above, rough consensus is not an indicator of the majority. That is essentially what half of my post is about, how could you have missed that? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 09:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Whatever standard definitions are, we define it as a 70% majority. --Serenity1137 09:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC) And acutally, it was done very carefully to make sure that using 70% majority as a method of consensus was the last resort of a discussion.
You realize the quote above and the part I underlined are directly from RS:CONSENSUS right? Regardless of that, rough consensus is only supposed to be achieved once editors have pursued all ways possible to obtain actual consensus. As you can see from the examples (I wrote this before you posted, edit conflict) I provided, that is commonly not the case so rough consensus shouldn't even be invoked. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You may not have felt it was the case, but people wouldn't have appealed to it had they not felt that they were just going round in circles. Why does the quote say its from wikipedia. then? --Serenity1137 09:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
How can you claim to be going in circles when you haven't tried making a turn. In literally every example I have seen, the majority rules out and no compromises were made or even suggested at. The quote is from the IEFT that wikipedia uses in their consensus article that we borrowed and are now using in our rough consensus section. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 09:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Take the discussion on revealing leaked info, all that was happenning was that you where repeating you're argument and everyone else was repeating theirs, everyone else felt it was not in our right to use the info with jagexs permission, and you did not. That discussion seemed unlike it was going to ever end, also if you have a compromise to suggest, you are well within you're rights to do that. But the discussion on the proposal on that page was never going to take us anywhere --Serenity1137 09:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Say what you think was happening about who was repeating what, but had we from the beginning closed the issue because of the clear majority, then AZ, I, and lil diriz's week worth of arguing could have been completely avoided the day of. Rough consensus is something that should be used when we hit a brick wall after everything is said and done, a 3/1 majority is something we should use when it is clear no one is going to support or oppose a given proposal from the very start.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 09:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
So, put basically, along the same lines as RS:SNOW? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 11:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Snow is not a policy?
I know SNOW is not a policy, but this is along the same lines as it - just putting numbers to it, really, yes? SNOW is for any issuse where there are only supports or opposes (not a mix), this expands that to be mostly one side with a little of the other. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - as per serenity --Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'm pretty sure this resulted from my closing of the "Reveal leaked info" discussion. I closed it because, as Serenity said, it was going nowhere. Although you had a few supporters, Tebuddy, most of them were "pers" or one-sentence comments, which you seem to be criticizing in this policy proposal.  Tien  12:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not just that one issue that convinced me to make this thread. But once again you and serenity seemed to completely ignore the fact that I had said in the thread I was thinking of something to bring forth to the discussion that may actually follow the consensus process and compromise for everyone when it was closed. And my concern wasn't over per votes because I like those, its the reasons people make for their support/oppose. For example, below me Bonzii has opposed this just for the sake of opposing. That is never a legitimate reason to voice your support for something, but because our system is broken and if called on it Bonzii can just say "well this is not a vote so it doesnt matter", he can keep his "vote" there and when we don't tally the votes (because that would be horrible) and it is counted toward the issue being a landslide one way or the other am going to sit here dumbfounded and confused because RS:CONSENSUS exists.

Oppose - For the sake of opposing.

Bonziiznob Talk

12:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bonzi. Get over it. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bonzi and D4k. Quest point cape detail.png Brux Talk 14:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred. Sorry TEBuddy, but just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that it should remain open. Reveal leaked info is a great example because you were the lone opposition and the discussion was dragging on to the point where we weren't even arguing about the subject but the fact that someone had made a request for closure. Andrew talk 14:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that we cannot adopt a voting policy because thats not how consensus is achieved? Or are you saying that consensus already accounts for landslides?Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Brux --— Enigma 15:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just in reply to your thing about cutting it off early, majorities have been won over before, SNOW should only be used when there is a vast majority very strongly opposing --Serenity1137 15:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I very realistically expected this to be opposed, but once again it is being opposed for the wrong reason. I would also like to point out that this was not a rage induced post because I didn't get my way. I have been active on this wiki for some months and during that time have been involved in way more heated and ridiculous discussions then that one. After the reveal linked info thread was closed I did some thinking over the past day and a half and realized a pattern where the majority closes issues without really pursuing consensus in the slightest. Its almost exactly like how I brought up how our consensus policy was broken and it was completely re-written and deployed the next week. The weird thing is, is that no one seems to be able to comprehend that our system may still be broken for one reason or another and that everyone approving of something does not qualify it as fixed or ready for application. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This message is not to prevoke anything. Within the last few discussions with regards to how this community determines and define itself and it's determination process you appear to always go against the flow of the majority. Now I'm not saying that your opinions are wrong, invalid, or anything along those lines, but as it is the majority that usually is against what you are for, I'm just kindly stating that perhaps you should possibly sit back and look at where we are coming from. If there is such a strong support against you maybe it's not us who need to change their opinions or views to gear towards yourself but perhaps you should perhaps offer us something a little more along the line that we might agree to that might perhaps border your intentions as well. I know you are truly a dedicated contributor who cares about this wiki as you take the time to raise your concerns and address issue, which, really, I am very grateful for editors like you, but, when the population says no, perhaps it's not us who eyes are blinded. 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to turn this into a whos right and whos wrong discussion. Time would show us that yes I am usually against the grain on certain things I find rather annoying and distasteful, but its usually a good thing. By the majority and your personal reccomendation as of now we would not be linked up with Zybez, have a new consensus policy, or have a host of changes that were made over the years by people who don't see eye to eye with the majority. In fact the entire thing about the majority is what irks me so much. No one here thinks about how we rightfully determine consensus, everyone is about the majority because its simply easier. If the majority wants it, the majority gets it, simple as that, and that was the motivation for this post. But seeing as how the majority doesn't want it to pass (ironic I know) it wont. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 18:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
TEbuddy, you have to understand that sometimes the majority of the community simply doesn't want to deal with things they don't have to deal with. Sometimes we want it to stay simple and easy. We're only human. --— Enigma 18:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - A 3/1 majority has already been acheved. why is tebuddy still argueing? having the abilty to close threads early because a consencus ahs been acheved creates a foggy system. what if a couple of people that oppose it go in early when most of the people on the site oppose. this will not work. --Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 18:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Enigma I dont understand. A majority policy satisfies exactly what you just said, most of us work hard during the day and dont want to wake up/come home to a huge wall of text that no one wants to deal with so they just vote for close. But the problem is that our consensus policy does not allow for lacking the will to make changes, rough consensus is something that should be used on step 5/5 not step 2/5 when the majority doesnt want to go any further. And also I have yet to see a single reply to the fact that I was trying to think of ways to compromise with the majority and present something workable when the thread was closed, which is not consensus which is why majority rules. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 19:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well. I've thought hard aboutwhat you just said, and everything that has been said, and I see your reasoning and why you still choose to keep this proposal alive. I'm changing to Stong Support, I believe you're right. --— Enigma 19:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Steler I dont really get your point, a 3/1 majority is not a policy so I am not going to abide by it. How can you ignore the hypocrisy in what you just said, you want me to quit arguing my point and close this and then you say we should never close early because some people might agree/disagree and we cannot know. Yet this thread was made late in the night last night and no one has gotten home from work yet so obviously not everyone has seen it. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 19:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

you have interperated my statement incorectly. I am saying under your system that you proposed,
the thread would be done now, under the current system debate would remain open. I fail to
see any hypocrisy in that. --Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, my problem is not with losing. Its losing to a system that claims to give the minority the ability to compromise, which it clearly doesn't and we don't pursue. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bonziiznob. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sorry, but it was a topic about questionably gathered info in one example. Please, get over it. That's life. Sure, your view of consensus calls for a treaty/middle ground, but put it into a war perspective. If a country gets outnumbered utterly and completely, that country usually surrenders. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The policy is everything on this wiki, every decision, action, every single little thing passes through it before being accepted or denied. I refuse to govern my behavior based on some ridiculous policy that nobody wants to follow 50% of the time. If your not going to follow it, say so and change the policy to reflect your actual actions. That way you can still do what you want and not put people through this stupid drawn out process. The policy clearly says that before an issue even reaches rough consensus, both parties are permitted to and recommended to pursue a compromise to get a general agreement among the group which is what consensus is. I really don't know how to say this any clearer without people ignoring it. Your analogy also makes sense once again if this were a democracy where numbers mattered, but unfortunately our policy is not about numbers, and that would be fine if we actually honored the policy. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No one's going to compromise if a complete hate of the outcome would be nigh. And non-democratic countries surrender to wars when they're outnumbered. It's a matter of "It's not possible to win". The terms would have been minor in the side you were on, and at most, the compromise would have been "You can keep the link on a little page." most likely. A large portion of wikians do not want the models (this is the example I choose to use), and they weren't going to/willing to negotiate. Sure, consensus may call for it, but again, the supporting of leaked info side would have gotten barely anything, most likely. This topic will most likely be a repeat of my example. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Your being too specific to a single example, the problem that has yet to be addressed is the majority frequently disregards consensus in favor of their own view. Once again, your example doesn't make any sense. Numbers literally carry zero weight in a discussion. Or thats the way it should be according to our policy. This isnt about winning a war or being the best or whatever your trying to illustrate with your war model. Regardless of whether they wanted to compromise or come to an agreement or not, policy required it. If you as a group are unwilling to follow the policy, then change it. Thats the point of this. To stop pretending to be a super neutral minority compromising perfect decision making body and just admit that majority rules. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OpposeKeg of beer.pngAtlandyBeer.png 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tebuddy, the way I believe it is (both in theoretical policy and in actuality) goes as follows. When possible, closure is not asked for until all are on one side. When this does not seem possible closure may be asked for anyway, the discussion either is closed with no consensus (as such the status quo prevails) or rough consensus is claimed. Note however that the later two options are not ideal. --Serenity1137 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Build a bridge. Get over it. It is fine.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 18:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per all. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:56, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We can't really characterize it in terms of a number. That would cause many more headaches and complaints than there are now (and I haven't ever heard of the minority on a losing side publicly complain). ----LiquidTalk 02:04, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed the ARCHIVE template and the PROTECTED sign at the top of the edit page? Hello71 02:06, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Closed Per RS:SNOW. The forum was archived, but never officially closed. I will do so now. TRSAXYPBucket detail.pngrwojy 02:10, February 17, 2010 (UTC)