Board Thread:Community Discussions/@comment-30683785-20160924021631/@comment-26944420-20160926225151

Riolu777 wrote: Brick425 wrote: Riolu777 wrote: I would feel better about the whole idea if there was a set limit of, say, three weeks of not logging on counting as "inactive." Then there's no chance of confusion or argument over the validity of a vote. But then if someone logs on every week simply to subvert that, then what do we do? And say someone edits once a week or hops on chat every two weeks, what then? There are too many circumstances that render this blanket "common sense" prohibition to nothing more than a game where someone avoids being labled "inactive" but can still have their votes count without having to interact with the wiki, in my opinion. 1. How do we know when someone "logs on"?

2. " There are too many circumstances that render this blanket "common sense" prohibition to nothing more than a game where someone avoids being labled "inactive" but can still have their votes count without having to interact with the wiki, in my opinion."

...How? If we know they're voting and then being gone the rest of the time, just don't count their vote. This is a non-issue. 1. User list. Though, it can be wonky at times.

2. And that's my issue with it. I don't like that we can now invalidate votes based on five different admins' perspective on their activity. The few instances of people coming out of the depths to vote on something have not negatively impacted the wiki. If you have examples, I'll be glad to see them. From the way I see it, if someone who hasn't been on in a while votes on something out of the blue then they care enough and are informed enough to vote on the matter. If they care enough to vote, they wouldn't have left.