The Index of the Giant's Comments V―On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index

[137beth]

We don't need to formalize removal procedures beyond stopping the senseless weighted majority requirement for keeping a vote that was already added. We just changed the index based on an event vote. Action should require at least a majority.

ETA: Also, I don't think the current rules support the interpretation of requiring a supermajority to keep an existing quote in the index. That rule is for adding quotes, not removing them. The rules were voted on, and until a removal rule is voted on, this ill-supported interpretation should not be used to favor the faction that has a narrow view of what should be in the index.

If number of votes matter here, let it be known that I agree with everything Kalmegil and SaintRidley just said. The vote requirements being deliberately tilted toward "don't change" makes sense to me, the vote requirements being deliberately tilted toward "non-inclusion, whether it's already been included or not" does not at all, except as a result of some people's misreading Rich's earlier posts to indicate a desire for as little as possible to be indexed.

Personally, I also thought going into this that the removers would need a majority in order to remove the quote, not the people who wanted the quote to stay. In my opinion, I feel that especially in the case of a tie things should stay as they are, not change.

All of these.

The usability of the index to find any specific quote goes down the more we have

I reject this premise.

Registering again my personal view that removal should be formalized as not a thing that happens in any event unless directly requested by Rich, though I am aware that this will not at any point be a popular view on removal.

I disagree, I believe that if a sufficient supermajority wants to remove a quote, it should be removed.