Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-1764483-20170211004319

So... this is a thread. That exists. Yay.

Yeah, in case you're unaware of what I'm talking about, Camwood777 made a thread involving plant genders where he disqualified votes that he already addressed with the idea that people who used them were blind voters. I tried tried bringing up that people could still use those reasons even after reading the entire post, but Camwood never responded to me on that note. Evasion much? Eventually, he disqualified various counterarguments and the reasons for disqualification were not typical and accepted reasons - lack of permission, verbal attacks, lack of explanation, illegal template (I mean by wiki rules, not by law) - but rather responding to the counterarguments in a way that would theoretically be done outside of such templates. I want to ensure this never happens again. Why? It's simple: Camwood, regardless of whether or not this was his intention, used it to nullify votes he disagreed with, which if permitted and common practice, could very well stretch out to "your opinion is wrong, therefore your vote is invalid!" in a way that wouldn't be considered a slippery slope. When popular and famous figureheads pull similar stunts such as Ely Riffs (a.k.a. MSkull01, someone I know Camwood is familiar with) saying that opinions can be wrong in order to get away with harassing BeastlyEevee all because she said she didn't favor gay marriage despite her saying she wasn't against homosexuality, accepted counterarguments, and accepted its legalization, or TheMysteriousMrEnter blocking people for saying that trolls and cyberbullies are not the same thing (which any dictionary would agree with the critics on that front), only to receive a massive dip in public reception even ignoring the like-to-dislike ratio, you know there's a problem.

So... thoughts, anyone?  