Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-26942983-20160212210940/@comment-24024415-20160214024835

IG Gaming + Maramok= Awesome wrote: Legofan9o5 wrote: IG Gaming + Maramok= Awesome wrote: Legofan9o5 wrote: IG Gaming + Maramok= Awesome wrote: Legofan9o5 wrote: Ok, here's the problem with this entire thread: it's wrong.

"Peer pressure" and the effect higher powers and popular users exert are two different forces.

Note the term "pressure" in peer pressure, as it suggests one person is influenced against their will. Peer pressure forcing one person to smoke, for example. Persuasion on the otherhand, is when one user provides real backing to their argument and convinces other users to change their views, or at least take that side into account. Numerous arguements and threads could have been lead due to persuasion, not pressure.

Another problem is: removing all the influence in vote movement from any staff is impossible. They are respected people on the community, well known and would be much more trustworthy opinion than your own. Because they are specialists in the community's inner workings, they would generally understand the consequences much better than most normal and newer users. Their influence stems from trust and communal backing, it would be impossible to take that aspect away, as it's the main reason why they are sent into power!

'''Plus the fact that a user can dupe vote, look at the other responces and then make an official vote/change their vote. That breaks the template you ask for, unless you could not change vote. And that would be dumb, as people's opinion change. Why? Because we're humans! Change in our minds (especially with the web) can occur very easily.'''

tldr; It's not even "peer pressure"! ARGUMENT DED. Template can be duped! DOUBLE DED.

Also:'' "Now, look into your heart..." ''

'''Look into my heart!? That's... hilarious. XD ''' I'm not taking all their power away...

read the idea from Ihiddennamel.

And that's not the main reason they came to power. Why was that weighted rule thing removed? Democracy is better, and you should know it.

You aren't allowed to do that.

Why? No, the problem is that they are naturally influencial due to their powers. They show that they are trustworthy and their opinion is more likely to be for the better of the wiki than most. Staff promoting threads would focus on these qualities, meaning that they would be promoting peolpe would always be the most influencial. This notion generates the influence this thread wants removed.

Ididdennamel's idea is flawed. What determines the highlighting of votes? And wouldn't that be in direct contradition to the point of the template!?

Democracy. Tell me, what does a democracy mean without sides and movements? In a presidential democracy, presidents would create movements in order for people to support their cause and put their changes into effect.

I'm not able to change my opinion? That's a very solid, 100% correct statement upon all the human conditins of everyone in the history of ever! /sarcasm. We are PEOPLE. I already explained how we have the possibility to change our minds, so why not? The argument "nu-uh" is a very weak one.

Because it's rediculous! It's one step from "Believe in your dreams" levels of cornyness! 1. ...majority votes one way, and because of that (and not because any reason), votes will "go with the flow!"

2. It's determined by either the most kudos, or the highest rank. It's not a contradiction because there is one support and one oppose.

3. Those are real, but in the ideal world they don't exist!

4. Now tell me, after you vote for a president, can you take it back???...

5. That has nothing to do with the topic. 1. Ok, fine. That I can understand, people who just vote blindly because everyone else is doing it. But:

A) The template obstructs everyone and not just those who go with the flow.

B) Vote changes already have reasons for their change in stance. Most would explain why, but if not, then the next point comes into play.

C) We are already moving toward seriousness in voting threads, questioning reasons and eliminating blind/illegitiamte votes. The template would then only be there to obstruct those who vote early, and even moreso to those who just want to view the discussion.

2. I've already listed numerous ways how that could fail in a previous post here.

3. But we aren't in an ideal world! We are in a flawed world where not everything is perfect or correct. And how would that not work in an ideal world?

4. Think of it like this: everyone is only thinking of their vote. Once the votes are tallied are when they are fully submitted. Until the submission date, people can change their vote, as it hasn't been officially registered yet!

For example: I could vote for candidate A, but decide to change my vote to candidate B before the voting is collected and the winning side is determined.

5. I was just answering your question. .-. 1.

A) It does not!

B) False! Lots of vote changes are just like "oh, nevermind, I underestimated this!"

C) This would majorly help that movement!

2. How about the vote with the most reasons!

3. Yes, but we can try to approach that ideal world! And you're saying peer pressure isn't bad? Sheesh!

4. They are official when they are posted.

5. That alright, but remember you started it! 1. A) YES IT DOES. "Hey, I wonder what this thread is about. Huh, these examples are worthless! I want to vote, but I can't have context from experienced users!" It would obstruce every person at least once! And for every vote thread, that causes alot of teduim.

B) How would you know that your statement is the exact reason for the stance change?

C) The problem is that it's redundent as heck. Once we are more strict, this would become unneeded and overall crippling to the users who have to put up with it.

2. "Most reasons?" Look: the problem with the suggestion as a whole is that one cannot quantify the validity of a post without taking a butt-load of time and effort for every individual vote. Inefficincy is certainly not a good byproduct for any payoff.

3. Am I now? I'm suggesting that in can be good sometimes. Of course it's bad at times, but saying it's always wrong to do this is just a massive blanket statement that falls on itself.

4. "Hey man, I'm thinking option A."

"Naw man, option B is better because x, y and x!"

"Oh, well that would be better than my option!"

This constructive back-and-forward is killed by this template. Absolutely slaughtered. This is what shapes most of my final stances in votes, as people have reasons different of my own, and I should listen to them in order to understand the issue at hand. You are suggesting crippling this greaat part of the wiki, what makes votes so engaging and beneficial to growth of one's character!

5. May I say this, unrelated to the unrelated topic: you cannot let things go. Just an estimation on your thinking process and character, as you consistantly damper and shout-down opposition whilst providing excuse after excuse for every critique to your idea. On the opposite end, you blindly support anyone else who support you idea, as proven by interaction with IhiddennameI. Even after my large explination, you still make excuses for it.

It will never work, as it takes too many resources to execute and would take too long to keep up. It cripples everyone, filling a very short-lasting niche that will only end in wasted template resources and a very bitter aftershock. Is that what we ant for the wiki? Inefficency and wastes? I do not know about you, but NO. NO AND NO.