Forum:Strategic Nuclear Moose affiliation Review vote

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Strategic Nuclear Moose affiliation Review vote

This vote is to determine the future of the Affiliation between Nukapedia and the Strategic Nuclear Moose. You may wish to consult This forum to examine the arguments for or against continued affiliation. Please also use that forum for any continued discussion.

There are three possible outcomes from this vote:

• That the affiliation is discontinued for now (until or unless a re-affiliation is agreed).
• That the affiliation is continued, subject to a further review in 12 months time (unless raised by the community earlier).
• That the affiliation is continued indefinitely (essentially permanently, unless raised by the community).

As this is not a binary vote, we will be trialling a preferential voting system that allows you to put the options in your preferred order.

We request that a short (sentence or two) explanation be given for all votes. Agent c (talk) 22:17, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Poll finished on 10:17 pm October 3, 2014 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Please mark your signature and time-stamp in only one of the options below. They do allow you to rank the three options. Any votes in multiple sections will be disregarded entirely. Please ensure you have made an edit to the wiki before the commencement of this vote otherwise your vote will be disregarded.

Option 1

First Preference - The Moose affiliation is Discontinued
Second Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued subject to a future review in 12 month

1. Most of what is on offer replicates what features we have here already and doesn't yet enhance or extend the user experience here. I think the Moose needs to find its voice, and its core reason to exist, before we can offer unconditional support. Agent c (talk) 22:24, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Option 2

First Preference - The Moose affiliation is Discontinued
Second Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued indefinitely

Option 3

First Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued subject to a review in 12 months
Second Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued indefinitely

Option 4

First Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued subject to a review in 12 months
Second Preference - The Moose affiliation is discontinued

Option 5

First Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued indefinitely
Second Preference The Moose affiliation is continued subject to review in 12 months

Option 6

First Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued indefinitely
Second Preference - The Moose affiliation is discontinued

Option 7

Vote here if you want to vote neutral, and thus for no particular outcome.

Non Distributed voting

Vote here if you only wish to place a ONLY FIRST PREFERNCE vote. if your selected outcome is the least popular option your vote WILL BE DISCARDED when your option is eliminated. Please state which is the only outcome you can support.

Voting Calculation

Votes in the first instance will be taken as being for the first preference listed. If none of the three options has 50% of the votes, those supporting the least popular vote will be distributed to their second preference. This will remove an ambiguity if a true majority is not established by first preference votes.

Why was the vote written like this? It completely disallows neutral votes, which will be necessary for my vote. While I believe the Moose should be continued, I do not want to contribute to whether or not we should continue being re-evaluated, as I believe I have no place in making such a vote. The way this vote is set up, is extremely confusing, and is entirely unprecedented. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:37, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

It was written like this because there are three possible outcomes, and is to prevent problems that have previously appeared in multiple option votes, ones that have lead to wiki dramas.

The idea is simple. Look for the option you like the most. Then out of the two that list it as first preference, select which second preference you like the best. If you dont like any of the options enough to vote for em, simply don't vote. 20 Million people in Australia manage to elect parliaments this way, I'm sure we can manage it. Agent c (talk) 22:41, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

But you are disallowing me my right to a neutral vote, or even a split vote. I do not see where you have the authority to just make up a new way of voting, that does not even follow anything as simple as the voting template. I refuse to vote if my voting rights are going to be violated. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:43, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

You have a right to vote, and this is a this is a split vote. Unlike other split votes people who actually like the second vote outcome better don't have to worry about getting a result they don't like in the first vote. I am not going to have a repeat of the performance when 40% of voters claimed a "majority", that was revealed when the vote was rerun to not exist. If you want to vote for keeping the moose permanently, vote for either 5, if your second preference is that it be reviewed after 12 months if keeping it indefinitely is the least popular option, or vote for option 6 if you want to keep it, but your second preference is to dump it all together if that doesn't happen.

I dont understand what is so difficult about putting your preferred options in order. your voting rights arent being violated, you are instead voting in a way that makes your intention, and preferences 100% clear so that one of the outcomes can actually get 50% of the vote.

If you do not wish to vote, you are free not to do so. Agent c (talk) 22:49, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. You are forcing me to vote in only the specified ways that you will allow, even though there are other, and legitimate, options. Neutral voting has been an integral part of this wiki since it was first created, and you do not have the authority to take that voting right away from me or anyone else. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:51, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

You now have a neutral option if you cant make up your mind. There are only three possible outcomes, Keep, Dump, or keep subject to a review. Put them in order, or if you must, vote neutral. I dont understand what you find so difficult about putting preferences in order. Agent c (talk) 22:55, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

But I have made up my mind. I want the Moose to be continued, but I am neutral over whether we should be re-evaluated again, as I feel I do not have a place to vote on that. Since my vote does not fit into your very specific sections, you are forcing me to either vote dishonestly, or not at all. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:56, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Got to point out here that neutral voting is abstaining the vote, just more of an obvious abstention. If you don't agree with the vote options, you abstain, or you protest vote. Democracy isn't built on bricks made out of maybe. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 22:59, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Fine, there is now a non distributed option if you wish for your vote to be discarded if your selected option is the least popular option. you may vote there. 20 Million Australians manage to put their proposed candidates in order - even ones they're neutral about, but now you have the option. Agent c (talk) 23:01, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

I am protesting the vote. By protesting that my right to a split vote, in which I can vote yes for one option while voting neutral on the other, is being violated. I feel very strongly about voting for the Moose to be continued. But I am not going to vote on whether we should have re-evaluations, as I personally believe the community needs to have a say on that without my input. It should also be pointed out, that Nukapedia is not a Democracy, making that point entirely irrelevant to what is being discussed.

The way this vote is written, since my vote is split, I either vote dishonestly in a way that does not reflect how I feel, or I do not vote at all.

As for the Australians, you do not get to dictate, all by yourself and without community consent, to suddenly and wholly replace the way in which we partake in voting. Just because you are a bureaucrat, does not mean you get to make sudden an unorthodox decisions out of nowehere. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:05, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Your protest is rejected on the grounds that you've been given an option to express your view if you do not wish to have a second preference. Go to the "NON DISTRUBUTED OPTION", write "Indefinite only" or something to that effect and sign in the usual way. If Indefinite is the least favourable option, you will have no stated second preference, and thus will have exactly the same outcome as if you had voted neutra. to the other two propositions in a split vote. Job done.

If anyone else is having difficulty in the concept of ranking things in their preferred order, please let me know and I will be happy to assist. Agent c (talk) 23:09, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

You still have not given me a proper voting section, Chad - even if I only choose one option, none of them gives me the option to vote for only continuing the Moose. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:10, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does:

1. If you want to continue the Moose, and only want this to be on an indefinate basis and refuse to vote for any other option, vote in the non preferencial option with something that clearly expresses your indefinate wish
2. If you want to continue the Moose, your preference is for it not to be reviewed, but are happy to accept a review after 12 months as a consoluation prize if this is the least popular option, vote for Option 5.
3. If you want the moose to be reviewed in 12 months, but failing this do not want to see the affiliation cut, vote for option 3.
   

I find it difficult to believe that your vote should be anywhere but Option 5, as I am sure you would like in any case to continue the affiliation, and I am sure you would prefer not to have a review in 12 months if you don't have to. Agent c (talk) 23:16, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that is perfect, then. If option 5 only means that I am fine with a review, but that I am not voting for it or its opposite in any form or fashion, then I can be happy with that choice. Do not think I want to be antagonistic - I just want to make sure that my vote is as accurate as humanely possible. I do not think that is too much to ask for. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:20, September 26, 2014 (UTC)