</p><p>Anyway, let the idea warring- I mean peaceful discussion commence! </p>
5,988
pages
ALL POSTSOn "Inactive" users and voting
<p>Since we seem to be getting nowhere with all these prohibiting inactive users from voting CVs, I instead propose we reach some form of agreement on what "inactive" really means through a discussion. This way we don't have to have a bunch of arguments about who's voting for what and why. Instead we can argue who's idea is better and why!
</p><p>
Anyway, let the idea warring- I mean peaceful discussion commence! </p>
</p><p>Anyway, let the idea warring- I mean peaceful discussion commence! </p>
(Edited by Veralann)
1
<p>Common sense will be sufficient for this. A combination of how often they chat, edit, etc. We can all agree, for example, that people like AP are active and people like Drew are not, yes? So I don't see a big deal.
</p>
(Edited by Brick425)
0
Per the above three.
(Edited by Keplers)
<div class="quote">
<p>KnightoftheLight wrote:
whose and nice idea! I personally think it should be up to the Admins to judge as long as they're reasonably consistant.
</p>
</div>
<p>Yeah, but I think DMs should be able to judge too.
</p>
(Edited by Slicer Vorzakh)
<div class="quote">
<p>Impossibubbles wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>KnightoftheLight wrote:
*whose and nice idea! I personally think it should be up to the Admins to judge as long as they're reasonably consistent.
</p>
</div>
<p>I agree with this
</p>
</div>
<p><font face="Courier New">as do i, and per brick as well</font>
</p>
(Edited by LordWeirdo)
5
<p>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.
</p>
(Edited by Riolu777)
0
<div class="quote">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.</div> <p>1. How do we know when someone "logs on"? </p><p>2. "<span style="font-weight:normal;">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."</span> </p><p>...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. </p>
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.</div> <p>1. How do we know when someone "logs on"? </p><p>2. "<span style="font-weight:normal;">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."</span> </p><p>...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. </p>
(Edited by Brick425)
0
<p>@Rio:
</p><p>Common sense and a set length of time are the opposite.
</p>
(Edited by Keplers)
6
<p>"Inactive" and "active" are just labels put on people by so-ci-o-tea. I PERSONALLY believe that it doesn't matter what other people say, all users should have the right to choose whether they identify as "active" or "inactive". 
</p><noscript>
</noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Johnyjo)
<div class="quote">
<p>Johnyjo wrote:
"Inactive" and "active" are just labels put on people by so-ci-o-tea. I PERSONALLY believe that it doesn't matter what other people say, all users should have the right to choose whether they identify as "active" or "inactive". </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>wow what a hecking edgelord
</p>
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>wow what a hecking edgelord
</p>
(Edited by Slicer Vorzakh)
<div class="quote">Johnyjo wrote:
"Inactive" and "active" are just labels put on people by so-ci-o-tea. I PERSONALLY believe that it doesn't matter what other people say, all users should have the right to choose whether they identify as "active" or "inactive".</div>
<p>I laughed way too hard at this.
</p>
"Inactive" and "active" are just labels put on people by so-ci-o-tea. I PERSONALLY believe that it doesn't matter what other people say, all users should have the right to choose whether they identify as "active" or "inactive".
</div>
<p>I laughed way too hard at this.</p>
(Edited by Michaelyoda)