Difference between revisions of "Nookipedia talk:Proposals"
From Nookipedia, the Animal Crossing wiki
PanchamBro (talk | contribs) |
AlexBot2004 (talk | contribs) (Closing discussion) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Adding the ability to veto proposals == | == Adding the ability to veto proposals == | ||
| − | + | {{Archive top|result=Consensus is in support of the proposal. '''~''' [[User:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:#1C662A">'''AlexBot2004'''</span>]] ([[User talk:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:black">Talk</span>]]) 23:10, March 3, 2024 (EST)}} | |
This was brought up in a [[Nookipedia talk:The Roost#Discussing our proposal system|Roost discussion]] a couple months ago, so I thought I'd expand on it and propose it here. The idea is that a Bureaucrat would be able to veto a proposal that does not follow the rules listed on this page (e.g. not fleshed out, not a binary choice, not a big enough change), is made in bad faith, or has no realistic chance of passing. A vetoed proposal would be removed immediately rather than when the voting period ends, and moved to the [[Nookipedia:Proposals/Archive|Archives]] as a failed proposal (bad-faith proposals would not be added to the Archives). When moving a vetoed proposal to the Archives, the Bureaucrat who vetoed it should leave a comment on the proposal explaining to the proposer why it was vetoed. '''~''' [[User:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:#1C662A">'''AlexBot2004'''</span>]] ([[User talk:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:black">Talk</span>]]) 12:33, November 30, 2023 (EST) | This was brought up in a [[Nookipedia talk:The Roost#Discussing our proposal system|Roost discussion]] a couple months ago, so I thought I'd expand on it and propose it here. The idea is that a Bureaucrat would be able to veto a proposal that does not follow the rules listed on this page (e.g. not fleshed out, not a binary choice, not a big enough change), is made in bad faith, or has no realistic chance of passing. A vetoed proposal would be removed immediately rather than when the voting period ends, and moved to the [[Nookipedia:Proposals/Archive|Archives]] as a failed proposal (bad-faith proposals would not be added to the Archives). When moving a vetoed proposal to the Archives, the Bureaucrat who vetoed it should leave a comment on the proposal explaining to the proposer why it was vetoed. '''~''' [[User:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:#1C662A">'''AlexBot2004'''</span>]] ([[User talk:AlexBot2004|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:black">Talk</span>]]) 12:33, November 30, 2023 (EST) | ||
:{{Support}} per my comments in the Roost discussion linked above. In addition to the examples mentioned, I do think that proposals relating to how the staff operate should also be vetoed (but disallowing them would mean creating a new rule, so that's probably more suitable in a separate discussion). [[User:Drago|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:green">Drago</span>]] [[User talk:Drago|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:purple">(talk)</span>]] [[File:Drago PC Villager Icon.png|20px]] 12:51, November 30, 2023 (EST) | :{{Support}} per my comments in the Roost discussion linked above. In addition to the examples mentioned, I do think that proposals relating to how the staff operate should also be vetoed (but disallowing them would mean creating a new rule, so that's probably more suitable in a separate discussion). [[User:Drago|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:green">Drago</span>]] [[User talk:Drago|<span style="font-family:Coustard;color:purple">(talk)</span>]] [[File:Drago PC Villager Icon.png|20px]] 12:51, November 30, 2023 (EST) | ||
:{{Support}} Good idea for filtering proposals. Although, is there going to be a Bureaucrat available for every bad idea?'''''[[User:Briky|Briky]]'''''[[File:Emotion Greetings NH Icon.png|30px]] 03:02, January 6, 2024 (EST) | :{{Support}} Good idea for filtering proposals. Although, is there going to be a Bureaucrat available for every bad idea?'''''[[User:Briky|Briky]]'''''[[File:Emotion Greetings NH Icon.png|30px]] 03:02, January 6, 2024 (EST) | ||
:{{Support}} Per all. -- [[User:PanchamBro|PanchamBro]] ([[User talk:PanchamBro|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PanchamBro|contributions]]) 07:11, January 6, 2024 (EST) | :{{Support}} Per all. -- [[User:PanchamBro|PanchamBro]] ([[User talk:PanchamBro|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PanchamBro|contributions]]) 07:11, January 6, 2024 (EST) | ||
| − | + | {{Archive bottom}} | |
Revision as of 00:10, March 4, 2024
Adding the ability to veto proposals
Consensus is in support of the proposal. ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 23:10, March 3, 2024 (EST)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
This was brought up in a Roost discussion a couple months ago, so I thought I'd expand on it and propose it here. The idea is that a Bureaucrat would be able to veto a proposal that does not follow the rules listed on this page (e.g. not fleshed out, not a binary choice, not a big enough change), is made in bad faith, or has no realistic chance of passing. A vetoed proposal would be removed immediately rather than when the voting period ends, and moved to the Archives as a failed proposal (bad-faith proposals would not be added to the Archives). When moving a vetoed proposal to the Archives, the Bureaucrat who vetoed it should leave a comment on the proposal explaining to the proposer why it was vetoed. ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 12:33, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Support per my comments in the Roost discussion linked above. In addition to the examples mentioned, I do think that proposals relating to how the staff operate should also be vetoed (but disallowing them would mean creating a new rule, so that's probably more suitable in a separate discussion). Drago (talk) 
12:51, November 30, 2023 (EST)- Support Good idea for filtering proposals. Although, is there going to be a Bureaucrat available for every bad idea?Briky
03:02, January 6, 2024 (EST) - Support Per all. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 07:11, January 6, 2024 (EST)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
