HRWiki talk:STUFF

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Contents 1 Show Page Problem? 2 Good Jorb 3 Candidates for speedy verdicts 4 Verdicts 5 Doesn't fix everything 6 Neutral Voting

Show Page Problem?

When I attempt to add my name to a vote and click "show page", it brings me up to that toon's stuff page (ie STUFF/mile) rather than the original STUFF page with all the facts on it. Is this a glitch? Its a little troublesome to have to click back and then back again to get back to the STUFF page. -- Tony Stony 14:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's normal, because the only edits to the actual STUFF page are adding more subpages. There's a "back to STUFF index" link on every fact. --Jay (Talk) 16:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

got it. thanks~ --Tony Stony 16:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good Jorb

Much, MUCH better, guys. Great job. {gives round of applause} -- Joshua 18:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Well done It's Dot Com, Tom, Jay, and anyone else who was involved with this. This incarnation of stuff should really cut down on the flaming and the confusion of the old way. One question: what if the vote is a tie when two weeks is up? Do we go into sudden death? (exprobably not) Does decline win automatically? (would make sense to me) Accept?-- —Tony Stony ^{Talk | Edits} 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, it looks great! I think that if the two weeks are up and it's a tie, then it just stays up longer until the tie is broken. Homestar Coder 19:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually used it for real the first time today, and it is so easy to see at a glance how each fact is doyng. I mean doing. I'm really glad we got this done. — It's dot com 19:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And now I have gotten to STUFF two new real facts using the new method—so simple, anyone could use it! — It's dot com 22:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks great! Much more easier, although it takes a little longer to add a new fun fact, it's still way better! And it's really easy to count the votes! Thank you to all that were involved in re-organising STUFF (Jay did the tedious work of launching STUFF, changing all the fun facts to the new templates and everything). «Rob» 05:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just did the grunt work. I helped with a little of the formatting stuff, but most of the design (as far as I see it) was IDC's. --Jay (Talk) 05:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. I also like how you can now add individual STUFF'd fun facts to your watchlist, instead of watching the whole page. I used to never go to STUFF because of how messy it was, but now I visit the page heaps. «Rob» 06:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy verdicts

I propose the following guidelines for closing facts before the two-week time period is complete:

• After 4 days, a unanimous vote of at least 8
• After 1 week, a unanimous vote of any number
• After 1 week, a vote in which one side has at least 8 more votes than the other AND the ratio of votes is at least 3 to 1
  (for example: 9 to 1, 12 to 4, 15 to 5)

— It's dot com 19:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty close to the criteria that I use(d) to close STUFFs quickly. I have been known to close a STUFF that's 10-0 (or higher) after just a couple of days though. -- tomstiff 19:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never had a problem with items being closed that are just taking up space. I wrote these guidelines not too long ago in an attempt to codify our policy. — It's dot com 19:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Verdicts

For verdicts, we can either move the items to the talk pages (like we do now), or they could be moved to a different subpage, like HRWIKI:STUFF Archive/pagename, for example. If we use an archive subpage, we should put a reference link on the talk page with the fact in question and the verdict.

Okay, I've set up some more templates and closed some facts. I think the verdict notices should move to the respective talk pages after a few days or so; then the STUFF templates can be deleted and the STUFF links can be removed from the articles. I've got to run right now, but tomorrow I'll write up the procedures for closing items. — It's dot com 01:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't fix everything

Apparently, as cool as this system is, there's still the plague of "Accepting a fact because I like it, even if it's not (or questionably) factual." I'm especially disappointed in three of my fellow sysops for voting for such a fact, all of whom I thought had more sense than that. And... I just needed to get that off my chest. --Jay (Talk) 06:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you beat around the bush instead of just saying that the fact is "You said doyng" and that I'm one of the sysops you're disappointed in. And I happen to think that the fact is true true true. Strong Bad lingers on that word far longer than any other word in that email. Disagreeing is fine, and accusing me outright of not having any sense is fine (although I can't speak for others), but there's no need to be all passive-aggressive. Homestar Coder 18:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gosh! I thought he was talking about the "Change of Pace" Family Guy reference! -- tomstiff 18:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Change of pace" was the old system. "Doyng" is on the new system and has three sysops in the "accept" column. (I was the one who originally stuffed and defended it.) Homestar Coder 18:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Voting

I'd like to see a column for neutral votes. Sometimes I'd like to be able to express my opinion on an item, even if my opinion is just "meh". -- tomstiff 18:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. Take a stand, one way or the other. A neutral vote is no vote at all, and just takes up space. — It's dot com 18:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With the new format, voting doesn't take up nearly much screen space. You're correct when you state that a neutral vote is no vote at all. But it does express an opinion. -- tomstiff 18:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An opinion of "meh" is not useful. Nobody cares if another user doesn't care, you know? Homestar Coder 18:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shrug. Personally, I thought neutral voting was an interesting and useful part of the old STUFF system. -- tomstiff 18:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW "neutral" doesn't necessarily mean "I don't care". If you don't care, don't vote! To me Neutral meant "I'm interested but I'm not sure" or "I'm thinking about it" or "Convince me". -- tomstiff 18:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. Homestar Coder 18:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The arguments are there to convince you. A couple of times now, I've made up my mind (and even changed it) based on some good arguments. But I don't think we should have to write more arguments to sway those on the fence. For one, if the vote is close, there will be plenty of arguments to read, and if it's not close, one vote in the other direction isn't going to make that much of a difference. — It's dot com 18:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lawmakers (as an example) don't have to vote only "Yea" or "Nay" on a given subject . They have two other options. They can choose not to vote or they can abstain. You could look at a "neutral" vote as an abstention. -- tomstiff 18:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral votes in the old format were meant for adding comments without the comment being counted as a vote. But we can do that with this system anyway. Since you can just elect not to vote, there really doesn't seem much point for a "Neutral" vote. --Jay (Talk) 19:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)