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

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)
There are two parts to my rationale: 1. While I'm not specifically opposed to an outside affiliate that focuses on the greater Fallout community, I also understand that, to a great degree, we already have a very active community side right here. So while' I'm not against an affiliation with a site like this, given the immature state it is in right now, I simply don't see any benefits to one. 2. Unfortunately, there's more to this. With the affiliation comes Mr. GarouxBloodline. They are inseparable. My observations are that Mr. GarouxBloodline's behavior here tarnishes whatever luster I might have for his site. I have disassociated myself from this wiki to a great extent, giving up all my extra rights, because I found that I no longer desired to associate myself with with the small number of people on this site who too frequently display disruptive behavior due to their seemingly incessant need to harangue and hector others. If this affiliation could be made without Mr. GarouxBloodline's disruptive behavior, I would not resist it. Given my observations of Mr. GarouxBloodline's history here, which since he has mainly stopped editing only seems to involve these types of arguments, I don't see how that can be. The Gunny 00:43, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
The two deciding factors for me were the SNM's extremely low viewership and userbase, with no marked signs of increase over the past two quarters of activity, as well as offering Nukapedia nothing that is not currently available to its community, and in much greater supply. It stands to reason that we will gain nothing from this affiliation that is not already in abundance, however the SNM will gain free advertising on a site with the number one result for Fallout. I for one do not want this community to become to crutch of success to another community which returns nothing in kind. If in the future the SNM shows greater promise in becoming a sizeable site with something that can be offered to compliment Nukapedia, I would reconsider this vote, however all I have seen is excruciatingly idealistic goals and expectations. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 01:05, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not voting here because the SSB tournament dilemma happened, I'm not voting here because I have personally never browsed the SNM or utilized its chat feature when ours was down, and I am not voting here even though I personally lack confidence in the SNM's success or relevancy. I am voting here because after seeing how GarouxBloodline conducts himself in response to recent events and this review, I no longer wish to be affiliated with any site he administrates for the sake of our reputation. In a response to a supposed drop in the SNM's twitter followers, GarouxBloodline felt inclined to immediately start with, "Going to skip the obvious points and cut to the chase, since we both understand what is going on between the lines: we already know that you are going through the efforts to talk other users into unfollowing us, as well as doing so personally." on Agent c's talk page. He then went on to refer to an innocuous forum from Agent c, with, "You start an entire forum to complain about our Twitter, instead if coming to either of us directly." Not only is this behavior rude, flamebaiting, and failing to assume good faith (all User conduct guidelines), it failed to generate enough evidence to justify it. The fact GarouxBloodline was not banned for this kind of behavior is moderately surprising, but what is truly unbecoming is that he has yet to apologize for this behavior, as if there is nothing wrong with it in his eyes. There is nothing justified about the rash, self-serving behavior that dictates GarouxBloodline's conduct as all it accomplishes is sowing discord, confusion, and bad faith, none of which benefits anyone seemingly other than himself. It's this kind of behavior that caused the SSB dilemma in the first place, something which he has failed to acknowledge as an issue on the SNM's part as if it wasn't. All of this combined with his history here, leads me to believe that GarouxBloodline's behavior will continue to blight our reputation with further incidents. If GarouxBloodline would render an apology for his behavior, make me aware of one I may have missed while reading Agent c's and Jspoelstra's respective talk pages (I tried reading GarouxBloodline's but he curiously archived it recently with nary a conspicuous archive-link in sight), or resign as an official at the SNM, I would gladly welcome it and consider changing my vote. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 04:00, September 27, 2014 (UTC) EDIT: it has come to my attention that GarouxBloodline's most recent talk page archive isn't linked anywhere (except further down in this edit), which is essentially a loophole-breach of yet another user conduct guideline which is to be accountable on talk pages. It doesn't explicitly list archiving and then not linking the archive as a breach, but it does state it must be easily accessible by administrators, and without a link in sight, I don't think it's easily accessible. Here's a proper link. Also, I saw no apology. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 04:51, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
My reason for this vote is mine alone, no one else is swaying me or forcing my hand on this. I will not answer questions to what my reasons are or respond. I have followed this for awhile (was browsing, checking the community). If we really have to have a VOTE to decide whether our affiliation should be discontinued or not then something between the two sites is very wrong and the problems need worked out before continuing on with one another. That is all. "Some say this user used to be a Moderator..." 04:40, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

--Kingclyde (talk) 08:43, September 27, 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

I think the moose doesn't really offer our wiki any advantages, but I don't really mind it being there. They do cover the prerequisites, as offering a platform for Fallout related content we don't completely cover yet. Only thing that really bothers me is the endless discussions this wiki gets filled up with every few weeks, but I'm not sure if it's completely the SNM their fault always, so I won't take this badly for them. An extra term would show if we can get along better or not. I would like to see the review term down to 4-6 months though. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 23:41, September 26, 2014 (UTC)
My vote is probably a bit bias due to being a moderator here and sysop on the Moose, but my time there has shown me that its a great platform for hosting content that Wikia doesn't offer. Its also a great bridge between communities. Obviously a website that has been around for such a short time won't be flowing with a huge number of people, as that's rarely ever the case. But with the current rate of growth in people visiting the site, I'm confident that by the time the next review comes the Moose will be much more active (If number if clickbait is all people really wanted last time). - Chris 02:20, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

" Quote : That the affiliation is continued indefinitely (essentially permanently, unless raised by the community).
I can not promise to be there every day. life pulls in many directions but I do hope you continue. I try to support you. SaintPain→ Here to help." 02:40, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Option 4

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

I'm going with this option for a couple reasons. The biggest one being that there just isn't any content found on site, with most site features being dead as of July/August. While I understand that I can't expect tons of users within a year, there should be a certain level of activity. Chris and me chatted about this as it was the point I initially brought up whilst talking about this in chat. While I can't remember the discussion completely, he basically asked what the Nukapedia community wanted to see from the site... To which I couldn't come up with an answer. I now realize I have an answer, people don't know what they want. Providers have to expose people to what they potentially want. That's where the SNM is failing, you can't have a community-based site with no new content to draw in crowds. That being said, I still think the SNM could be a worthwhile affiliate if it beings to produce regular content and gains a consistent (on-site) following, which is why I support adding six months to it's review. As for why I feel this is a liable option for the SNM while our sister sites and other affiliate were not held to this extended review period, well.. it's simple, they're Wikia hosted. Linking to another Wikia hosted wiki is a fairly standard practice and they provide a place for content generally not accepted on Nukapedia. This is already long enough, let me know if you have questions. -- ^{Watch in awe!} 02:22, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Option 5

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

I guess I am going with this option, then, as I want the Moose to continue, yet I have no opinion over whether or not we should be re-evaluated again in the future. Anyways, the Moose has already fulfilled everything the community wanted from us as dictated by our vote, and the conditions I set before the vote as seen here. We have even gone further than our original obligations, and we have much much more in the works, as detailed in the discussion forum that led up to this vote. We have faithfully served Nukapedia since 2011, and all of us at the Moose only hope that we can continue serving Nukapedia for many years to come. Thank you for your consideration, and we will be looking forward to our community's decision. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:26, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

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.

I really don't care. _{Don't give up the ship!} 03:26, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
I find myself indifferent to the matter. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving (Talk) 06:24, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

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:

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
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.
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)

Thats precisely the idea of Preference voting. You're not voting against a review in Option 5, if anything you're voting against it being cut altogether. Your vote will be counted first as a vote for "Indefinate" affiliation, but if that is the least popular of the 3 outcomes, it counts as a vote for affiliation for a 12 month period. One of the 3 outcomes will end up with at least 50% of the vote. Agent c (talk) 23:24, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that is a huge weight off of my chest. This was really confusing to me at first, as it seemed that all of the options were requiring me to either vote for further re-evaluations, or none at all. If it is understood that this is not the case, then I retract all grievances, and I have now left a vote of my own.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:28, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to go on record stating that I absolutely approve of the recognition of issues with binary votes of the past and this method of handling it. I was a little confused at first and I was kinda surprised it occurred without some kind of public discussion I am aware of, but this particular ad hoc maneuver appears so helpful that it erases all initial doubt about it. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 05:46, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Vote Responses

@Gunny - I am not really understanding your logic there. You are condemning the entire site, mostly because you do not like me? There are many users here, including yourself, that have wronged me in great ways, but I am not going to take that out on Nukapedia as a whole. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:59, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

@Neko - Extremely low? Before we hit our short hiatus, we were receiving around 250-300 unique hits a day, which as we pointed out, is very comparable to the largest Fallout community sites, such as NMA. Not only that, but in less than a year by many months, we have hit over 10,000 unique hits in total. After that has been taken into account, I have to wonder why you are expecting the Moose to bring click-bait to Nukapedia? We are a community extension. Not a website for Nukapedia to exploit for numbers, which is why the community never agreed before that a requirement for us was to bring in a large enough number of new users.

Second of all, Nukapedia has not brought us any success. At all. Nukapedia has not done anything for us outside of Twitter help for only a few weeks, and 90% of our shared users, were already Patrons before our affiliation, nor are our shared users the majority of Patrons we have at the Moose. I am not addressing you personally, as I have a feeling that you and a few others already had their minds made up a long time ago. This response to you is to fix the misinformation that your vote has the capability of spreading. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:11, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

The SNM's current unique hits a day (as shown on its front page graph), based on the average over the last thirty days of activity, is 23.866r. The peak figure was 53, the lowest figure 8. I will not be changing my voting rationale.

Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 01:36, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? As for our current hits, what do you expect after only coming back from our short hiatus (due to work/school_ around 2 weeks ago? Your expectations are wildly unreasonable. Anyways, I am not here to dispute your vote. I am just here to alleviate your misinformation before others just believe it at face value.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:44, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

File:Screen Shot 2014-09-27 at 02.50.47.png

Everything Neko said there appears to be correct. Agent c (talk) 01:52, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

The image shows that his vote is incorrect. His comment on our current low numbers, I have addressed by stating we have only been back for around 2 weeks. I do not think it is being understood what it takes to run a community website, and what is to be expected after only being active for less than a year. I can even use Nukapedia as an example: Nukapedia has existed since 2005, but still, during its dead periods, has less than a dozen active editors. The Moose also revolves around Fallout, and I have to say that we have been proud that we have had these numbers as a new site, even though we have been waiting so long for a new game.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:57, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesnt, as Neko spoke to your traffic within the last 30 days. Your image speaks to July. His vote and information are correct, and the peak number of unique views is highlighed in the screencap I gave, easily verifiable on your front page. Please do not call a vote incorrect. Agent c (talk) 02:00, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

I really have nothing further to really say on the subject. I am not here to argue over anyone's votes, although I am quite interested in seeing someone vote against us simply because they do not like me, and only me. I am only clearing up a few incorrect points, such as us getting free advertisement (seeing as in how we have been providing services for Nukapedia, and we have hardly gotten any traffic from Nukapedia), and the sensationalist comment that we have an "Extremely" low viewer and user-base, even though they are still high for such a new site, even now since we are going through a dead-period for Fallout. Definitely not going to get into the argument as to how they are discrediting our site all because school/work forced us to go through a short hiatus.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:05, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

@Hail - Thank you for your vote. You gave me a lot to think about, and we will be taking your criticism into account as we work out this year's schedule. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:26, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

No problem, Leon. I'm looking forward to seeing the Moose grow and maybe even help in doing so. One can never have too many pasta sauces. --

^{Watch in awe!} 02:35, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

We will not let you and our other supporters down, then. We have really ambitious goals, but we have already made great strides towards reaching them. Big milestone is getting a proper community settled. Easier said than done, but I have faith that we will get there with time and dedication.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:42, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

...What the shit? How the heck did we go from A) Should Nukapedia continue its affiliation with SNM and B) Should the affiliation be up to another vote every six months to... what? Eight different voting options? :/ Great Mara (talk) 06:00, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

The very fact that people are being argued with about their vote and that their vote is supposedly being cast because they "don't like them" is indeed flame baiting. That is a bannable offense. It does not belong on forums at all. Responding with fact once is fine, but continued badgering of a person over their vote is crazy. A vote does not have to be explained. Period.--Kingclyde (talk) 08:40, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Just as a response to Ever. I am reluctant to act on harassing or intimidatory behaviour when I amthe target. Part of this I guess is a small part of machismo (a belief I can handle it) and part of it is seeking to avoid a conflict of interest. I cannot deny however if this had been a conflict between two other hypothetical users and I was a third party, my actions would have been much different.

However, either the next day, or the day after that (im on my phone so can't double check dates easily) we did see Leon attempt to intimidate Gunny into silence on the thread that preceded this (the events in that thread made up part of the calculus of my request here that further comments go in that thread - a request I see has been ignored).

Those actions did result in a public warning, and I consider that warming very much in play, rather than spent. No user on this wiki - admin, former admin, or otherwise will engage in intimidatory or threatening behaviour, especially to silence a critic in a policy discussion or vote, and I would expect any use of off site tools to attempt to do the same to be considered "on wiki" as it relates to trying to silence a member in an on wiki vote (Discuss, debate and encourage freely, threaten or demand at your own peril). Agent c (talk) 12:40, September 27, 2014 (UTC)