Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-7091122-20170207035621/@comment-7091122-20170210024702

Pinkgirl234 wrote: What's with the disqualifying streak? This is getting absurd. Are some users disqualifying votes that have absolutely good reasons just because they are desperately trying to get this supported?

Goodness gracious. This is why this debate needs to stop once and for all. It's getting annoying to bring this up over and over again. -_- Except there's not only valid counter-claims to state that their reasons are invalid, but you really have to be careful with a topic that got an entire rule unfairly plopped onto it to prevent voting on it for 6 months? I elaborated on counter-claims to the arguments listed in the original posts every time. That I already went over a topic that they opposed for and that it's no longer valid since there's a plan for it, that their voting reason is invalid as it lacks any sort of content, that the voting reason is invalid because it has no real basis in the actual argument before it, or that the voting reason is invalid because it's just flat-out false.

Honestly, if this was being fairly voted on, I'd be less inclined to oppose most of the votes here, but majority of the opposes either don't say much of anything, or blatantly disregard stuff mentioned within the original thread itself. It's a bit sad, honestly.

'And I know it seems a bit overkill to disqualify some votes, but after that? After the community unanimously put an unfair rule just because they were tired of blindly opposing a topic that one person'' kept making voting threads on? You get a little paranoid the voting's a little bit biased against it.'''

Really, it becomes difficult to even come up with a new idea for the topic without people blindly opposing it under the assumption that it's the same as the last dozen times this was voted on, which this isn't. After that many months, it becomes hard for people to see that even anything related to it isn't the same exact thing they've seen every month, for months on end.

I made a version that accounted for all the reasons people opposed in the past, and given how many people mentioned inconsistent genders/no genders when the original post mentions methods of dealing with them, it becomes kind of clear not too many people read the original thread, which is exactly what I feared would happen.

It's a fictional work, and we're a wiki for its official content, and we're not putting official content on it because... reasons? Because hydras and edit farming. I fail to see the links here.

Honestly, 90% of the disqualifies here contain traits that follow the reasoning of "this was addressed in the original post, is not a concern, and is thusly an invalid reason to oppose." You can explain away majority of them by saying they contained arguments because of plants without genders/plants with inconsistent ones, despite the fact they are mentioned in the original post along with methods of countering those issues.

If you were trying to make a voting thread for a topic that got hastily had an unfair rule placed upon it due to one person posting it every month with no variation, you'd probably be equally concerned that the voting isn't fair, no matter how long the timespan is.