Board Thread:Voting/@comment-3560733-20150122153832

As it stands, the current voting policy is something that was agreed upon by the original staff on this wiki but was never written down. Roughly, with out any formal wording, it states that there are 2 tiers for votes. The first tier is level 2 users and up and these votes include things that don't really effect the integrity of the wiki which at this point is just image votes. The other tier is level 3 users and up and would be all votes that would effect the integrity of the wiki, like; user rights, policy votes, etc.

The way votes are handled directly, is that after 1 of 2 minimum conditions are met, the vote goes in favor of the majority. Those 2 condition are having the vote exist for about a week(can't recall if it was 5 days or a week) or have half of the currently active users that can vote on it to have voted; IE: if it's a user rights vote, you'd need half of the currently active level 3 and up users to vote on it.

Now, that's how things are supposed to be handled now and we could just write it out and add it to policy; but I'm not sure if that's the best idea anymore. I was perfectly fine with that for some time, but after some things got pointed out and other things mentioned in passing, I've come up with another policy for voting that I think is more fair and balanced.

My idea for a new voting policy is as such: first, we would do away with different tiers of votes as it's literally only for that one type of vote. We'd then make it so that both condition should have to be met for the vote to go through. This was mentioned by Harv and at first I ignored it, but upon thinking about it I realized it was a great idea. If we require both a 1/2 total active users to have voted and a time limit, it would allow for a more realistic voting system.

For example, let's say was have a total of 30 active users and a vote comes to 8 for and 7 against. That meets the 15/30 required total votes. In the current system, it would be passed right there. but what if the next for people voted against but just weren't on or didn't have time to vote? I see this as a major issue. This does not allow for a true majority vote as it was planned as we're assuming the 15 that haven't voted won't vote. As such, I think both conditions should be required to affirm the majority rule. The only exception I could see is if everyone voted for, so 15 for and 0 against; as that way any further votes wouldn't have the potential to change the outcome.

'''2 things to note: 1, Until all of this is handled, I've gone ahead and suspended all votes in the past week or so in order apply this decision semi-retroactively. 2, as this is a vote about how we should handle votes, it will require a few special things to pass through. It's going to require a 2/3 majority as well as the half total active users. It also will not time out in a week. It will only pass with that 2/3 majority.'''

Option 1:
Leave things as they are: 2 tiers of votes, 2 conditions: 1 week~ or half of currently active users on total votes to go through, at that point majority rule

Votes
0

Option 2:
Alter a few things: No voting tiers, both conditions must be met: 1 week passed and half of currently active users on total votes to go through, at that point majority rule

Votes
1 