Steven Walling wrote:
You make your point well. Then, if the object is "figuring out ways of isolating idiocy that don't amount to iron fist control." then it seems to me that the best way of accoomplishing this is to make forum shopping a firm criterion for closure of discussion. Is it still an essay? Why don't we propose it as a guideline?
Framing the discussion in terms of "isolating idiocy" does not advance the governance issues. The majority of editors are not so overtly idiotic. The need is for an approach that recognizes that the decision of the day may still only reflect the majority of those who happened to participate within a prescribed time frame. Many of us who may disagree with a given policy proposal may not even hear about it until the debate is closed. That's the reality of a very large community. It does little good to tell these people, "Too bad, you should have been paying attention." If the pro spoiler warning faction is indeed nothing but a tiny minority it needs to be made apparent to all just as any change to the situation needs to be made apparent to all.
If we have a good policy mechanism to reflect the clear will of the community, and that tracks subtle changes in the community's will, the idiots will soon find themselves on the long tail of opinion.
Ec