Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-5111283-20151015033647/@comment-5111283-20151016121202

FortressOfNight wrote:

Jdude420 wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote: I'd be leaning toward support if "more strict" had any kind of definition attached to it apart from the weak example of "would make a good X" vs "would make a good X because is good in situation Y". So for now, no vote. Essentially I'm saying a user shouldn't be able to just say "X would be bad with right Y", rather they should say why that user would be bad with right Y.

The reason why I'm putting up this vote is because some of the Admins don't always agree on what votes are acceptable, and which ones should be disputed. I realize that there is policy covering this (generally speaking), but I desire more clarification so I can feel confident when acting on situations in the future and there won't need to be much/any debate between Admins over acceptable votes.

Essentially I want the process of addressing non-acceptable votes to be quick and easy in the future.

Isn't that already not acceptable as a support/oppose reason? It's not even a reason. It's just an assertion. I mean when I made the petition about supports requiring reasons I didn't have "X would make a good Y, support" in mind as the justification.

I agree, but back to what I said "The reason why I'm putting up this vote is because some of the Admins don't always agree on what votes are acceptable, and which ones should be disputed. I realize that there is policy covering this (generally speaking), but I desire more clarification so I can feel confident when acting on situations in the future and there won't need to be much/any debate between Admins over acceptable votes."