Poll - Changes in Spice And Wolf Guidelines

[Vaelis]

The "Yes" Votes will go in accordance with Const2k's compromise. That is the images will all be put on the same page, but separated into color/illustration sections for those that want the illustration pages to remain a mystery. http://www.baka-tsuki.net/project/index ... lk:Const2k shows the example.

No.
The "Yes" is for putting B&W and color pictures in the same gallery (like in Toradora, Zero no Tsukaima, Kaze no Stigma, Strike Witches) and not for fiendmaw or Const2k's compromise.
If you want to have a compromise then the vote should be "No".

That's why this poll is a complete mess, we don't change for what we vote during a poll...

[Krikit]

Did Toradora!, Kaze no Stigma, etc, have a discussion about how they were going to do their images? Or did they just put them up like that?

Personally I don't want the compromise, I'd like them all to be together, but I was going to vote in favor of the compromise for the people that care about spoilers...but in reality, how big a spoiler are they? I've looked through all the spice and wolf images, and they really don't give anything away. Some faces, some emotions...they aren't like text spoilers where you can find out a whole bunch of information by reading a synopsis....

Let me ask this then: How many "Yes" votes are in favor of Const2k's compromise? And how many voted "yes," to just have them all together?

How many voted "no" because they wanted a compromise? How many voted "no" because they wanted the images to be in-line, with only the color images in the gallery?

I'm wondering if the poll should be fixed with three options:
YES (put them all together)
NO (No illustrations on the pictures page)
Re-Poll (For one of the compromises)

[Smidge204]

This is the first discussion about this at all. That's part of the problem: The guidelines say it's the wrong way to do it, people did it the wrong way, and that's being used to justify it. Nobody bothered to suggest it beforehand or even ask.

If you want to change the poll options, vote "No." It's much too late now to change options without messing it up - poll ends in 5 days - so we'll have to start over. (Personally I think the poll was rigged to be bias from the start, but considering who wrote it that wouldn't be surprising.)

Also worth mentioning that this poll applies only to S&W, since that's what's explicitly called for here. Other projects will either have to resolve to have their own overriding guidelines or you'll need to petition to have the master guidelines revised. I'm redrafting the master guidelines anyway (proposal will be after this and one other poll are resolved) so there will be a chance for everyone to throw in their opinions. It's almost guaranteed that this whole debacle will have been a tremendous waste of time and I can already see another tantrum in the works over the result.
=Smidge=

[Darknemo2000]

The problem is that no one ever bothered to ask about the guidelines to begin with. Guidelines were never a community decision. Thus you cannot wonder that once projects increase in number and more individuals were getting involved, some points in guidelines made by other individuals started bing ignored as again, the other project leaders had different opinion on what is more convenient and what is not, which created such difference eventually.

Simply put - guidelines were made by some individuals, but it never was a community decision as such so you cannot really wonder that eventually other projects started to ignore the Haruhi based guidelines as simply there were few things that looked simply more convenient, something that original creators of guidelines haven't imagined at all.

And I am surprised to hear you to be talking about being biased. You are the last person to talk about not being biased as you simply do not know what that means.

However, if 'Yes' doesn't mean a compromise then it should be the same with 'No' because the idea of compromise only came in the middle of voting, as simply 'No' in original did not meant a compromise just like "Yes' didn't, so if you want a compromise you should vote I do not know. If we agree that 'Yes' does not mean a compromise then the same should be with "No' as both of these options were compromiseless at their starting point.

In fact 'Yes' option was barely influenced by the compromise add to its option to begin with as it had 14 votes before the idea of compromise came, while option "No' benefited more from it as it was 8 votes for this option before it was started treated as alternative compromise (which isn't exactly right if we do not count 'Yes' as compromise).

As for how many votes one needs to be taken it is hard to tell. In our political life, the referendum is counted to take place if you get the needed number of people, and then if a 'yes' has at least one vote more than 'no' then the decision goes to 'yes' as the needed quota was collected. On the other hand, during elections (at least in here. Lithuania) there are the needed percent of votes in difference to count one as president for example (in the first election round). If one candidate gets enough of votes for him/her there is no need for second election round, if however the difference is very little or not enough then there is a second round with only two candidates (you can have more candidates in here in the first election round).

It depends on how his voting will be treated following B-T standards. But again B-T standards do seem to be bit too abstract at the moment as GTO already changed the quota rules during the voting process (which normally should not be done).

[Smidge204]

The problem is that no one ever bothered to ask about the guidelines to begin with. Guidelines were never a community decision. Thus you cannot wonder that once projects increase in number and more individuals were getting involved, some points in guidelines made by other individuals started bing ignored as again, the other project leaders had different opinion on what is more convenient and what is not, which created such difference eventually.

Simply put - guidelines were made by some individuals, but it never was a community decision as such so you cannot really wonder that eventually other projects started to ignore the Haruhi based guidelines as simply there were few things that looked simply more convenient, something that original creators of guidelines haven't imagined at all.

Simply put, you're wrong.

Strike one: The current guidelines put up for vote with time to discuss. (note: only 7 days 'cause the forums were still rather small at the time). I'm sorry if you weren't here for that, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Strike two: I specifically rewrote them to be more generic because I felt they were, in fact, too Haruhi specific.

Strike three: I specifically added a clause where each project could opt-out of the General guidelines and make their own - because I recognized long before you did that each project will have different needs.


Bonus: You complain about the guidelines being made by a handful of individuals without consideration for the whole community (demonstratably false), yet that is exactly what you tried to do: "Screw the rules, I'm doing it my way even if TWO wiki admins tell you not to!"

Just in case you forgot, this poll only exists because Onizuka beat you over the head with the proper procedures. You didn't even TRY to have a community discussion before you threw a fit over it. Your early arguments were inconsistent and childlike, and only after you were reprimanded to hell and back did you come up with a plausible reason to do it your way. This poll exists only in your sufferance. You practically admit that if our positions were reversed I would have been banned a month ago.

But don't let any of that stop you from saying the matter is being treated unfairly!

(Now go ahead and say that pointing out your hypocrisy is a flame.)

However, if 'Yes' doesn't mean a compromise then it should be the same with 'No' because the idea of compromise only came in the middle of voting, as simply 'No' in original did not meant a compromise just like "Yes' didn't, so if you want a compromise you should vote I do not know.

"I don't know" is the same as "I don't care." A "no" vote means we can go back and try it again. What's entertaining is the whole poll might be invalid because you didn't follow Oni's instructions, but I'll let Oni be the judge of that because I actually hate bureaucracy.

In fact 'Yes' option was barely influenced by the compromise add to its option to begin with as it had 14 votes before the idea of compromise came, while option "No' benefited more from it as it was 8 votes for this option before it was started treated as alternative compromise (which isn't exactly right if we do not count 'Yes' as compromise).

So let's just use your own logic here:

Yes had 14 votes before the compromise, 16 now. Compromise = +2
No had 8 votes before the compromise, 13 now. Compromize = +5

Seem to me that people want the compromise, and therefore want to vote down this proposal.

(Description of "runoff voting" here)

Runoff voting doesn't work with only two options. ("I don't know" is the same as "Present but not voting")

If you want a certain majority in order to pass the proposal, I'll go for that. As long as you don't arbitrarily pick 18% majority anyway. It's far too late to change the polls now with only ~4 days left so if you want to go that route we're STILL going to start over.

It depends on how his voting will be treated following B-T standards. But again B-T standards do seem to be bit too abstract at the moment as GTO already changed the quota rules during the voting process (which normally should not be done).

The quota was for minimum total votes, not minimal votes for a specific option. The idea was, if you bother to read, to allow more people to vote before the matter was settled. This actually worked in your favor so I wouldn't complain about it too much.

=Smidge=

[Const2k]

Well, it's hard to follow discussion that has been going through 6+ pages (counting current topic only) for over than month, but finally I seem to understand something...
Up till now, we should be answering the question that is asked in a very first post. Namely:

Basically the argue runs that non-color images should not be uploaded in the image section (that each volume has) and placed only directly in the text.
I am suggesting to change it so that all non-color images would be placed together with the color images in the same illustration section and later linked into the text (it would not affect the way the text looks or the image look).
Do you agree with changes?

Simply put, it's either

"I want all kind of images to be in one image section" = "I agree"
or
"I want only color images in one image section" = "I disagree"

...and it's up to everyone to decide what an "image section" is and how many of these should be in one project. This is where uncertainities begin...
For example, I'd go with "image section is single web page" and "there is only one image section per volume". This way it's okay for me to have two tables on one (and single) illustrations page. Vaelis seems to treat "image section" as "single table of thumbnails", that's why he doesn't want them to be separated into two tables... While this is "I agree" in both cases, they're different. fiendmaw proposes "two independent web pages as one image section" or "..as two image sections" - and this ambiguity can be interpreted as "I agree" or as "I disagree", respectively. In other words, we have quite wide "gray zone" in this discussion that will just provide answer to question like "should we bring all S&W images in one place, volume-wise?" if we leave it as it is now.
IMO, that's not too much of a result after a month of discussion.

Hereby I ask someone having enough rights to split current vote as follows:
replace "I agree" with:

• ( ) "I agree, place them on one page altogether, like in ZnT and Toradora"
  ( ) "I agree, use single page, but covers and B&W inlines shouldn't be too close"
  (o) "I agree, details don't matter" (on by default for those who voted "I agree" previously)

and "I disagree" with:

• ( ) "I disagree, use gallery for covers and chapters for inlines, like in SHnY"
  ( ) "I disagree, make two pages: one for covers and another for B&W inlines"
  (o) "I disagree, details don't matter" (on by default for those who voted "I disagree" previously)

This way we'll know what to do right after this vote has been closed instead of having to create another one and wait yet another month.

[Smidge204]

That's more or less the way it should have been set up, but Darknemo didn't follow instructions.

There are three days left in the poll. If you change the options now then the whole thing becomes invalid (if it isn't already) - it took the better part of a month to get this far and you can't expect everyone to come back and change their vote in three days.

I say shoot this poll in the head (Vote "No") and let's start over properly.
=Smidge=

[onizuka-gto]

"I want all kind of images to be in one image section" = "I agree"
or
"I want only color images in one image section" = "I disagree"

...and it's up to everyone to decide what an "image section" is and how many of these should be in one project. This is where uncertainities begin...
For example, I'd go with "image section is single web page" and "there is only one image section per volume". This way it's okay for me to have two tables on one (and single) illustrations page. Vaelis seems to treat "image section" as "single table of thumbnails", that's why he doesn't want them to be separated into two tables... While this is "I agree" in both cases, they're different. fiendmaw proposes "two independent web pages as one image section" or "..as two image sections" - and this ambiguity can be interpreted as "I agree" or as "I disagree", respectively. In other words, we have quite wide "gray zone" in this discussion that will just provide answer to question like "should we bring all S&W images in one place, volume-wise?" if we leave it as it is now.
IMO, that's not too much of a result after a month of discussion.

Hereby I ask someone having enough rights to split current vote as follows:
replace "I agree" with:

• ( ) "I agree, place them on one page altogether, like in ZnT and Toradora"
  ( ) "I agree, use single page, but covers and B&W inlines shouldn't be too close"
  (o) "I agree, details don't matter" (on by default for those who voted "I agree" previously)

and "I disagree" with:

• ( ) "I disagree, use gallery for covers and chapters for inlines, like in SHnY"
  ( ) "I disagree, make two pages: one for covers and another for B&W inlines"
  (o) "I disagree, details don't matter" (on by default for those who voted "I disagree" previously)

This way we'll know what to do right after this vote has been closed instead of having to create another one and wait yet another month.

Clarification certainly is need here and your suggestion sounds like just the key.

The only reason I enabled the polls for re-votes was the chance to give the author of the proposal the chance to rectify and work his petition into something that will satisfy all concerned parties and i had hoped to see in the last few post, the results of the compromise with the reflecting votes.

however i cannot split the existing poll with the corresponding votes, as that will reset the vote counts.

While I do not wish to extend this decision for another month long vote, i do not see any clearer solution to settle this matter once and for all without having all voting candidates having to read though this entire thread. Plus there really isn't any rush is there?

Therefore i will give the reminding few days before this poll close for voting, to allow any better suggestions then C2k's.

if not, i will lock this thread, create a new poll and linking it with this one as an additional reference.

That poll will last for a month as usual.

i really have to write these guidelines out one day, just to spare me from typing them out.

[Darknemo2000]

Nope smidge you are wrong, this poll you listed did not collected enough amount of votes (well at least the amount that GTO held for standart that he listed before starting this poll) thus cannot be held to be taken place at all.

I do not care means - I do not vote all , I do not know means simply I care but I just do not know which side to choose a so to say middle position thus much more suited for the actual compromise.

The initial position of both "yes' and No' were uncompromisable thus changing one of the position into compromisable made bit more confusion than needed and changed the voting flow pretty strongly. My mistake as well as I should have corrected this at the start.

You are suggesting logic but do not use logic that much

"Yes" - 14
"No" - 8
Compromise (I do not know/middle) - 8

Thus we still get the majority on 'yes' and not on compromise.

Just because something worked in my favor doesn't mean that it should not be complained about as simply one cannot change the quotas during voting is not a very great or fair idea. Just because something worked in my favor doesn't make that something better or more right.

Well again I am simply not sure about these voting guidelines as GTO gave one total vote quota but then changed it to the other making whole guidelines regarding this matter unreliable and rather relative. Kind of like 'voting' in soviet union.

Please understand GTO that you need to make all rules of the game clear before the game rather than changing them during it. Thus you have to decide the quota not based on how the process is running but rather a standard one that would not be changed depending on the process. You have to tell us how the votes are counted - like if it is an absolute majority or not. You have to inform us before its started rather than changing it during process.

In fact this poll became illegitimate when one of the positions shifted the standing based on compromise while the voting was still in process. Yet you cannot blame the starting format for that because it was approved and allowed to start without the rejection based on the not-matching format. It allowed the possibility for an error to happen but it itself wasn't the an error as such.

[Krikit]

Okay, I'm going to stick with Oni and Const2k:

This thread will be locked at the end, and a new poll will be opened, with a link to this section for reference. The new poll will be setup for the following options:

Hereby I ask someone having enough rights to split current vote as follows:
replace "I agree" with:

( ) "I agree, place them on one page altogether, like in ZnT and Toradora"
( ) "I agree, use single page, but covers and B&W inlines shouldn't be too close"
(o) "I agree, details don't matter" (on by default for those who voted "I agree" previously)

and "I disagree" with:

( ) "I disagree, use gallery for covers and chapters for inlines, like in SHnY"
( ) "I disagree, make two pages: one for covers and another for B&W inlines"
(o) "I disagree, details don't matter" (on by default for those who voted "I disagree" previously)

So this is how the new poll will be set up. It will then undergo another month of re-voting, with the current poll options fixed to allow all votes to be chosen respectively for their exact, intended purpose.

This just means it will be early September before this is settled ^_^, but at least the new poll setup will be able to figure just what exactly the majority wants.

So until the new poll opens, if there's something someone doesn't understand about the above poll setup, questions should be asked now, so it's all clear, that way the poll won't have to be "reset" again.

My $.02

[Darknemo2000]

Well the 'I agree, details don't matter' basically means, nothing... Because if such option wins who will decide how it will look on wiki? Another poll?

[onizuka-gto]

Well the 'I agree, details don't matter' basically means, nothing... Because if such option wins who will decide how it will look on wiki? Another poll?

Certainly,

After all we must accept that we can't please everyone, however i rather have then precipitate in this voting process and have an option to select what they wish to reflect.

And this will continue until we have a satisfactory outcome or until all concerned party get bored of the issue and give up/we all die from old age.

welcome to wiki-communism bureaucracy, where BakaTsukist is the new Stalinist.

except for the mass political purges, because there is only ONE PARTY here comrade. ONE.

[Darknemo2000]

Would it not be better to simply take out such an option? Since ye's I do not care about details provide no information and when we were to create another pool it would be what? This?

( ) "I agree, place them on one page altogether, like in ZnT and Toradora"
( ) "I agree, use single page, but covers and B&W inlines shouldn't be too close"
(o) "I agree, details don't matter" (on by default for those who voted "I agree" previously)

And then you would get the same results over again if 'details don't matter' win. And again. And again... This is not a bureaucracy, but clownery, as you keep the possibility of eternal voting circle, without any attempts to prevent or limit it.

Face it it - to get a result in this case you would have to take out the option 'details don't matter' at all, as simply such 'details don't matter' option adds completely nothing to the solution. As far as I can fiollow Const2k thought process, this option is basically just to keep the continuity of the voting from this poll so that the votes would not be lost completely.

Yet I think that the voting should be restarted completely, but now only positive and compromise positions would remain if the "yes' (which is more likely to win at this moment) wins. This way the results of this poll would still matter (as it would eliminate the complete "no" option, if the results remain similar as to what they are right now) and we would not completely disregard the option that won (or is more likely to win), but now would go to a constructive solution of such option.

( ) "Place images on one page altogether, like in ZnT and Toradora" (uncompromisable position)
( ) "Use single page, but covers and B&W inlines shouldn't be too close" (compromise)
( ) "Make two pages: one for covers and another for B&W inlines" (compromise)

If in the end "No" would receive more votes then the options should be:

( ) "Use gallery for covers and chapters for inlines, like in SHnY (uncompromisable position)
( ) "Use single page, but covers and B&W inlines shouldn't be too close" (compromise)
( ) "Make two pages: one for covers and another for B&W inlines" (compromise)

In either of the cases the uncompromisable position ('yes' or 'no') gets eliminated depending on the voting in here (thats how we would bring the continuity of votes from here into another poll, rather than using the 'details don't matter' option which does not add to solution at all and would only create a possibility of eternal voting circle).

If the result of 'yes' and 'no' would be equal by the end of the date then the options should be:

( ) "Place images on one page altogether, like in ZnT and Toradora" (uncompromisable position)
( ) "Use single page, but covers and B&W inlines shouldn't be too close" (compromise)
( ) "Make two pages: one for covers and another for B&W inlines" (compromise)
( ) "Use gallery for covers and chapters for inlines, like in SHnY" (uncompromisable position)

But in either case, GTO you have to provide the rules (most importantly the quota and the voting counting system) before the voting starts rather than changing it in the process of it as it carries the possibility to disfeature the voting results.

[Const2k]

Well, it's highly regrettable that technical limitations make everyone wait yet another month (third, if counted from the very beginning of all this?) before making something constructive to wiki. I'm just terrified to imagine how much time of editors, translators and admins was (and yet to be) wasted on reading, writing and flaming, and especially what could be done with it being put to better use... Really, all this looks more and more like "discussion for the sake of discussion" rather than "discussion for the sake of decision".

Basically, I just want "I (dis)agree" options in current poll to be renamed into "I (dis)agree, details don't matter", "I don't know" left alone and four more options added, optionally prolonging vote period on, say, week. I don't think this will take even few days for someone with direct access to this forum's database (SQL or whatever this phpBB currently uses for storing vote options). In reality, it should take less than 10 minutes of someone's time (with enough skill), as opposed to one month of everyone's time.

Indeed, two "general" answers are suggested only for "compatibility" reasons, i.e.not having to force everyone to re-vote. Having names of some people who wrote in this thread, one can simply mass-PM them to ask them to elaborate their opinions in "extended" version of poll (of course, with access to database finding all voters' names would be easy, but that would harm privacy). If "general" yes/no option has more votes than each of corresponding "specific" yes/no'es by the end of voting (in a few days from now on, if not prolonged), then we can safely assume idea of "extended" poll has failed, and make another one without eliminated options and both "general" ones - at the cost of spending even more time. To make sure everyone interested would have an opportunity to vote, I'd wrote note (~invitation) about current discussion on main S&W page or, at least, on S&W illustrations page.

Of course, if bureaucracy has to prevail over common sense, then - alas - either common people will have to bear with its decisions or become political refugees / dissidents...

Edit: here's list of those who wrote = voted here (in chronological order):

Spoiler! :

Darknemo2000
TheGiftedMonkey
Smidge204
onizuka-gto
Vaelis
Jumpyshoes
TheDefend
Const2k
barbsicle
Dan
Matt122004
fiendmaw
Krikit

...13 users total. If we all elaborate our "I (dis)agree"-s, and the most voted option will "score" MORE than corresponding <general minus its elaborated votes> option, we can skip another vote, right?
Let me start, then:
Const2k: "I agree" -> "I agree, use single page, but covers and B&W inlines shouldn't be too close"

Valid options are:
If you voted "I agree":
( ) "Place images on one page altogether, like in ZnT and Toradora" (uncompromisable position)
( ) "Use single page, but covers and B&W inlines shouldn't be too close" (compromise)
If you voted "I disagree":
( ) "Make two pages: one for covers and another for B&W inlines" (compromise)
( ) "Use gallery for covers and chapters for inlines, like in SHnY" (uncompromisable position)

Hereby I'm asking for permission to PM above-mentioned users asking them to choose one of these four options and post it here along with their previous choice. That's not "closed (anonymous, secret - name it yourself) voting", but we didn't bother to hide our choices here in first place...

[Darknemo2000]

My main argue against the such uptions of 'details do not matter' is that if either of such options would win, then you would waste one more month. And then maybe one more and more and more and so on. Basically, 'details do not matter' creates the possibility for eternal voting as neither of the options bring a conclusion.

But I like you do not want to make all votes go completely to waste, so I think that at least this particular voting could at least take out one of the uncompromisable position's not including 'details do not matter' options.

Since basically if 'Yes' wins then it means that at least uncompromisable position of "no' is eliminated as even with help of compromise added votes to it, it lost. Meanwhile the uncompromisable position of "Yes' still needs of clearance as it is not clear how much of it has the compromise position and how much of it is the actual uncompromisable position. same goes to "no' uncompromisable position if it were to win. Since in either cases one could argue that the results of either of uncompromisable position's were influenced by compromises. Thus an additional poll would be needed to decide what is what, but all of the has to be constructive enough (and the option 'details do not matter' add nothing).

It would make to revote again but if we were to follow your suggestions we are very likely to get into the circle of eternal voting.

though i cannot see it working out Const2k (as simply time-limit is too short plus the number of users is very small) but here I go"

"I agree" -> "Place images on one page altogether, like in ZnT and Toradora."