Forum:'Per' votes do not help

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > 'Per' votes do not help
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 March 2009 by Azaz129.

As stated in RS:NOT, "When contributing to a discussion, an argument should be given for your point of view, instead of simply voting.". I have seen people way too often just saying "Support - Per them.", "Oppose - Per all.", and even votes without even "per", but just their signature. Doing such would fall under "simply voting", as you are just casting in for the outcome you want, without giving any point. When people do this, it obscures the actual concensus and turns us closer to being a popular democracy.

I think we should simply strike through any votes that are as such.

An example:


Oppose - [insert long and detailed oppose here]. --User Alpha

Oppose - Per User Alpha. --User Bravo

"Per"-styled votes do not contribute to the discussion. --Sysop Kilo

Support - I find that an addition like this would really help the wiki. --User Delta

Oppose - Lol. --User Romeo

Does not contribute to the discussion in the least. --Sysop Charlie

Support - User Delta told me to vote on this, so here I am lol. --User Juliet

Okay...? Doesn't help the discussion. --Sysop Charlie

Support --User Lima

RS:NOT. Don't just vote. --Sysop Uniform

Weak Oppose - I see where this comes from, but I'm not so sure about it. In its current state, I don't think it should pass. Though, if it received a heavy makeover, then I would be all for it. But in its current state, I am against it passing. --User Omega

Support - Per User Delta, User User Juliet, and User Lima. --User Foxtrot

"Per" votes don't help the discussion progress, and you do know that User Juliet and User Lima's votes were absolutely pointless, right? Perring them is rather idiotic... --Sysop Kilo

Support - Per all. --User Zebra

Vote doesn't help the discussion at all. --User Alpha

Support - Per User Foxtrot. --User Hotel

... I'm not even going to say. --Sysop Kilo

Neutral - Meh, so here's my vote. I see strong reasons on both sides, but I'm not for the change. I think that, perhaps, we should just stay this way, you know? Changing something like this could have some good outcomes, but the whole community having to get used to it would outweigh the good, the way I see it. --Sysop Charlie

Couldn't agree with you more. --Sysop Uniform

No consensus. O_o. --Bureaucrat Tango


Well, that example might be a bit drastic, but, yeah. Most of those posts didn't help the discussion at all, and were thus striken through. If you have something to contribute to the discussion, actually say something. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 21:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - No. Sometimes someone types a paragraph including many reasons to justify something, and someone else has the same exact views on the matter. It would be total nonsense for them to have to type it all again. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 21:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If that is so, then they should have nothing to worry about if their view has already been displayed. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 22:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
That's rubbish. If people want to contribute to the discussion, but their point has been made already, they are more than welcome to still contribute. It saves reading time and page length if people support/oppose for already given reasons rather than seeing the same paragraph 40 times. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Jedi Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 21:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Tebuddy

Bonziiznob Talk

22:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bonzi Karlis (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Karlis ~Nightgunner5 talkTranshttp://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/8/8a/Botcrown.PNGhttp://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7190/skilliconfletching11.gif 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - It is the same as a quote without the quote, it is just pointless to do anything but Per [Name]. And out of spite - Per Jedi. Ryan PM 22:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Irony - Per all.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

22:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - If someone agrees with someone else's statement, why go and write them again? (I could've just said "Per Karlis", but...) Maybe you think something, but can't quite put it in words, and say that you agree with someone who said something that is the closest to what you would be trying to say... TRY SAYING THAT THREE TIMES FAST. Signed, http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 22:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all of the above.--Quest point hood.png Bigm2793Talk Quest point cape.png 22:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all and all of the above. Azaz says it best, "Irony". - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 23:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per all. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Jedi, Karlis, Tebuddy, Bonzi, Azaz, Dave, Cat, and C Teng. Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I'd like to say "per all" but that would defeat the purpose. :P "Per all" means you're supporting/opposing for the same reason as someone else and can't be bothered to type up a more detailed reason. Andrew talk 02:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironic oppose - Per all ;) Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 04:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  07:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Not everyone is able to think up something original in every situation, so I think that at least taking sides is better than saying nothing at all. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 08:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Useless redundancy is not something I'm particularly fond of. And if someone agrees with someone else's statement, why go and write them again? It would be total nonsense for them to have to type it all again. Not everyone is able to think up something original in every situation if their point has been made already. I'd rather be reading something else than be seeing the same paragraph 40 times.   az talk   08:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per everyone ço¬Ø (P.S. The jokes kind of annoying now :/)

Oppose - Why state something again when it was already written? ~MuzTalk 16:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Telos Attack Ancient Fofo Slayer 19:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Somebody close this please, it's quite clear this will not be put into effect. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  23:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Closed - It's clear that this will not pass.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)