Forum:Bring back VFS?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Bring back VFS?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3762 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

What do you guys think? We averaged one new op per month. I think we can bring in VFS to reset the candidates and have the users nom for the first half of the month (like what we had this month, only with more time), and then spend the second half of the month debating who to op (again, giving more time). I think we've got a pretty good system ready, and we would have the option to just not op any month we choose. I would like to average one a month, but that wouldn't be a "have to" by any stretch of the imagination. As I see it, we'd have a lot of freedom to move forward, and the oppages wouldn't be quite the "shotgun" affairs we've had since VFS died. Thoughts? Good idea? Bad idea? "Shutup Brad and go do something useful for once?"--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 20:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I say bring it back... and you know, it'd never hurt to exceed the standard occasionally... so long as they don't start banning everyone and deleting every article systematically. --Prof. Olipro Icons-flag-gb KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 20:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I know there have been concerns that, with too many ops, we'll lose our cohesion as a group, which is why when we've gone on op orgies before we've had to wait long periods of time afterward to get everyone on the same page.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 20:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait, is this an admin-only discussion, or are other users allowed to voice their opinion on this? --General Insineratehymn 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't see the harm in it... besides even if brad did want to make it admin-only, it's too late now, so yeah, start bellyaching. --Prof. Olipro Icons-flag-gb KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I believe that we should bring back VFS. Yes, there will be a few loopholes to iron out, but I'll let someone else fix them as I am too lazy. --General Insineratehymn 22:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As long as we don't lose the close community. —Braydie 22:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's too late for close community, personally. So yeah, VFS sounds fine. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You still don't think it is one? :/ —Braydie 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose the Robert Mugabe approach; we vote for and nominate all the people we like, and systematically kill ban everyone else. --Prof. Olipro Icons-flag-gb KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, if you make it a regular thing, people start expecting sysoppings every month, and will then be unhappy if we don't keep to that. And then if we're opping on a monthly basis, we're opping because a month has passed, and not because there's a need for admins, or even anyone suited to the task. I don't see any benefit to bringing VFS back over the current system, which just needs touched up a little, and the actual process made clear to everyone. I can see VFS becoming the same as every other award on this site, in that eventually there will only be one, two maximum, suitable people being nommed each time, and then you're opping because there was nobody else to choose from. Also, a regular vote gives it the impression that it's a way of "rewarding" old time contributors, which is a bad way of thinking about it. I think the current system (with modifications) is the best way of doing it. Spang talk 11:16, 29 Apr 2007

I agree with Spang's first bit especially. I don't know what VFS was like before, but surely it's rather difficult to vote for "nobody" on a voting page like the one you just had? Especially when the reason is "we've got enough admins for now" rather than "nobody's good enough". --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, how about a three-tiered system? The first 10 days admins can vote on whether we need any more help, the 2nd 10 users can give candidates, and the rest of the month, admins can vote on between 2 and 6 candidates. Sound good?--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what? I'm still distracted by your earlier mention of orgies. Or, to put it another way: Yes, that sounds good. Which means that you're to blame when it all goes horribly wrong. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I generally am.  ;) So, unless someone else has a concern, I'm going to plan on re-opening VFS with the three-tiered system for Next month on May 1.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I still prefer the one we've got. I'm fine with doing that more often, I just don't think VFS is the way to do it. Spang talk 11:58, 29 Apr 2007

Brad, I think May 1st is a little too soon, given that we've not even had chance to discuss this yet. Pencil in June 1st and lets have a chance to talk through the options. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

k.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 00:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Three-tier sounds even better than two-tier. But to be perfectly honest with everyone, I really don't care. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

List specific problems with the 3-tiered VFS here

I seem to not understand what Spang's problem with the new VFS proposal is. I've made several adjustments, and I keep managing to mess something up, so I'm placing a new header where objections with the process can be addressed. Hopefully, we can continue to refine the process until we have a system that everyone can understand, that doesn't change each time we do it, that's also open to users' contributions, but is driven by admin's knowledge of the needs of the community, and is flexible to the needs of the time. The three-tiered system that resets every month but doesn't necessarily op each month does this, forces us to review the state of the wiki on a monthly basis, and gives us an excuse to op as we see the need. Are there any concerns I have overlooked that this new proposal doesn't solve?--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion - refining the current system

I feel like it's a bad idea to 1) try to organize this as a regular thing and 2) have more than one vote. Even with this last sysop vote the guidelines were unclear, and that had only two segments.

Moreover, I think VFS is a terrible system. Having a perpetual page for opping is messy and hard to maintain, and I think our experience with it before should be a warning. Here's what I propose for a simplified system:

1) An admin can call for a vote with the support of a specific number of other sysops (say five others). The support can be indicated via the wiki or IRC - we don't want to get too formal.
2) There is only one actual nomination/vote sequence, and it takes place at the Dump. Admin votes carry twice as much weight as the votes of registered users. Anyone can nominate users for opping. Number of votes for each user/admin is equal to the number of admins to be opped (which should NEVER in my opinion be more than two at a time).
3) Voting should be kept open for AT LEAST three days. If there is a clear winner (or two clear winners) after three days, some bureau can do their thing and we can get back to business. If not, voting should probably be kept open a bit longer to see if a consensus can be met. There should be no sense of urgency in the voting. We've never been desperate for ops - waiting out the vote a bit longer is always better than making hasty opping decisions.

I think the main problem with this system is that people might spend their vote(s) before all the nominations are in, but they can always change their votes, and presumably the admins starting the vote will have good potential candidates from the get-go. Regardless, I think simplicity is key here - during the last vote I hardly knew what was going on and I didn't get the chance to cast my final vote before it was over. —rc (t) 03:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, but when you take your vote away from one person and give it to a different person, you kind of look like an ass. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
By the looks of things, the admins will almost certainly have to vote on which system to use. At the moment I guess it's the Bradaphraser system vs. the Rcmurphy system vs. the current system. Are there any others I have missed? Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 04:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, of course, I forgot about the Cs1987 system:
1. All users nominate and vote for the users they want to be opped in the Dump. This vote stays open for 9 days, except for in November where it is only open for 1 day.
2. All users with three votes proceed to the next round. Exactly three, no more, no less.
3. These users then have to write an article. The users with the two worst articles proceed to the next round.
7. The remaining two users fight to the death.
8. ???
9. I think you know what comes next.
Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 04:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The Cs1987 system is tempting. But seriously, as a user, I'm strongly against anything that doesn't give the admins final say over who gets opped. Because I know how stupid we users are, so there's clearly going to be at least once when a not-exactly-up-to-the-job candidate gets voted in. I kind of like the three-tier system, except ten days per round seems rather rushed. I'm starting to think a more informal system like what we just had is better for flexibility's sake. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The uhm... Olipro system

OK, here's the issues that can arise:

  1. Someone is liked by admins but not users (or vice-versa), so they do/don't get in (depending)
  2. Someone gets equal votes... a tiebreak is called, this could be unfair.
  3. Shotgun polls mean not everyone is aware of the vote even taking place.
  4. Against votes... well they're obviously just not nice for people and can stir up tension.
  5. Equal votes... if everyone votes for everyone... problem.

ok, there's the issues, so here's the system I think can address it;

  1. An announcement is made, this lasts 5 days, and is there to inform all that a vote will be held
  2. The vote is created, anyone can vote, they can vote for or against and this is a preliminary vote available to all users, lasts 5 days, relatively casual; anyone can nominate (except themselves).
  3. A secondary vote is created, the top 50% of candidates (possibly less if there's more candidates, or more if the opposite is true) are then placed on a second page; this time round, users may only vote For and can only do so for a maximum of 50% of the candidates on the list, this lasts 3 days.
  4. Finally, a third round lasting 2/3 days is held, the top 25% are placed in (adjust %age as necessary) and voting is held, again anyone can vote; regular users can only vote For WITH ample justification, Admins can vote for or against (generally, against should only be used with good reason, otherwise abstain is recommended).
  5. In the event of a tiebreak, all equals should be opped unless gaming of the system is suspected, in which case discretion should be used... naturally. (or if it's hard, call in an extra vote, but guarantee the runners up to be in the second tier of voting next time) --Prof. Olipro Icons-flag-gb KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Amazing All-New Modusoperandi System!

  1. Cabal decides we need an admin
  2. Collective noms and votes in a forum
  3. Admins vote in another forum
  4. Blame Brad (maybe in a big musical number) --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking something like Oklahoma!! -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
"Braaaaaaaa-daphraser, you cert-tin-ly have messed up again..." etc. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mhaille Socio-Cognitive Model

Hows about.....

  1. When the need for new Adminii arises we unprotect the VFS page, allowing anyone to nominate (not self nominate though) and vote for any user.
  2. Admin votes are +2, everyone else is +1.
  3. Suspected sockpuppetry results in removal of nomination.
  4. After one weeks voting the top three are moved to the second tier vote, again +2 votes for Admins, +1 for everyone else. The voting again lasts one week.
  5. Once voting is complete VFS is protected until needed again, and we have a new Sysop.

And thats it. Keep it simple, stupid.

Two week turnaround for a new Admin should give everyone enough time to vote. Number of side issues we could discuss include whether or not to keep the votes in place from the previous time or to start each new VFS afresh? Sure there are plenty more that people can throw into the ring. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

I would just like to reiterate how very stupid a lot of us users are ("Op Fisher Price IP! Huhhuh!" - see?), and wonder why everyone's so keen on giving us unwashed masses enough power to outvote half an admin (whose active numbers are much fewer).
(By the way, anyone who's ever reverted any of my edits is getting an against vote from me.) See? We're certifiable idiots! :-) --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hinoa's Totally Badass System (tm)

My proposed VFS system is extremely simple. Basically, it will be the same thing we do already, except located at UN:VFS. That is, when there's a need for admins, VFS is opened, we go through the nomination & vote procedure as usual, and when we pick the right admins, we close VFS. Don't fix what ain't broke, right? —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for troublemake it double? 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Witt system

We Ask HAL who to op, robots been gathering dust anyway, might as well put him to use.--Witt, Union leader of Union member UNion Entertain me* 05:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Witt... I can't let you do that... --Prof. Olipro Icons-flag-gb KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 05:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
o_o Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

One admin a month is not enough

according to the alexa rating(ignore the December 06 jump it's probably because of a change in how they count) and google trends see to show that uncyclopedia has been gaining traffic and is continuing to gaining traffic. More traffic means more admins since were going to be dealing with a lot of vandalism so we might want to increase the number of admins to take care of things.--Scott 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say at the moment that one Admin a month would be unnecessary at this time. Its not the number of Admins that we have, but the level of activity that the ones doing the donkey work achieve. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Additionally, the majority of maintenance work can be done by anyone, not just admins. Regular users VFDing, QVFDing and tagging articles with whatever "this is garbage" tag we're using now (ICU?) means admins should just be the last step in the deletion process. Same with banning - regular users can revert vandalism (especially if they have a custom rollback button, or request one) and report vandals to Ban Patrol. All that's left for admins is to check contribs and institute the actual ban. If we have a good number of people who are willing to do drudgework like this (and it seems to me that we do), we can and should keep the number of admins low. —rc (t) 01:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case, the only issue left is making sure we have active ops at or near every time zone, which is, of course, why we opped someone from the well-covered Britain time-zone.  ::sigh:: Ah well, it's apparent to me I'm in the minority in my opinion that we need more ops, and I'm fine with that. If we were desperate, it would be obvious to everyone, and that's obviously not the case, so I'm content to just move along at the pace we are going now (about one admin a month). ;)--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah....our next Sysop needs to be antipodean.... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Exactly!  :)--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 12:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
RE: RC's comment above - I've been far more pressed for time lately than usual. For the past few months I've whacked all the "honeypot" articles off my watchlist, and just relied on the Ban Patrol, VFD, etc to point me towards work. With less time on my hands, it's the most effective way for me to work. And to be frank, I've resorted to reading forum posts due to lack of stuff to do. :)
Our users do a pretty good job of cleanup and pointing us to stuff to do. While we could be more proactive, why would we want to be? :) Oh, and I liked this last way of doing admining. Just move it to VFS and be done with it. And blame Brad for anything that goes wrong. That was like the best part! Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 05/6 19:40
Personal tools