Forum:Do away with neutral votes

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Do away with neutral votes
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 26 July 2008 by Azaz129.

I don't see the reasoning behind a neutral vote, and I propose we do away with it. It doesn't actually help bring the community to any sort of consensus, since it doesn't lean towards support or oppose. More often than not, it's used because the user doesn't know the nominee (in which case they really shouldn't be voting until they do know the candidate, but that's a not why I'm posting). Comment would do just fine for this purpose, as it serves as a clarifier or lets the nominee know what the user posting would like to see. Opinions? --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 06:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, Commment does the same thing, Neutral votes just make more confusion. Grim reaper hood.png Ben RyfosTalk 06:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
So would it be valid to just change anything marked "neutral" to comment? ~kytti khat 09:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Why does it matter or what harm is there in this sort of situation? The "reasoning" behind such a "vote" is perhaps the person trying to make a remark isn't really committed one way or the other (aka supporting a deletion or endorsing a proposed administrator) but has some information that may be relevant to others casting their vote. In this case, they are genuinely "neutral". I suppose it is a comment but the term "neutral" does carry with it the context that they haven't yet come to a decision on the matter. Bureaucrats and administrators shouldn't really be "counting votes" anyway on such pages, but should be reading into the depth of comments and the strength of the arguments in favor or opposed to such an action. I just don't think we need to be paranoid about such votes, as it really isn't as important the exact format of such a vote but rather that people are participating. I'd rather have these neutral votes than to turn away people from making comments. --Robert Horning 11:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I know that sometimes they don't always help, but I don't think we should do away with them. Maybe we should change the neutral votes to just comments, so we don't have both littering up pages. But i think that people should have the option to express their opinions and give advice without having to vote. Neutral/Comments provide a great to give opnions and feedback without having to flat out Oppose or Support. Prayer-icon.png Sir Lenehan File:Smite old.png|25px 12:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Robert on this one, for slightly different reasons. A Neutral vote does have an effect on the result of a discussion. Take this as a situation: there are two strong support arguments for a decision, and one oppose. It would be hard to see a consensus there, but you might say that the decision was toward the supports. However, given the same 3 votes, what if you had 2000 neutral votes? It would be obvious that "Support" was NOT at a consensus, as 2001 people had declined to support the decision, even if only one openly opposed it.
I do think that we can do away with "Pending" and "Not yet/Wait a little". If your vote is pending, don't write anything, or use Neutral. It just clutters things otherwise. "Not yet/Wait a little" are just oppose votes; you can explain your reasoning or intent for future support in the accompanying comment. Both of these seemed like they were added by the one or two people that use these keywords, and they tried to make them global for no real reason. Endasil (Talk) @  14:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need Neutral vote because they don't count towards anything. It's either a "yes" or "no". Like Sir Lenethan said, we should just put that under 'Comments'. Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I mean I don't think it's necessary to restrict the markup that a user chooses to use. A well explained neutral vote is exponentially more useful to a closing bureaucrat than votes consisting only of Support, he deserves it because he's a good guy. It's the arguments for and against that are more important than markups or numbers. Dtm142 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. If Neutral votes were removed everyone would have to Support or Oppose from the outset, which might mean a different outcome than if a lot of initially-Neutrals continued to discuss the proposal until they had decided which way to vote.
One or two neutrals in a discussion won't really affect the outcome of a proposal anyway, but if a lot of people haven't made their minds up then it means the conversation obviously needs to continue for a while longer. Pointy 13:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pointy. And if there was no voting for ages because people were still thinking the discussion might just end when people were still thinking. So... I oppose to this discussion. Chicken7 >talk 02:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)