Forum:CT:Repeal nomination boards' authority to change nomination rules

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Repeal nomination boards' authority to change nomination rules
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus. Imperators II(Talk) 07:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the discussion stemming from the new FAN rule implemented by Inquisitorius, and the fact that several users supported requiring community consensus for such changes, I decided to start this CT. My proposal is to repeal the right of nomination boards to change nomination rules without CT, which was approved in August 2019 Mofference. Were this proposal approved, any future change to nomination rules would require a CT. This vote requires at least 10 participants to overturn previous consensus. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    VergenceScatter (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  2. — Samonic ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol 20:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    Jedi Order ImpacticForce (Talk) 20:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  3. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  4. DFaceG (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    NBDani (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely Rsand 30 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Per the great points below, I am opposing for now. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 02:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  2. Same ^ - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 03:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  3. Opposing right now because of the lack of SH beforehand, though I have not yet really decided a position on the issue. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 04:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  4. Must oppose for the time being until there's a further discussion. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 04:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  5. Per discussion below. SH should happen first.NBDani (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  6. Per the ladies and gentelmen below. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 19:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Decided not to vote, but wanted to say something. I think any such discussion such as one like this should've gone to SH first; people who are not in Discord have no idea what this whole thing is, which isn't really entirely representative of the Wook. I do, actually, agree with repealing this rule. However, the incivility surrounding the discussion of it is much too heated for my liking, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see people being so uncivil, regardless of what opinion they hold. So for that reason, I'm not gonna support the measure at this time out of a condemnation of that. We're all working towards the same thing.—spookywillowwtalk 23:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • To echo some of what Spooky said, while I'll likely ultimately support this idea I'm going to abstain here for now and would strongly advise others to do the same as I think this really ought to go through a Senate Hall thread first. This vote currently gives little to no context on what people are voting for, it doesn't mention what the new FAN rule is, it doesn't specify what policy pages are actually being altered or what the alterations would specifically be. Anyone who didn't read an extremely convoluted and lengthy discord discussion is going to be excluded from really taking part in much of the discussion, which is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to avoid. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Per Spooky and Ayre, I've struck my vote. I think this could use a SH that explains the discussion in Discord further. I support the sentiment, though, and would support a CT once the situation has been fully explained and concrete policies are proposed. Jedi Order ImpacticForce (Talk) 00:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Echoing above. While I support the voting process becoming a more public thing, I want more thoughts and opinions from the community before supporting a vote for this. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 00:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I fully support making membership and nomination requirement decisions public, but there is a lot of nuance that has been brought up in the wider discussion that needs to be ironed out before any concrete policy changes can be made. A Senate Hall thread allowing the entire community to give input and further discussions regarding exact policy wording are needed before a vote can make any effective, real change. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 02:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • If someone could clarify my understanding on this subject, that would be appreciated. It seems there was some change made about some nomination something? I'm not at all familiar with anything to do with nomination culture but my impression is the real issue is not the change itself but the lack of community involvement in the decision? Or is it the actual policy being disputed? Thanks in advance. Wok142 (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    • The primary issue is the lack of community involvement, not the change itself. That's not to say that everyone is in favor of the rule, but it seems as if most are. VergenceScatter (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)