 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 26 July 2009 by Azaz129. |
We should try our best to avoid placing multiple issues into the same discussion. If we're trying to reach a consensus, the last thing we want to do is reach consensus about multiple things from the same discussion.
Take this for example; it addresses two issues: (1) Banned users being able to use CC and (2) Administrators losing sysop power not retaining ranks. These are two clearly separate issues, but have been rolled into one. This leaves users to generally support both or oppose both, making judging true consensus more difficult when users support one and oppose another issue.
Because a user may like one idea and not another, placing two issues together is a logical fallacy. It's just like saying "You can have a million dollars, but to have it, you also have to take a kick to the groin." This means multiple issues also can be used to pass less favorable issues "under the wing" of something people are easily going to support.
Instances of multiple issues via the same discussion should be marked as void and restarted as separate discussions.
Discussion
Support as nominator. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 16:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I think we should do our best to stay on topic. I also think that when we ask for a community consensus, we should clearly ask for one thing. If another issue comes up it can be discussed in another section or another thread. These things are bound to come though and we all could probably help by trying to keep things on topic and clear. I don't think this means voiding out discussion, just having more calls to stay on topic. 
Tollerach hates SoF 
02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - The point was trying to organize our problems into a same page and combined the two as they are similar. If you oppose one but not the other, I don't see why it's hard to simply oppose a specific reason and support another. To simplify things, yes, you are right, but sometimes it's better to, pardon the phrase, "Kill two birds with one stone."
07:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I personally had no problem with how Bonziiznob organized his topic post on the Yew Grove. If you read the post carefully, you will notice that there is no "placing two policies together" as you describe it - there are instead two clear and seperate discussions which are related enough with each other and thus are worthy of being represented on the same page. If you would like to implement this policy in a better way I suggest you find a better example than that of Bonziiznob's. 
Wejer
10:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - Another example is Forum:Multiple addendums. None of the topics listed there had anything to do with each other, the title doesn't explain what the forum is about, and it would only be confusing to reach consensus for all four topics on one thread. User:C Teng/sig 01:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)