Rules Update

Summary:

A small wording change to the rules to further clarify a situation.

Rules Update

TroyL 07 Jan 2015 08:09

I've made this change already, as it's not really a "change" to the rules, but more clarifying a bit of wording that hasn't been interpreted clearly.

Previously, the text of the "Voting" rule stated:

Voting: You may vote for any reason you like, so long as your reasons are based on the content of the article. Do not downvote/upvote based on your opinion of the author, an effort to manipulate averages, or trying to win contests through attrition. This is considered malicious voting.

The text now reads:

Voting: You may vote for any reason you like, so long as your reasons are based solely on the content of the article. Do not downvote/upvote based on your opinion of the author, an effort to manipulate averages, or trying to win contests through attrition, as this is considered malicious voting. Advocating for voting on an article for reasons other than content is strictly against the rules.

It was always intended for "an effort to manipulate averages" to include "vote brigading", but it hasn't been interpreted as so, and several staff members — including Kaktus, Kalinin, Silber, Light, Crayne, and even Burns — have made convincing arguments that clarification was needed. I have updated the rule already to keep there from being issues, but everyone is more than welcome to weigh in if they feel that there's an issue with the current wording.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Re: Rules Update

Sophia Light 08 Jan 2015 02:44

Current version looks better then the old version, for sure.

Minor point of contention:

Advocating for voting on an article for reasons other than content is strictly against the rules.

I'm imagining a post like this:

SCP-XXXX is badly written and has poor formatting, so go downvote it.

Even if we believe they're honestly saying that because they think it's badly written, I think the big problem is telling people how to vote.

(This could, of course, still be folded under 'attempts to manipulate averages', but we have the opportunity to make it really clear here.)

Could phrase that as: "Advocating for voting a specific way on an article is strictly against the rules."
With the potential addition: "(This isn't the same thing as stating your opinion on an article, which is fine. But you should not tell someone how to vote.)"

Or… whatever. Thoughts?

Re: Rules Update

Eskobar 08 Jan 2015 12:49

It's true. There's really no reason to ever say anything more specific than "dude, you should go read this article". I could even see "you should go read this article because it sucks ass and should be destroyed." But there's really no reason to include "and by the way, you should [preposition]vote it because it's so [adjective]". Don't try influencing someone else's opinion about an article written by a third person with the specific aim of changing its rating, I guess is what I!m saying.

Last edited on 08 Jan 2015 12:49 by Eskobar Show more