Proposal: "Automatic Approval of Certain Proposals" (with private poll)

[Dapthar]

Firstly, I would like to state that I have no qualms if a moderator decides to delete my other thread: Proposal: "Automatic Approval of Certain Proposals" (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32407), since this is essentially the same thread with a private poll.

My proposal is as follows.

If certain proposals meet, or exceed the 100 vote limit within a period of 30 days, they should be automatically implemented, since it is quite a feat to gain such a large amount of member support for a poll of any sort. The addition of a time limit serves to show that, if a proposal gains such a great deal of support in such a short amount of time, then the active posting body truly wishes for such changes to be made. The proposals would be non-financial in nature (e.g. no "Free subscriptions for everyone?" proposals), and limited to the subject of membership.

List of proposals that should be automatically approved:
-Removal of bans of any sort
-Temporary bans, specifically those of two weeks or less in duration

Examples of proposals that should not fall under this category:
-"Free Subscription" proposals
-Other such proposals that fall outside the bounds of reason

Please vote yes, for by doing so, you show your support for the idea that, if given the ability to do so, posters will work together to help make Sciforums a better place for everyone.

Remember, this poll closes on February 22, 2004.

EDIT: I have reposted EI Spark's response below, since the other thread is most likely going to be deleted.

What's the mechanism for proving that there are 100 individual people voting and not one college kid voting from 100 seperate accounts on the public access PCs in the college?
Unless the poll is public, there is currently none. If the poll is public, then one could easily figure out what is going on by simply examining the names. Thus, this difficulty could be remedied by requring all "Automatic Proposals" to have public polls, but in my opinion, until a a judgment is reached on whether "Automatic Proposals" will even be permitted, it is to early to make these sort of decisions.

[Persol]

I don't support this. Porfiry (or whoever he delegates) always has the final say. I think this is a good think to make sure that popularity contests do not take place. Spookz is a good example.

Basically, we do not know everything that happens. We are only in a position to offer our opinions.

[ElectricFetus]

Haha Profiry would have to write some wicked code to get this to work, I seriously doubt the man has the time, he's besy enough as it is trying to keep the place just running!

[Persol]

Nah... the code probably wouldn't be very difficult. I've modded phpbb to do basically the same (I'm working on a bot that bans spammers and sends me a PM). Usually it's a simple as having a page open the database and change a single value.

[Porfiry]

I'm not sure I understand this proposal. How is this different than whatever procedures are in place currently.

[Dapthar]

I'm not sure I understand this proposal. How is this different than whatever procedures are in place currently.
Currently, even if a poll gets 100 votes, with the majority supporting the proposal, it still only serves as a suggestion, and if you don't fancy the suggestion to begin with, the proposal is pointless. Ironcially, this defeats the purpose of this forum as you described in the sticky, since most proposals, as we have seen so far, are regarding matters that you do not support the passage of, and thus, since you hold veto power, have become moot points.

My suggestion is that, in the aforementioned two cases, if the quorum is met, then the "Automatic Approval" proposal should be passed, no questions asked. I didn't mean to suggest code modification, just that if an "Automatic Approval" proposal passes, that you would abide by its suggestion.

I purposefully excluded items like permanent bans and removal/suspension of moderator powers, because I think that the "Automatic Approval" proposals should only encompass fairly common proposals that are of maximum benefit to the forum.

I realize that, theoretically, moderators could ban those who are not posting threads of a more intellectual nature, and better the community in that manner, but I believe that temporary bans allow a poster to reform, and removal of bans send a positive message to the posters, that as long as the community recognizes the potential for change in an individual, then they should be given another chance.

I don't support this. Porfiry (or whoever he delegates) always has the final say. I think this is a good think to make sure that popularity contests do not take place. Spookz is a good example.

In the end, many may label it a "popularity contest", but, is it truly a worse way of dealing with these matters? Is it better to have a unilateral, irreversible decision about matters such as permanent bans? Does one truly prefer requiring several people repeatedly PM'ing a moderator to have a temporary ban established?

Shouldn't forum members, in some degree, be able to take responsibility for the small corner of the internet they visit, by being able to help errant posters mend their ways (through temporary bans) and be able to reinstate banned members whom they strongly feel were a benefit to this forum?

Frankly Persol, I cannot see why you, a man of science, places such a great deal of blind faith in moderators, some of whom were elected by the "popularity contest" method you are currently trying to discourage. Thus, are you not supporting a double standard?

Why can a moderator, who can unilaterally decide to permanently ban members, be elected by a "popularity contest", when a proposal to remove a ban, or institute a temporary ban, cannot be passed by the similar method, which requires a far greater number of votes than have ever been cast in any moderator election?

[Porfiry]

Removal of bans of any sort

I think this is unwise. In all cases thus far, bans have been imposed by the moderators or by myself with no public input. These bans may have been done with knowledge that the general membership likely does not know, and so the general membership is not qualified to vote for reinstatement. Further, it is the moderators and myself who must directly deal with and micromanage problematic posters, and so any decision to reinstate a banned user should be ours alone.

Temporary bans, specifically those of two weeks or less in duration

I cannot forsee vetoing any temporary or permanent bans that the members approve, so "automatic" approval isn't necessary.