Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iasson/Proposed decision

POLL: What version [1] of arbitration_proposed_decision's [2] voting rules do you prefer?

1. POLL OPTION:With accurate voting rules. Define what exactly majority means and who is the electorate[3] , also define how long a passed or rejected decision should be valid. Define also accurately whether the votes of the inactives or baned electors should be considered valid ones or not and whether any decision taken based on those votes should remain a valid decision or not.

1. VOTE:Iasson 08:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. POLL OPTION: With inaccurate voting rules. Neither majority nor the electorate should be defined accurately, and especially we should not define the rule which determines how long the passed or rejected decision should be valid. We should not also define what happens to the votes of the electors that are currently inactives or baned, but the decision they have voted for is still a valid decision.
2. POLL OPTION: Other
3. POLL OPTION: I dislike this poll
4. POLL OPTION: Iasson should receive a 24-hour ban for repeatedly vandalizing the proposed decision page. [4] [5] [6]

1. VOTE: [[User:Scott Burley|User:Scott Burley/sig]] 10:13, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)