</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)
0
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<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>They should also be allowed to identify themselves as "Apache Helicopter", in addition to "active" or "inactive".
</div>
<p>I believe we should free the people!
</p><p>Free them from the right to choose!
</p>
<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>They should also be allowed to identify themselves as "Apache Helicopter", in addition to "active" or "inactive".
</div>
<p>I believe we should free the people!
</p><p>Free them from the right to choose!
</p>
(Edited by Ked830)
<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>There is a problem with that. According to the user list I haven't logged in since April 2016 so... </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>There is a problem with that. According to the user list I haven't logged in since April 2016 so... </p>
(Edited by Legoanimals750)
<div class="quote">Legoanimals750 wrote:
<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>There is a problem with that. According to the user list I haven't logged in since April 2016 so... </div> <p>Did you tick the "remember me" option when logging in?
</p><noscript>
</noscript>
<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>There is a problem with that. According to the user list I haven't logged in since April 2016 so... </div> <p>Did you tick the "remember me" option when logging in?
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Alemas2005)
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote">Legoanimals750 wrote:
<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>There is a problem with that. According to the user list I haven't logged in since April 2016 so...</div>Did you tick the "remember me" option when logging in?
</div>
<p>Yes. :P But others could of done that as well so it doesn't really help. :P
</p>
<div class="quote">Legoanimals750 wrote:
<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>There is a problem with that. According to the user list I haven't logged in since April 2016 so...</div>Did you tick the "remember me" option when logging in?
</div>
<p>Yes. :P But others could of done that as well so it doesn't really help. :P
</p>
(Edited by Legoanimals750)
<div class="quote">Legoanimals750 wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote">Legoanimals750 wrote:
<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>There is a problem with that. According to the user list I haven't logged in since April 2016 so...</div>Did you tick the "remember me" option when logging in?</div>Yes. :P But others could of done that as well so it doesn't really help. :P
</div>
<p>Ah, I did that as well.
</p><p>Nevermind then, it's not a reliable method of checking activity. </p><noscript></noscript>
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote">Legoanimals750 wrote:
<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>There is a problem with that. According to the user list I haven't logged in since April 2016 so...</div>Did you tick the "remember me" option when logging in?
</div>Yes. :P But others could of done that as well so it doesn't really help. :P
</div>
<p>Ah, I did that as well.
</p><p>Nevermind then, it's not a reliable method of checking activity. </p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Alemas2005)
0
<p>It's way too much of a pain to enforce any sort of standard, just leave it be. IMO.
</p>
(Edited by Jdude420)
0
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<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>1. How do we know when someone "logs on"? <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> </div> <p>1. User list. Though, it can be wonky at times. </p><p>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. </p>
<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>1. How do we know when someone "logs on"? <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> </div> <p>1. User list. Though, it can be wonky at times. </p><p>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. </p>
(Edited by Riolu777)
0
<div class="quote">Jdude420 wrote:
It's way too much of a pain to enforce any sort of standard, just leave it be. IMO.</div> <p>Too late, the vote passed.
</p>
It's way too much of a pain to enforce any sort of standard, just leave it be. IMO.</div> <p>Too late, the vote passed.
</p>
(Edited by Riolu777)
<p>We have enough bureaucratic red tape with the dozens of policies already, it's getting hard to follow. For the thousandth time, we are not a government, let's not add a whole bucket full of laws with the definition of "activity", let the admins decide, I say.
</p>
(Edited by Alemas2005)
1
Common sense seems fine to me. The Admins should know how to handle choosing inactive and active. So per Sam and Brick.
(Edited by Kingwja)