Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Rule 6 vote

We have had the "No Dolan" part of rule six Discussion, and now I feel like we need to bring this to a vote.

Proposal

We remove the "No Dolan" part of Rule six, allowing users to freely use Dolan.

Yes

  1. YesI've outlined all of my reasons to keep it in my forum. Metal Gear Mk. II "Anything, for the family" 19:47, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes "No Dolan" was always one of those "rules we have to get rid of people we don't like" much similar to "no annoying memes2. Dolan was never an issue in chat.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 19:50, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes Dolan is harmless fun. Damian and Jasper already outlined my vote. Dead Gunner's SMG JPG1 "Semper Invictus" 20:07, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yes Like Jasper said, it is harmless fun. And we're all about fun! --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 20:09, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yes Chat's already broken as it is. What harm could it even do? - Chris With no background 22:32, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Yeslike Chris said, it's harmless--Josef (talk) 22:40, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Yes Ryan sums up my thoughts. RamboRob196 (talk)

No

  1. No It's obnoxious and disruptive, inherently meaningless, spammy, and it's particularly annoying to people who don't have English as their first language, as it takes an extra effort to be understood.
    Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪

Neutral

  1. Neutral Agent c (talk) 19:51, June 30, 2013 (UTC) The flaws in Rule 6, including its location in trolling are simply not addressed by this. Issues such as excessive use of caps are more or less the same and not addressed. Additionally, Dolan can still be called an "annoying meme" under a different rule. We need a proper solution, not a band aid.
  2. Neutral MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!" Chad pretty much sums up my thoughts.
  3. Neutral I'm not sure I care one way or the other. ---bleep196- (talk) 19:52, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I agree with Agent C, a rewording of rule 6 would be a better solution. MY NAME IS URL "YIKES!" 20:16, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I'm not sure if simply removing or keeping the rule would fix this. I think it may need to be tweaked. THE NUCLEAR KING Talk 04:30, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Neutral It is not a big enough issue to rule on. It is already covered. SaintPain TinySaintPainThat was broke afore I got here." 04:34, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
Excluded votes

Neutral KolonelHerfs (talk) User did not make an edit prior to start of vote. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 20:28, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I'm tossing up whether or not to move my vote into the No's... Its not that I'm against Dolan, its that I dont think this is the right way to solve the main problem - it just mitigates one of the issues. -Agent c (talk)

I specifically asked Denis to keep this on a small scale. I didn't want it to get out of hand. Simple yes/no over Dolan. We can worry about rewriting the main rules when someone has the initiative to do it. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 23:21, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
If this vote refers to giving a free pass to Dolan speak regardless, then the description of the vote should be changed and the vote restarted, since as it stands now the vote is simply and specifically about the removal of the 'no Dolan' part of rule 6. The issue C raised about Dolan speak being still liable to be prohibited under other restrictions such as "annoying memes", spam or "general disruption of chat" is valid.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 03:22, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

This is speaking like Donald duck ? Who made this an issue ?

  • I know it is a habit I would never be guilty of..

Would this in fact not fall under the rule if you are asked to stop a topic then kindly stop it??

  • I'm not a fan of the rule but it is already in place. Is that not enough ?

SaintPain TinySaintPainThat was broke afore I got here." 03:50, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Lockdown notice

I have given this vote some thought, and this poll's intent is essentially the same for the one that was held that was last month. That matter was settled and done, and I could not see any proper justification for this matter being re-voted on. While there is no formal minimum period for revotes being brought up, a period of barely two weeks simply violates all common sense. It could be a different matter had the vote been a close call, or decided though unusual or controversial means. But such was not the case, the vote was as clear cut as it can be. When the results of an absolutely valid vote is simply ignored, it undermines the purpose and legitimacy of the whole process of community polls.

For this reason, I've decided to enact an administrative veto on this vote and lock it down. I understand this will ruffle a lot of feathers, but I'd like to make it clear that while I was personally against the exclusion of the rule, my motivations for this are exclusively out of respect with the due process, and was not something I took lightly.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 00:28, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

I understand you in a lot of ways, Limmie. But an Administrative veto cannot be made unilaterally. If you're going to go through with such an action, I strongly suggest you actually get the public feelings of the rest of the Administrative team. Until then, I invalidate this veto in the name of being illegitimate. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:43, July 2, 2013 (UTC)
This wasn't made unilaterally, this was something I discussed with Agent C and had his support. Naturally two is far less than a majority, but at any rate I don't intend to dig my heels if the rest of the admins happen to be against the veto.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 00:54, July 2, 2013 (UTC)
Not publicly, he didn't. Please see your TP, though. I would like to place my support for the veto. We just have to do this properly - our veto right is something that has never really been used before. Let's make sure we do this right. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:58, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I dont think that its really different enough to the last vote... I know some will be disapointed, but lets solve the actual problem, rather than allowing rules of convenience to continue. Agent c (talk) 00:57, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement