Anonymous user
Forum:RfA voting and reasoning: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Pidgeoraptor7 |
imported>Lost Labyrinth No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Community discussions|archive}}
I know it seems ironic that I'm bringing this up given [[TSW:RFA#HanaGoth96|there's an RfA currently up]] but I feel regardless that it is something which should be discussed.
Line 25:
::To quote what is stated on the rfa page; <u>Strength of argument is more important than the number of votes</u>. This statement is clearly stated on the page and it is up to the user who is voting on a request to follow it or not. Yes, if their votes contained "''x'' deserves this..." then it shouldn't be counted '''but''' the user who has said this should be given the chance to re-word their vote. Also, if a user has made a stab towards another user but has also voted on the request, then their vote should not be counted, '''unless''' the user agrees to remove the stab. If a user wishes to vote on a request, then they should follow the strength of argument rule. I also am in a weak neutral agreement with Math's statement, although I'm still thinking about that. [[User:HanaGoth96|<font color="#6B1D51">'''HanaGoth96'''</font>]] [[User_talk:HanaGoth96|<small text>'''Neigh...?'''</small>]]) 10:38, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
:::I don't see why anyone would be making a stab at anyone while there is a perfectly good feature we have called talk pages, where we can discuss things without having to involve everyone voting on the RfX... Anyway I disagree with Hana in her saying that Users should be allowed to reword their vote. If a user has already put up their thoughts on a matter, why should they be allowed to change something that came from their own mouths? I mean, if they honestly think that it is deserved by X User, then that vote should not be counted. If the vote is just a bunch of gibberish that makes no sense, we should allow them to explain their reasoning. {{PGRSig}} 18:54, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know how we can judge what is a good argument for an RfA. Perhaps simply having someone who has not voted in the RfA and has a neutral viewpoint go over the arguments and judge the strength themselves would be better? However, for consensus I think at least 65-70% for would be good. --'''[[user:Bleeh|<font color="navy">Bleeh</font>]]'''<sup>[[User talk: Bleeh|<font color="#489094">(talk)</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[User blog:Bleeh|<font color="#489094">(blog)</font>]]</sup> 00:15, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
I'd think the "x deserve it" argument, as well as support without a reason tagged with it (which I consider equivalent in strength) is a moot issue if there aren't significant opposition. However, as the case with HanaGoth's nomination turned out to be, the argument of the opposing side was stronger than the supporting side, despite the support side having more votes. However, I disagree with the idea of nulling the votes with the "x deserves it" argument, since the user still has a right to support another user for RfA. As Bleeh said, the difficulty of judging an argument can cause further complications, and Bleeh's suggestion regarding using someone who hasn't voted in the RfA I find rather impractical, given that most active users generally actively vote on the RfA, and especially if it is highly contested one, as was the case with HanaGoth's nomination. I can only argue given the complication that might occur that the "x deserves it" get the lowest priority, although it simply puts a bad taste in my mouth to just void it outright. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 03:17, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
'''Closed''' - I have been watching this thread since its inception and I'm closing on the basis of it drying out. Mediating from a neutral viewpoint, it does appear that we're in agreement that reasoning and strength of argument does matter. However, given the (slow) progress being made with [[Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests#Shifting gears|this thread]], continuous discussion here would be pretty difficult given that we're currently discussing an overhaul in the other thread and as one of the suggestions in that thread suggests replacing votes with comments, it would make this particular thread very hard to work with. As such I'm going to close this and encourage everybody to go and express their views in the other thread. {{LabSig}} 12:17, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
| |||