These aren't nearly as bad as actual swear words, I believe that acronyms can be used fine without causing any disruption.
1. wtf
A) Unblock 6 votes
B) Block 21 votes - Consensus reached
C) Neutral 0 votes
2. lmao
A) Unblock 19 votes
B) Block 20 votes
C) Neutral 1 vote
3. lmfao
A) Unblock 8 votes
B) Block 21 votes - Consensus reached
C) Neutral 0 votes
Consensus reached: block all
BCB for me.
And revotes within two(?) months aren't allowed.
B for all.
B, B, and B.
BB-8
i mean BBB
Michaelyoda wrote:
BCB for me.
And revotes within two(?) months aren't allowed.
B for all.
This isn't exactly a revote
Wait wait lemme get this straight:
"lmfao" is currently unblocked.
Assuming this vote to block "lmfao" passes, "lmfao" will become blocked. However, that vote has not ended yet.
This vote (slice's thread, the one I am responding to right now) is to unblock "lmfao," even though technically "lmfao" is still unblocked, seeing as the above thread has not passed yet (though it probably will pass and thus "lmfao" will become blocked).
Which brings me to my next point: Whether the above vote passes or not, the CV policy states, "Revotes on past votes can be created after a minimum of one month after the original vote."
</span>Thus, I think the vote on this thread is invalid, as not only did you not wait until the previous vote is finished (you're technically voting to unblock a word which is already unblocked), but you will have to wait a "minimum of one month after the original vote" to vote on the subject again.</s> See below.
EDIT: Here's the issue: Some interpret this vote as a "revote," (like I did in the paragraph above) because the vote covers the same subject matter as the original vote, and some do not consider this vote a "revote," because it is to technically "unblock" the word, whereas the other vote was to "block" the word. Can I have some admin interpretation please ? :P
"lmfao" is currently unblocked.
Assuming this vote to block "lmfao" passes, "lmfao" will become blocked. However, that vote has not ended yet.
This vote (slice's thread, the one I am responding to right now) is to unblock "lmfao," even though technically "lmfao" is still unblocked, seeing as the above thread has not passed yet (though it probably will pass and thus "lmfao" will become blocked).
Which brings me to my next point: Whether the above vote passes or not, the CV policy states, "Revotes on past votes can be created after a minimum of one month after the original vote."
Thus, I think the vote on this thread is invalid, as not only did you not wait until the previous vote is finished (you're technically voting to unblock a word which is already unblocked), but you will have to wait a "minimum of one month after the original vote" to vote on the subject again.
EDIT: Hm, here's the issue: Some interpret this vote as a "revote," because it's covering the same topic of the thread I linked above, and some are not considering it a "revote," because it's to technically "unblock" the word, where the other vote was to "block" the word. Can I have some admin interpretation please ? :P
It's not a revote because the other vote hasn't finished.
It's like in the middle of a race between two cars, and when one finishes first, you claim the other car is cheating because it's trying to undermine the other car's win by crossing the line.
Not a chance
B to all
(Edited):
@Brick: The policy states "Revotes on past votes can be created after a minimum of one month after the original vote." I guess the question is, is this one month after the original vote is CREATED, or one month after the original vote is PASSED? I assumed the former is true, but it looks like you're assuming the latter.
