RfR Support/Oppose Reasons Vote

0

Jdude420·10/15/2015

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.

«†J•cI•u•cI•e•420†» ^(Wall) -Retired Bureaucrat

(Edited by Jdude420)

0

FortressOfNight·10/16/2015

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.

«†J•cI•u•cI•e•420†» ^(Wall) -Retired Bureaucrat

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.

(Edited by FortressOfNight)

0

Vonness11`·10/16/2015

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.

«†J•cI•u•cI•e•420†» ^(Wall) -Retired Bureaucrat

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.

if it isn't acceptable this vote shouldn't even exist

(Edited by Vonness11`)

0

Jdude420·10/16/2015

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.

«†J•cI•u•cI•e•420†» ^(Wall) -Retired Bureaucrat

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."

(Edited by Jdude420)

0

Jdude420·10/16/2015

I clarified the vote a bit, sorry for the lack of information when posting it guys (Fort, Rio, Ben, Brick). I haven't posted a CV since like forever. :P

(Edited by Jdude420)

0

FortressOfNight·10/17/2015

Jdude420 wrote: I clarified the vote a bit, sorry for the lack of information when posting it guys (Fort, Rio, Ben, Brick). I haven't posted a CV since like forever. :P

*sigh* and now since the terms of the vote have been modified, all votes made before the changes should be invalidated to ensure people aren't being forced to vote for something they don't want to...

(Edited by FortressOfNight)

0

Jdude420·10/17/2015

Yeah, I thought I was clear enough, but I should have been more clear. *throws hands up*

(Edited by Jdude420)

0

Johnyjo·10/20/2015

B, because there's no real reason to require a big explination for voting one way or another...

(Edited by Johnyjo)

0

Jdude420·10/20/2015

FortressOfNight wrote:

Jdude420 wrote: I clarified the vote a bit, sorry for the lack of information when posting it guys (Fort, Rio, Ben, Brick). I haven't posted a CV since like forever. :P

*sigh* and now since the terms of the vote have been modified, all votes made before the changes should be invalidated to ensure people aren't being forced to vote for something they don't want to...

I'll just make a re-vote in a month that's more clear. *shrugs*

(Edited by Jdude420)

0

I'mDivergent·10/22/2015

A, III

(Edited by I'mDivergent)