Require people to state a reason to vote

↩  zeseryu It's really just changing how votes work, not removing them.

↩  Akefu-Brewer

"There is no voting,"

↩  zeseryu I may have worded that wrongly.

↩  Akefu-Brewer

yes. I think so.

I just want to clarify I do think you should give reasoning. However, this should not be enforced.
Simply give a disclaimer on applications that if you don't give reasoning, your vote may be ignored so if you care enough, explain yourself. The respective executive has authority to make the final decision.

This is pretty much how it works now. Or should. Thats how it worked when Infamas, zaid, nero, and me were EAO

Quote

↩  zeseryu The EAO has always held the right to accept/deny applications for whatever reason

The point is this hasn't been the case for some time and it's purely been based on an acceptance / vouch percentage.

↩ @'Ryan'

Then i'm uninformed. I apolgize. Thats just always how the server has worked and I assumed it would just continue because of the way you run the server.

I have to ask, whats the point of executives if its purely been based on an acceptance / vouch percentage? Are they not trusted to have the final authority? who took it away?

Does the EAO actually not have any say on who joins their admin team?

↩  zeseryu Historically no they've not really... There has been an acceptance percentage and when met the app is approved if not its not...

To me that's the entire problem. The eao hasn't been empowered to actually form a judgment, which as you say defeated the point of having one. It's why I've tried to push in the direction of requiring people to explain an opinion (see one of the first replies here where it happens now for hub mod apps) but that same approach was never rolled out further.

Ban appeals I think Steven makes a judgment himself rather than it being a firm percentage, but I think it's based off the majority vote rather than reasoning.

Object, if he suggest other people to raid the server which would be a nuisance in TotalFreedom, he was surely entertaining the idea of TF getting attacked, would ya’ll realy want someone like that in your community?

↩  Rhymix with all due respect are you aware of what's going on? Him mentioning a raid 2 months ago shouldnt have anything to do with this.

im too split on this issue to go one way or the other, but here are my problems with both sides

If we base decisions on the quality of votes and leave the decision up to EAO, then the community doesn't really get a say in the vote, it's the EAO's decision. There are going to be objects and vouches on every single application that have solid reasoning, and the EAO can claim one to be "stronger" based on personal opinion. I'm not saying it's going to happen, however, it does leave the possibility open.

However, if we base decision on the quantity of votes, then that means that people who have no idea what they're talking about get to make a decision. If someone says America is a democracy I'm going to shit myself, because it's not, we have an electoral college which makes it a republic. The reason is the same as it is here, some votes are completely misinformed. The republic system keeps democracy while filtering out bad votes. However, a republic is susceptible to the previous problem of higher-up total control. Second example, let's take a person who everyone hates (Lyicx, of course) and say he's just submitted an application. Since everyone hates him, we are going to object, even though our arguments have no quality and he might be a great admin (or any other position).

I can't make a decision between the two, but I think y'all should read through the major objections to both systems and seriously consider them.

↩ @'billy7oblos' If your gonna call it inviting, at least read "2 months ago", My intentions to raid are nonexistent.

I can ensure you I have no intentions of harm against TotalFreedom, and Bil;ly7Obos and Rhymix are just butthurt children, anyways, back on topic!

↩ @'billy7oblos' With no reasoning behiind them.

For the amount of text in this thread, most of it seems to boil down to a fairly simple point, namely that we either do or do not trust the person making the final decision to weigh the arguments properly. I say "properly" rather than "objectively" because weighing arguments is by definition not objective, it may just feel that way when you reach the same conclusion yourself.

Akefu.

Trying to "solve bias" will always end in one thing happening: Rigged votes. For example, it may be abused which could lead to Person 1 losing the vote because people voting for him have "bias" while Person 2 won because the person "stopping the bias" liking Person 2. Trying to make biased votes not count in a democracy will always lead to bad things at some point. Object.

↩  SuperRyn Another thing. You are from Esotalk. You have raided the forum multiple times and called for other people to raid. You tried to frame me at one point and say that I was griefing because I didn't want you to mess with my noteblock stage. When I untuned those noteblocks you almost made me get banned because of it.

Since raiding and framing are rulebreaks, I think we shouldn't be listening to you on how the voting system should work.

No. Just… no.

Vouch, this system gives us and those votes a better understanding of who the applicant is and why we should either vouch or object for them.

Voting should have some weight to it, it's not something to be thrown around needlessly hence why I have this system setup on the discord ban appeals.