MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Rainbow Mario with Invincible Mario. (Discuss) Deadline: May 30, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Skull Switch to, incorporate Super Mario Land equivalent (and possibly NSMBWii/U equivalents). (Discuss) Deadline: June 1, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Change rule 9 to centre on voters rather than votes
In the wake of this proposal passing, rule 9 is slightly vague - it says a multi-option proposal must have majority support, and a majority of all votes. It's now possible to pass the first criterion (more than half of voters support something) but fail the second (because of multiple votes).

This proposal would make two changes:
 * 1) Change the section of Rule 9 that says "more than half of all votes cast must be for a single option" to "more than half of all voters must have cast votes for a single option"
 * 2) Change the last bullet point in the summary brown box at the top of this page from "All proposals must pass by a majority, including proposals with more than two options." to "All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options."

This won't change much, it's more cleanup to reflect the new status quo than a major revision.

Proposer: Deadline: May 30, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) . Per above.
 * 2) Per my comments below, provided the language is expanded.
 * 3) per all.
 * 4) per all.

Oppose

 * 1) Your worry about my proposal passing skewing results unfavorably or proposals ending in NO QUORUM is all theoretical. The voting system I proposed was vote for the outcome(s) you are comfortable with if one were to win rather than vote for your favored outcome. The votes operate as an OR gate of sorts. It's a rather simple change and it is as simple as it gets for voting. Also the majority requirement may not be as bad as it sounds because the new algorithm could reveal how controversial the proposed change was (controversy not meaning good or bad just meaning there was a lot of debate). I say you should just see how things go after several more than two choice proposals have run their course before this should be thought about. Until the results are in, then we review our voting system handling more than two choices. Also if you really think the voting system is flawed, then we should overhaul it for more than two choice proposals but keep the same rules for two-choice proposals.
 * 2) - I will oppose for the time being because I don't see the benefit in doing this and I don't want the proposal to pass before I get an answer.

Comments
Re: Wildgoosespeeder. The situation as it stands after your proposal is not an OR gate because of the "majority of all votes" requirement - this proposal would make it more like an OR gate. It would make literally no difference to Yes/No proposals. It can only affect A/B/C(/etc) proposals where enough people have voted more than once to cause a proposal outcome that fulfils every other requirement to get a definitive result to fail purely on majority of votes, while still getting a majority from voters. So that last sentence is irrelevant.
 * OR gates as in if(a || b || !c){OK with winning change}else{Not OK with winning change}}, not if(a && b && !c){OK with winning change}else{Not OK with winning change}} . One will have more trues (OK) than falses (Not OK) if you were to do a Truth table if you were to set one of the variables to true and the rest to false . The boolean inside the if is just a sample how the user voted (! meaning no vote). Majority vote on the other hand, let's say three options are 45%/25%/30%. That would be a NO QUORUM based on a majority needed for one option. 55% of the votes didn't want the option that got 45% of the votes. Looking at those numbers, there is quite a split how people felt about the proposed change. I say the system is working in that case. -- 23:23, 25 May 2016 (EDT)

And I see no reason to let a bunch of proposals with popular support fall as inquorate just to prove that the situation after your proposal is flawed - this is the simplest way to patch the main problem without having to overhaul everything. - Reboot (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
 * It's hard to visualize your wanted changes to the rules. It has to be easy to understand. -- 23:23, 25 May 2016 (EDT)

Until another three plus choice proposal comes along, all of these rule patches are basically conjecture. For the purposes of this discussion, I'd agree to the proposed change if it only applies to the previous rule patch. The current text of this proposal suggests that it's across the board change. -- Ghost Jam 23:26, 28 May 2016 (EDT)
 * It only applies to the previous rule patch. (While technically it applies across the board, in practice it is 100% identical when one member=one vote. The only reason I didn't spell this out was that it's just more words to the same effect.) - Reboot (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
 * Spell it out in future, no one enjoys semantics fights. -- Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 15:03, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
 * I can't edit it now though without admin permission - it's been going for more than three days. - Reboot (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
 * Which is why I said "in future". :D -- 22:58, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

I must not be getting it but can someone explain what this proposal does? I feel that my oppose vote and its explanation are way off the mark and has been that way for several days. If it is just a wording change and that's it, OK, but if this proposal is changing how we determine the winning option, then my oppose vote stands as this proposal could be in violation of rule #7. -- 16:07, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
 * If you're even looking at Rule #7 (no overturning votes within a month), you're definitely way off the mark, but I don't see how to explain it to you in any way I've not already tried. In no way, shape or form does this reset things to the way they were before your proposal, so R7 is irrelevant. - Reboot (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
 * Googling for "define overturn", overturn doesn't necessarily mean to reverse or undo. It can also mean to invalidate. So it is just a change of words and NOT how we evaluate a winning option (if NO QUORUM). Since that is the case, why put in that much effort into a proposal for such a tiny change? Past experience with proposals I made dealing with small changes lead people to vote against it claiming the payoff is very little. -- 17:03, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
 * Defining it vs. how it's enforced. We don't enforce rule #7 the way Google has defined the specific words for you, so it's not going to be an issue. That said, we've made far more fiddly changes in the past for much more minor aspects of the site, so arguments to that effect are going to be less effective. -- 22:58, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

OK, clear something up for me regarding your point #1. For example, we have a proposal with three options. Reboot, Ghost Jam, and myself voted for option #1; Reboot and myself voted for option #2; Ghost Jam and Wildgoosespeeder voted for option #3. Which one do we prefer? What is better for proposals? -- 23:09, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
 * "more than half of all votes cast must be for a single option", which is how we have it right now. This way, the proposal would not pass.
 * "more than half of all voters must have cast votes for a single option", which is the proposed change. This way, the proposal would pass.
 * You have it right (except for the fact that point 2 is the same as point 1, it's just because the thing is written in two separate places), and this was the question I was asking by making this proposal!
 * Clearly, I prefer the second one - my whole reason for doing this, as I think I've made clear, is that I see this situation as a bug caused by a rule that SHOULD have been part of the prior proposal but wasn't because it wasn't thought through enough. (I listed alternatives there, but this was by far the simplest option). Having proposals with majority support which fulfil all other requirements (number of votes, margin of victory, etc) fall as inquorate because some voters have cast secondary votes, when the reason it falls as inquorate is a rule which never envisaged secondary votes as a possibility... it's a bug, to my eyes. - Reboot (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2016 (EDT)
 * MarioWiki's proposal system is supposed to be the right balance of fairness and understandability with its participants. Getting really technical with the rules would likely not be in the best interest of MarioWiki. A proposal system shouldn't favor the proposer but rather favor those who contribute. Your rule change proposal suggests this. If my 45%/25%/30% example is NO QUORUM, so be it. The proposed change was likely not a good one anyways. -- 00:38, 30 May 2016 (EDT)
 * Thing is, I would see your 45%/25%/30% proposal, with some users giving multiple votes, as (e.g.) 60%/35%/30%. It's all about "can it command majority support". If yes, then - if it fulfils the other criteria such as "margin of three if there are more than ten votes" - it has received enough support to pass. I really wonder why you're so angry about this... - Reboot (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2016 (EDT)
 * That's 115%. I'm not angry. I am disappointed. This proposal feels like it is trying to dodge rule #7 in a technically non-violating way to reduce the power of voting more than once without giving it enough time to see the actual results first before considering making another amendment if voting more than once causes issues. -- 01:40, 30 May 2016 (EDT)
 * If you are right about that, that was my initial concern about this proposal messing around with rules, which had me concerned this proposal could be violating rule #7 because the result of my proposal was enforced since May 10 (almost three weeks, which isn't enough time). Also, has another proposal active on Talk:Skull Switch that has more than two options, which ends two days later than this one. This is striking me as kind of odd. -- 23:32, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
 * Again, as Ghost Jam has now pointed out to you as well (above), Rule #7 doesn't come into it. This is not in fact nor in intention, in the way MarioWiki habitually uses the word, overturning a vote. (And the Skull Switch one requires a huge last-minute inrush of votes not to be inquorate no matter what, so it hardly matters.) - Reboot (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2016 (EDT)
 * It doesn't hurt to see what other admins think about my thoughts about your proposal. It would be in the best interest of MarioWiki if they acted as a group instead of individually with something as complicated as a proposal. The individuality they possess would be more useful in stopping vandals or something, but not proposals. -- 00:29, 30 May 2016 (EDT)
 * The administration team is an assortment of individuals, not a hive mind. The fact that we can openly disagree with each other is part of why admins are allowed to participate in proposals in the first place. I'll thank you to not tell us how to do our job or what our place is. -- 00:56, 30 May 2016 (EDT)
 * OK, wrong phrasing. What I mean is that one admin saying I am wrong about rule #7 does not mean all admins would think that. You weren't telling me that on behalf of the others and I should stop saying that. You were telling me that on your own judgments. Unless a lot of the admins think what you are thinking, I'll stop saying that. That is what I meant "as a group". I think that is what thought the case was. I wasn't telling you how to do your job. Sorry if you thought that. -- 01:33, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.