Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-5079138-20170807134618/@comment-26488146-20170807195946

ThisUserLikesOreo wrote: Since I tried reading the whole thread and I did not understand anything, as I hate long-a*s threads about a boring subject, I will use Vex's suggestion and judge by the titles and some info I actually understood.'And oh my f**king god, I'm so sick of the "oh it 'wus' 'implmentd' 'witout' a 'vout'''" crap. You're just complaining because a feature didn't really like 'got' added. A lot of other people agreed with 'addition' of it, so we implemented. You're trying to pretend that other stuff wasn't added after a discussion? Why you're not complaining about stuff that 'are' not staff evaluations and 'were' added without a vote. Seriously, everywhere you go, you guys bring up that crap.''' 1. Really? How did you not understand it? It wasn't that complicated! And also, I never thought that I would see a bureaucrat write "I hate long-a*s threads about a boring subject", as a bureaucrat, aren't you supposed to be able to understand long threads about a "boring subject" if the subject is important, and not "hate" them? Also, what you are saying about voting with only a partial understanding of the subject of the vote? Isn't that partial blind voting?

2. I love how you make it sound like people who bring up the fact that it was implemeted without a vote are moronic insects. And also, the fact that a lot of other people agreed with it doesn't meant that it should be added without some kind of democratic vote! With that logic, you could take any controversial subject of a vote and implement or remove/not implement it just because "a lot of other people agreed with" it. Also, bring up the subject of some discussion that was implemented without a vote (recently) and I will be surprised, and then probably protest that too.