 The Paragon Wiki Archive documents the state of City of Heroes/Villains as it existed on December 1, 2012.
|
Difference between revisions of "Paragon Wiki Archive talk:Policy"
Rigel Kent (Talk | contribs) |
Blondeshell (Talk | contribs) (→Vote for Policy Adoption, 2012-04-26: +reply) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* '''Support.''' I support this policy for making policies(!), with the added support of Eabrace's suggestion as noted above. -- [[User:Blondeshell|Blondeshell]] 22:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | * '''Support.''' I support this policy for making policies(!), with the added support of Eabrace's suggestion as noted above. -- [[User:Blondeshell|Blondeshell]] 22:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
* '''Strong Oppose''' Majority votes encourage groupthink, bandwagoning, and giving a fast thumbs up/down instead of thinking about the issue critically. Consensus forms from discussion and reasoning, not head counts. [[User:Rigel Kent|Rigel Kent]] 22:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | * '''Strong Oppose''' Majority votes encourage groupthink, bandwagoning, and giving a fast thumbs up/down instead of thinking about the issue critically. Consensus forms from discussion and reasoning, not head counts. [[User:Rigel Kent|Rigel Kent]] 22:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::I don't know that this policy-making procedure precludes any discussion that would take place, either on the forums or a talk page, about any actual policy that would be proposed. I believe the voting process is just for the formal adoption step. -- [[User:Blondeshell|Blondeshell]] 22:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:47, 28 April 2012
Policy for Policy
It occurred to me that we have various "work in progress" policies, but had no means of officially making them official. This seeks to rectify that. Better late than never? I drafted this up pretty quickly tonight, I'm sure I've missed things and I'm sure there's things that'll need to be changed. Let's hammer it into shape! -- Sekoia 07:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Vote for Policy Adoption, 2012-04-26
Given that this has received no comments in the week+ since it's been up, I assume that there's nothing contentious (and as it's largely just procedural, that's not surprising). Please vote below on whether you Support or Oppose adopting the policy as currently drafted. If you oppose, please state what needs to change in order for you to support it. -- Sekoia 19:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support. -- Sekoia 19:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Caveat: I think the text that reads "Very clearly specific what is being voted on" should probably read "Very clearly specify what is being voted on" --Eabrace
18:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC) - Support. I support this policy for making policies(!), with the added support of Eabrace's suggestion as noted above. -- Blondeshell 22:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Majority votes encourage groupthink, bandwagoning, and giving a fast thumbs up/down instead of thinking about the issue critically. Consensus forms from discussion and reasoning, not head counts. Rigel Kent 22:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know that this policy-making procedure precludes any discussion that would take place, either on the forums or a talk page, about any actual policy that would be proposed. I believe the voting process is just for the formal adoption step. -- Blondeshell 22:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
