Forum:Voting system and reasoning: Difference between revisions
imported>RoseGui |
imported>RoseGui |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Discussion== |
==Discussion== |
||
On a note, I have seen at least one thing change: no longer votes, just reasoning. But, to me, it's just as important to have votes, since they are a crucial part of democracy, and I also have no problems with changing "reasoning" to "discussion" or whatever it suits better, it's more a question of language. --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:#FF0038">RoseGui</span><span style="color:#DE3163"><sup>✿</sup></span>]] <sup> <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:#BE0032">talk</span>]])</small></sup> 07:32, July 10, 2013 (UTC) |
On a note, I have seen at least one thing change: no longer votes, just reasoning. But, to me, it's just as important to have votes, since they are a crucial part of democracy, and I also have no problems with changing "reasoning" to "discussion" or whatever it suits better, it's more a question of language. --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:#FF0038">RoseGui</span><span style="color:#DE3163"><sup>✿</sup></span>]] <sup> <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:#BE0032">talk</span>]])</small></sup> 07:32, July 10, 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Also, based on what some other wiki's do, we could adopt questions the nominee or requester would have to respond or maybe admins would have that responsibility themselves, though, there could be a set of questions already pre-determined. To me, this looks fairer than just commentary. --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:#FF0038">RoseGui</span><span style="color:#DE3163"><sup>✿</sup></span>]] <sup> <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:#BE0032">talk</span>]])</small></sup> 08:22, July 10, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:22, 10 July 2013
Okay, so, based on what happened on Beds's second nomination and these two forum posts, I would like to propose some other solution.
In my opinion, votes like "the user deserves these/those/that rights" are baseless and are not a valid argument to vote. So, what I very briefly suggest is that we create in RfA's and probably RfB's two sections: one for voting, another for reasoning.
With the creation of these two different sections, comments like the former could be avoided, as "reasoning" implies actual arguments: users' efficiency; how they could benefit from the tools; traits like being helful, caring; etc. No comments at all would be allowed in on the voting section. I think this could clearly separate the quantity from the quality, seeing as number of supports/opposes is very important, but arguments' strength is just as much.
Also, I'm terribly sorry for creating a separate thread for this when there is "Adressing issues with rights requests", but the page is very long and I'm not sure what the outcome was and how the system changed and if someone could sum it up and explain it to me, I would be grateful; and maybe this whole discussion I started wouldn't be needed. --RoseGui✿ (talk) 07:12, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
On a note, I have seen at least one thing change: no longer votes, just reasoning. But, to me, it's just as important to have votes, since they are a crucial part of democracy, and I also have no problems with changing "reasoning" to "discussion" or whatever it suits better, it's more a question of language. --RoseGui✿ (talk) 07:32, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Also, based on what some other wiki's do, we could adopt questions the nominee or requester would have to respond or maybe admins would have that responsibility themselves, though, there could be a set of questions already pre-determined. To me, this looks fairer than just commentary. --RoseGui✿ (talk) 08:22, July 10, 2013 (UTC)