Board Thread:Reporting station/@comment-26583782-20161219202554/@comment-24024415-20161223223915

YammaYamer21 wrote:

I get that it's a bit of an extreme example, but if we don't have someone that at least tries to show the negatives of a decision that we all(more or less) mindlessly bandwagon onto, then the only point of the voting thread is to say "Hey, we're going to do this and you're going to like it!" No, we need to know why we're going to like it and if there might be a part we don't like. Thus, we need something to prompt discussion, even if it's a troll comment. No. NOO.

Having a troll vote can easily have many damaging aspects, like misleading the point, having invalid points or proposing a side that ultimately is against the norm for the sake of opposition and nothing else, even against sound logic.

By this logic, a user can vote oppose to illustrate the bad points of the vote, but in turn negelcts the upsides that ultimately outweights the downsides. That's what nuetral and neutral-support are for! FFF's consistant voting oppose "to show the negatives" should be on a spectrum and not just oppose every single occurance. Perfection is something to strive for, and only voting support for perfect votes gets the wiki nowhere.