Forum:Repealing recent amendment to COD:CONSENSUS

Since Forum:Adding a new amendment to COD:CONSENSUS went through I've had sort of mixed feelings on it. I absolutely agree that forums shouldn't be closed by people that are clearly biased. However, take this forum for example, and look at what Sam did: Instead of closing the forum, he suedo-closed it. But what I ask is: Would anybody really have cared if Sam had simply closed that forum? Yeah, he proposed the original idea, but there was nearly unanimous support, and the only opposer didn't explain or further argue once pressed by others. In this situation, that forum has been sitting idle for essentially 15 days with no movement, whereas it could have been closed much sooner and had its proposal implemented prior to the release of Ghosts.

The original argument for amending COD:CON was basically because of the likes of this forum. It was to prevent users from closing extremely popular and top-heavy forums when they themselves were biased towards one side. In this respect, the amendment has been successful, though I don't think we've had such a high-tension forum since then.

That said, there are a few inherent problems with the amendment: Noting these problems I would like to provide 2 possible choices to clean this up: I know this isn't the biggest issue ever, but you all know me as a very active War Roomer, and in fact it's my favorite part of editing... I have strongly disliked this amendment from the beginning because of how inefficient it has made the WR overall. I strongly suggest option #1 because it will bring us back up to our previous speed of getting community consensus and getting things passed, instead of getting community consensus and having the forum sit and sit and sit and sit for seven weeks until someone decides to close it.
 * It prevents forums that have a clearly favored argument (I'm talking unanimous or close to it) from being passed, when nobody would have any problem with someone who voted on it doing so
 * Forums that have gone dead and lost user interest that would normally be closed due to inactivity sit at the bottom of the WR for weeks at a time with no activity when they could be archived away and reopened/revisited when the community saw fit (this one is especially important since interest in the War Room in general has severely declined over the past year or so--far fewer users contribute regularly)
 * There are few forums that include so many users and contain a subject matter that splits users so evenly that the original issue is even relevant, which is to say that the majority of the time nobody would have a problem with a closure by someone who voted (this is proven by the countless clean closures that occured before the implementation of the amendment)
 * 1) Repeal the amendment
 * 2) *Before you say anything, consider this: In the past, when a hot forum was closed inappropriately, it was immediately re-opened by other administrators because they realized what had happened. Yes, the current amendment prevents this--however, since users recognize the threat immediately when it does happen, there is no reason to continue to disallow voter closure when in the majority of forums there is no such corruption.
 * 3) Allow admins that have voted on a proposal to close a forum due to inactivity, or an argument that has a clear winner
 * 4) *Sort of a comprimise if you gentlement really don't want to abandon the amendment entirely, this would allow voter closure in extreme cases where no corruption is possible.

Thanks for your time. Joe Copp 04:44, November 6, 2013 (UTC)