Forum:The Grand Vote of What Should And Shouldn't Belong (TM)

<<< Back to Logical Sector • <<< Back to Forum

Recently, a small IRC discussion ensorcelling me to discuss something; what is everyone's opinion on individual rules? Should policies be mixed, chop'n'changed, and the like? Should we allow our writers more breathing room? First, before we have a vote on this sort of thing, we should get to why, and the magnitude.

Why?

Because some of the policies are not quite clearly worded, or worded in such a way as to be far too vague to be applicable. Still others gather controversy, and some others are simply ignored (or applied subconsciously and on a per-user basis).

Some people, others, although not everyone agrees with them (perhaps you included) find Illogicopedia with a place for humor. Uncyclopedia's standards are too high for them, and growing still higher. I find we take the low ground, and them the high ground -- should we not seize the middle ground as well? However, the policies generally are unsupporting of these folk.

Similiarly, some people find nonsense to be our campaign for wikia space (though I wholeheartedly disagree to a standstill).

And even then, some find nonsense our only hope (which is perfectly valid), and love it as the wiki's main draw.

And some others don't care.

I find we should have the policies adapt to all these people.

Addendum: Basis and Regularity

Because we need the community's opinions, not the High Elder Lore (TM)'s opinions.

Illogicopedia is a democracy, right? It's not something that works for Uncyc or Wikipedia, but it is something we can probably pull off correctly if we play our cards right.

So, community driven policies. We all get to eat cake, instead of a select few having a heroes' feast.

In America, originally, the Constitution was to be slashed, ripped, torn, every so often. For what, I don't know, but it makes sense. So, every 6 months (at least), a new vote can be initiated to see if people want a good new Grand Vote (TM).

What say you?

Magnitude?

Read these things. Then tell me what, if any, you'd like to see changed. You can register specific votes beforehand, but we have to decide on whether to hold this revolutionary vote (of sorts) first.

And closing,

We now vote to see if we should modify the policies or not.

--Sir Asema ^Politics _{Complaint Inbox or Outbox} 16:08, 13 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)

VOTE HERE!

VOTING REGULATIONS

There is voting currently taking place below this template, So here are the voting basics: Users are permitted one vote each. Please clearly state whether your addition is a for, an against or a comment. Remember to sign and to update the vote count. Nominations count as a vote for unless specified as "Neutral" or "Against". Take care not to overdo self-nomination. If you wish to change your vote, then cross out the previous using the <s> tags. Frog-infested pineapples are not allowed in the voting area until they have been de-frogged. Click here for more details

Tally: +5

• 'I think so! --Sir Asema ^Politics _{Complaint Inbox or Outbox} 16:08, 13 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed different admins seem to interpret these rules differently. --Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 11:13, 13 Farbleum 2008 (EST)
• Yeah! Midle ground of humour etc For T' Win! --Testostereich • (ballsack) 11:39, 13 Farbleum 2008 (EST)

• Sort of Yes. I think it's pretty obvious that we should modify the policies. But every six months? No. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:43, 13 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)

• Yup I agree. Although maybe six months might even be a little bit too long, what with our community being so small? hmm... I can't help but find I disagree with everything Nerd says (but not in a "I disagree with everything he says regardless" way). -- 17:54, 13 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. You'd think we'd get it right after a while, but we might as well try. Good excuse to read the policies we already endorse, if nothing else.--MathPoet 21:34, 13 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)