</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">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)
0
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<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>1. User list. Though, it can be wonky at times. <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> <p>If they care enough to vote, they wouldn't have left. </p>
<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>1. User list. Though, it can be wonky at times. <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> <p>If they care enough to vote, they wouldn't have left. </p>
(Edited by Brick425)
1
<p>I cannot remember specific instances, but earlier this year especially we had several cases where Madkat, Obi, or Aravis would vote on something long after they "retired," "hated this wiki," or "went inactive."
</p>
(Edited by Keplers)
1
<div class="quote">
<p>Keplers wrote:
I cannot remember specific instances, but earlier this year especially we had several cases where Madkat, Obi, or Aravis would vote on something long after they "retired," "hated this wiki," or "went inactive."
</p>
</div>
<p>Ok so I think people who "retire" (or ragequit) should obviously be excluded from voting 
</p><noscript>
</noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Veralann)
1
<div class="quote">
<p>Slicer Vorzakh 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 consistant.
</p>
</div>
<p>Yeah, but I think DMs should be able to judge too.
</p>
</div>
<p>I agree with both of you
</p>
(Edited by Veralann)
0
<div class="quote">HyperFlash Studios wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: I cannot remember specific instances, but earlier this year especially we had several cases where Madkat, Obi, or Aravis would vote on something long after they "retired," "hated this wiki," or "went inactive." </p> </div>Ok so I think people who "retire" (or ragequit) should obviously be excluded from voting
</div>
<p>And I understand the reasoning as to why they shouldn't vote, I just don't like the lack of definitions of "inactive" aside from people who declared their leave from the wiki, if that's what you're saying is part of it, Hype. I don't really like voting restrictions in general. But this policy is going to be in effect anyway, nothing I can do to change it. Are we sticking with the common sense thing, then?
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: I cannot remember specific instances, but earlier this year especially we had several cases where Madkat, Obi, or Aravis would vote on something long after they "retired," "hated this wiki," or "went inactive." </p> </div>Ok so I think people who "retire" (or ragequit) should obviously be excluded from voting
</div>
<p>And I understand the reasoning as to why they shouldn't vote, I just don't like the lack of definitions of "inactive" aside from people who declared their leave from the wiki, if that's what you're saying is part of it, Hype. I don't really like voting restrictions in general. But this policy is going to be in effect anyway, nothing I can do to change it. Are we sticking with the common sense thing, then?
</p>
(Edited by Riolu777)
1
<div class="quote">
<p>Riolu777 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">HyperFlash Studios wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: I cannot remember specific instances, but earlier this year especially we had several cases where Madkat, Obi, or Aravis would vote on something long after they "retired," "hated this wiki," or "went inactive." </p> </div>Ok so I think people who "retire" (or ragequit) should obviously be excluded from voting
</div>
<p>And I understand the reasoning as to why they shouldn't vote, I just don't like the lack of definitions of "inactive" aside from people who declared their leave from the wiki, if that's what you're saying is part of it, Hype. I don't really like voting restrictions in general. But this policy is going to be in effect anyway, nothing I can do to change it. Are we sticking with the common sense thing, then?
</p>
</div>
<p>I believe that to be the case.
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: I cannot remember specific instances, but earlier this year especially we had several cases where Madkat, Obi, or Aravis would vote on something long after they "retired," "hated this wiki," or "went inactive." </p> </div>Ok so I think people who "retire" (or ragequit) should obviously be excluded from voting
</div>
<p>And I understand the reasoning as to why they shouldn't vote, I just don't like the lack of definitions of "inactive" aside from people who declared their leave from the wiki, if that's what you're saying is part of it, Hype. I don't really like voting restrictions in general. But this policy is going to be in effect anyway, nothing I can do to change it. Are we sticking with the common sense thing, then?
</p>
</div>
<p>I believe that to be the case.
</p>
(Edited by Keplers)