Forum:Revote "Chat Live! Policy Expansion"

By voting for this policy, you endorse the following statement:

Yea

 * 1) As Proposer --Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:38, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I shall vote as well. Implementing the policy despite the number of votes against it is unfair. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 00:00, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I am agreeing. This was blatantly unfair, and it annoys me that the mods keep trying to insist that what they did was in any way professional or ethical.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 00:12, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a democracy and unlike REPUBLICANS corporations DO NOT rule us, just as my confederate congressional rep once said during a similar type of heavy hardcore verbalized debate between the two conflicting sides of this conflict. Ardent Clerk Bosker Apologist (talk) 00:34, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) If only because a revote might stop some people around here from constantly bickering about this. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 02:03, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Seconding LilyheartsLiara.--Zxjkl (talk) 02:07, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I was leaning towards neutral when the voting for the policy began.  After that whole fiasco, I will say that I will NOT make that same mistake. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 02:24, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) Midnightpiranha (talk) 23:48, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) --Legionwrex (talk) 23:45, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) No policies were infringed, and the matter is solely an administrative (i.e. policy enforcement) matter. So no. SpartHawg948 (talk) 23:53, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Is this even allowed to happen? Whatever, I have already said more than enough about what I feel about this.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:44, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that voting is not mandated by Wikia. It was something the admins here implemented, and which we have on occasion felt it necessary to preempt. This is, of course, fully in keeping with Wikia's policies, which allow admins to make decisions regarding the policy of their individual wikis on an as-needed basis. In this case, the admins were uniformly of the opinion that the policy changes being proposed were needed. This, btw, coming from the perspective of the people who actually have to uphold the policies. I just thought I'd take the opportunity to point out that in no way was the decision reached by the admins a violation of any policy, either of Wikia or this Wiki. To use a real-world equivalent, what the admins did was the equivalent of a Presidential Executive Order being used in light of Congressional inaction. It was a decision made by the admins solely concerning a matter of policy and policy enforcement. SpartHawg948 (talk) 23:52, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Legionwrex, it doesn't appear that, even if this passes, it would be binding or mandatory. After all, the purpose of this is to "formally request" a new vote. So literally, if passed, this would be a formal request for a new vote. SpartHawg948 (talk) 23:55, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * If you turn down the request, you won't solve anything. If you initiate a revote, you will. If you wish for things so return to normal here, avoiding the wishes of the community will do you no good. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 03:11, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * But by that same token, if we do, and the policy (which the admins unanimously agreed was necessary) is discarded, we won't have solved anything either. Look, don't think I'm dismissing this out of hand. I'm not. If, as appears likely, this does pass, the admins will seriously consider a new vote. I time to be pretty neutral in those discussions. With the Ygrain issue, I was leaning toward not closing the vote or banning until it became obvious that both Lancer and Commdor were pushing for it. Despite how we're being caricatured, th admins DO listen and we do care. That's what makes this whole situation (typified by -Algol-'s asinine blog) so frustrating, at least for me. But I digress... Your request WILL receive a fair hearing. That's what I guarantee. I can't guarantee it'll go one way or the other, but it WILL get a fair hearing. SpartHawg948 (talk) 05:04, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * If you allow a revote, you will solve the issue regarding whether or not the community views you as giving a damn about them by showing them that you will allow them to have some degree of input in policies that they vote on. If you do not allow the revote, this problem will continue. This actually doesn't have much to do with the chat itself, as I'm fairly certain that it will remain barren no matter what policies affect it. Any future problems don't stem from what you do with it. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 05:16, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point is well taken. I will ask, however, that you please abide by existing site policies, including (in this case) the site language policy, which remains in full force despite my attempts to push would-be reformers to act... SpartHawg948 (talk) 05:24, January 31, 2013 (UTC)