When the new team takes over... how would you like to see voting to achieve community input on matters go?
These matters may include (but will not be limited to)

Change in how the site looks

Bannings of members

Restriction of privilages of members

Change in how the site functions (guest vs no guest posting for example don't stone me damnit, just an example)

Reasons to remove a mod

How many voters responses are needed if everyone is notified and a date limit is needed? A minimum of 5, 15, 25 votes?
Assuming the minimum is reached, the majority is the decision maker.
Assuming the minimum is not reached, the decision transfers to mods.
If quick action is required, should the decision be left to mods for a quick response and then put to a vote?

Post below for how long you think it should run, 24, 36, 48, 72 hours, a week, 2 weeks?

4 days, 15 people, default is back to mods earlier decision, I'm OK with that.
EDIT: Sooner than 4 days if 15 people is reached within that timeframe.

Given that we normally have between 20 and 30 members online, and everyone is notified, 15 votes is a good date minimum. While 4 days sounds agreeable to me, it's not a week and it's not 24 hours either.

I'd think 24 hours was too short and a week, IMO, too long for a decision to be made. Since we have 7 days in a week 3 1/2 is the middle, but we can't exactly do 1/2 day, so 4 days is good.

24hrs is too quick, we're not the busy site we used to be.
I know myself I sometimes don't log in every day.

That said though...if a load of people do quickly vote and reach 15 people then a decision can be made quickly yep?

im gonna lodge an objection straight away.

this is how the sz has been run of late. threads with ops that lay out the boundaries and options. i loathe that way of doing things when it involves things that affect everyone.

i suggest this needs to be approached in stages, it is after all a vital subject.

Please explain your stance Dubs... would like to hear it.

How is laying out boundaries and options a bad thing as far as voting on a system/member/forum wide decision a problem?
What I had meant was for things that do need action to be taken, and the community having a say in it... like banning someone (just to grab a subject as an example), if someone started being a thorn in the side, Mods/ZK would warn them, if they continued, they'd be temp. banned and it put to a vote lasting said about of days with a minimum of votes required (or it defaults). How would that be a bad thing? And how is it not giving a voice to anyone who wants one?

Or are you just talking about the OP of this thread, if so what do you see wrong with it?
And anything else you have to contribute... just don't use big words or make my head hurt

ok, for example i advocate consensus decision making. i see big problems with majority rule. so i have a problem with a vote on how we will vote.
i see it as just being the status quo. spinning circles in neutral.
staying in the box.

this isnt me spitting my dummy, this is me again advocating for us not relying on established thoughtforms. especially when those thoughtforms are as flawed as majority rule is.


edit: so basically i find that polls/threads like this automatically exclude my views, do you get my drift?

Anything under 25 is a forum that is just not worth being a part of...imo

I understand what you are saying Dubs. And in a perfect world, complete, 100% consensus decisions being made would happen. But this isn't a perfect world, and in some instances, a majority will have to be the deciding factor because not everyone is going to agree on everything. If we strive for a 100% consensus among community members, nothing is ever going to get solved.

If run like a true democracy, which I think is how the SZ was meant to be run (someone correct me if I am wrong), then everyone gets a chance to have their say, their opinion and view heard. But at the end of the day, the majority is the one who makes the decision. Now, this doesn't mean that the case cannot be reopened and discussed further...mistakes happen, we all know that, and if something is seen as a mistake, than it can definitely be reopened up for further discussion and if, and I am sorry but that is a big IF, a consensus is reached a decision can be revoked and changed... or even if a majority change their minds later on down the road, it can be put to another vote.

If Andy is going to take this forum over he should have the final say on who gets banned ect...

Not that anyone should ever get banned anyway.

The system has an email voting system which is designed to manage peoples votes and offer every member the opportunity to vote unless the opt out. Members can also change their minds and the new vote removes the previous selection.

The mail vote system is a paid extension and is still being developed with more features to come. One of the features will be a defined cut off date where members can only vote up to that date. If the SZ wishes to continue with that extension then they can also provide feedback to the developer for feature requests. DG has details about the costs and various options associated with maintaining that feature.

An example of the voting results can be seen here Mail Poll All that's required is a short email with text explaining the proposition/issue and then the insertion of the vote links for members to click on. The vote links are generated by the extension when a vote is created. Then select the member group and send the mail. The vote can only be sent once there is no way of resending emails to members either en mass or individually. With a membership greater than 200 an alternative mail delivery system is required due to the mail policy of this server account. The documentation explains how that can be achieved.

RealAmerican wrote:

Noooo no nono hell no

As for 25 by the way I doubt you'll reach that number quickly.
Its achievable but it'l take at least a whole week, maybe 2.

dubmeup wrote:
You'll have to explain what you mean by consensus view and how it differs from majority view I think.

StarsChildren wrote:
I would have to agree at this stage

If motions are passed with only 100% we could find ourselves paralysed and the cost of not taking action could be large

e.g. a poster is being consistently sexist and sometimes pervy.

There is a vote to give an ultimatum: cease the lewd creepy stuff or be booted

29 of 30 voters agree but one extreme free speech person does not

a long stalemate is reached and in the meantime three female members leave becasue they are getting perved out

andyh wrote:
Fear not: When Oscar Wilde said public opinion is always wrong, he was talking about RA

mikey mikey wrote:

I'm of the same opinion.
Provided that by consensus this is what was meant. Its mission impossible, you'll just vacillate over everything from now til doomsday.
You could manage it amongst the forum regulars but the not so regulars? I don't think so.

Theres also the question of weighting how important the decision is for example. Perhaps its possible to sort some kind of consensus decision over issues that are OK to leave for a few weeks for a decision yep?

1) who the fuck is oscar wilde you crazy M&M
2) On a pervy poster...ya'll could just ante up plane fare and let me put an arrow in said perverts ass for shits and giggles just a suggestion for future reference...

StarsChildren wrote:
A hero of mine ( *claps hands and starts brewing a Wilde thread*)
StarsChildren wrote:
I like you.

common sense for most everything!!

like bats said, common sense would be the leader of most choices hopefully. in the scenario you outlined stars, that poster would hopefully ejected whilst the community decided to ban or not. that would hopefully stop people walking in protest.
i'm pragmatic enough to see that consensus wont be acheived on every thing neither that its needed on everything. but when it comes to non pressing issues and developments i think it is the most equitable way to do things. to open it up for discussion and talk it through till everybody feels able to back it. yes it would require some maturity but that isnt necessarily a bad thing is it.