Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-28939754-20160918035013/@comment-26944420-20160923221536

Michaelyoda wrote: Brick425 wrote: Riolu777 wrote: Keplers wrote:

Riolu777 wrote:

Keplers wrote:

Jdude420 wrote:

LordWeirdo wrote:

Jdude420 wrote:

LordWeirdo wrote:

Jdude420 wrote: BBAA

I mean, obviously the Admins and Buro who are not very active, but once were, they got to their positions for a reason, they know the community and their input from often times years of being here should really count for something. I think you misunderstand...this vote is to prevent all inactive users from voting on RFRs, and each type of RFR is being voted on separately. Not to prevent inactive users from particular rights groups from voting on RFRs. I know this. :P Re-read what I wrote, slowly, I was saying why we shouldn't disallow 'inactive' users from voting. Still sounds like you're approaching this from the way I thought at forst, but I won't argue over this. I realize you're not targeting a specific rights group, I was simply pointing out one of the specific rights groups that will be effected, amongst others. Jude, in the end, this is meant to combat people who are supposed to have gone inactive (say, Madkat) from cropping up and completely tilting an important vote, despite the vote having no affect on the people in question because they quit. People who have renounced their citizenship shouldn't be able to vote. Citizenship?

We are not a government.

The closest thing that we have to someone renouncing their "citizenship" is when they get blocked. They cannot vote since they're...blocked. Going inactive or retiring is actually only abstaining from visiting our little website. If they're coming around to vote on such an important issue, then it obviously affects them in some manner. Or they're trying to mess with us by spending two minutes to vote and then never be heard from again... as has happened in the past. Okay, if someone "messes with us," then how does that impact us in any noticeable way? Not enough to warrant allowing the admins to somewhat arbitrarily prohibit voting access, I think. Until I see a big scheme to affect the result of a vote due to a massive wave of inactive users voting for a certain option, there's very little ground to stand on in terms of voting restrictions. Blocked users are an understandably blacklisted group, as well as users who have been here for a short while. Past that...? Every vote counts Didn't you just argue in another CV that close votes like that rarely happen?

I said that landslide votes rarely happen.