because I don't want the rep penalty for voting out of step with how the Tribunal will finally vote - even though I suspect it would be better for us to reject niches with poor descriptions.
One of the reasons I feel this way is because we are rewarding niche suggesters with reputation bonuses if their niche gets approved. It doesn't make sense to do that unless they put the effort into making a niche viable and well described.
My understanding is that the team has so far operated on the notion that a viable niche name can get approved, and the description can be cleaned up later, but if we are to continue in this fashion, we really need to know precisely how this cleanup will be enforced.
And to conclude, I would reiterate that we're being wasteful if we accept flawed descriptions from users we are still rewarding with rep for those flawed suggestions, then having to organise cleanup work of what should have been done right the first time. So I remain in favour of rejecting niches with confusing and/or poorly written descriptions. If the team agrees that the efficiency of doing so is in fact preferable, then we need some clear expression from them that the Tribunal guidelines will be updated mandating that they vote in the same manner. This decision needs to be from the top down since we get rep hits for voting out of lock step with the Tribunal.
I guess I don't care if I'm out of step with the Tribunal. I was drawn to this project because I believed that quality content was an integral aspect of building the new content economy.
It's hard to criticize people for submitting definition Niches when the @Ted is doing it too. Come on, Ted!
I agree @Malkazoid that we're rewarding/creating bad behaviors. It's just easier to approve things and let Time sort it out.
I could just approve all Niche submissions. Knowing that the bad ones will just sit in the ballot queue forever, never being bought. And, it doesn't hurt me to do so. And if the Tribunal thinks/acts in the same way (because it'd be a lot of work to regulate this with some standards), then people that disagree will get dinged for shining a light on problems with the platform/process.
If this is just another type of race to the bottom, then we're closer to a state of idiocracy than I would have hoped.