Darknemo2000 wrote: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.)
Darknemo2000 wrote: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.
Darknemo2000 wrote: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.
Darknemo2000 wrote:(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.
Darknemo2000 wrote: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=