Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-4257955-20160415193529/@comment-4257955-20160418193446

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote: Riolu777 wrote: ZXSpidermanXZ wrote: Loney 97 wrote: ZXSpidermanXZ wrote: Riolu777 wrote: Loney 97 wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Riolu777 wrote: Let's remember that this is a vote, not debate club. I don't think either side is going to budge on this, so let's sum up our views toward the unblocking of this word, and all future words, in Yes or No answers? Healthy discussion on the topic being voted on should be encouraged shouldn't it? I understand if it diverges from the topic but otherwise it should be seen as a positive thing. Explaining reasons is an extremely good thing in any vote. In as simple a vote as this, I don't think discussion generally helps or changes anyone's mind as Riolu said - just judging from past votes about unblocking specific words, it's probably wise to not allow it. Per Loney. I love healthy and open-minded discussion and debates, but blocking or unblocking a synonym for "pee" isn't really a topic that is benefitted by LMBWian length threads of back-and-forth dispute. And Loney's right, there have been sharp and contentious arguments in past votes like this and I don't want that trend of antagonism to permeate every future community effort like this. We need to have an admin or community vote on whether or not discussion is allowed on these rather than just outright banning them.

Also if we banned any discussion Loney's vote would've been B rather than C, if we banned any discussion at all then it would have affected the vote.

Civil discussion should always be encouraged in any voting matter regardless of how simple the vote is.

And no single admin has the authority to take away the community's right to discuss, that needs to be voted on by the community. Not dictated by one person or a small group of people.

While it's true that most people will not change their mind. Hearing various opinions is extremely healthy. Understanding where the other side is coming from even though you don't agree is definitely a good thing. I'm all for hearing various opinions, you should definitely be somewhat informed before voting on anything, but it's when people feel the need to reply or tell someone that they're wrong - that's what I want to stop. Some people don't really show enough mutual respect for each other. True.

There's a different between giving a polite opinion and being rude. Giving an opinion during a vote is a good thing but being rude about it is not. And I'm all for different opinions being voiced. I love it. But that's the thing, it's becoming too often now where other opinions are derided and scorned by the various sides of an issue, wiki-related or not. Chat and other threads on this wiki demonstrate this. A return to mutual respect and harmony despite differing views would instantly assuage my qualms with debate on votes like this. That makes sense then, but by discouraging discussion we're not addressing the root of the issue. Uncivil conversation. Civil discussion should be encourage, uncivil discussion should be discouraged and dealt with.

As I believe I said in a similar issue here, but discouraging discussion on certain topics just because it's a touchy issue or people have strong feelings towards it, we're saying "Well yeah the discussion is the problem not the people being rude, it's only natural that's you'd insult each other when we talk about something like this."

That's not how moderation should work, we need to address the root of the issue. Alright, I agree with that. I'm just at a loss for how we address that root of the issue as it hasn't worked so far. Let's move this particular talk to a different thread or something so we aren't diverting from the focus of this vote. :p