Forum:CT:Trash compactor. Let's vote.

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Trash compactor. Let's vote.


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Esjs's compromise. - Lord Hydronium 09:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Better late than never. Vote for the one you prefer. -- Ozzel 00:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Votes

New system

  1. I like it just fine. --School of Thrawn 101 11:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Old system

  1. Ozzel 00:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. And just to remind everyone once again, if anything we should have voted before it was changed, not after.Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 11:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Chack Jadson 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Esjs's compromise

  1. jSarek 01:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Riffsyphon1024 02:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. I agree, along as we can have flexibility in writing the headers and common sense is involved. And I also would like to remind everyone that this was not something for anyone to go unilaterally changing. This issue deserved community input first. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per Ataru. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 16:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Good. -Fnlayson 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Esjs's compromise as long as this would be considered a valid "argument" with a nice little summary up front. Not everybody has huge "Arguments for keeping/changing/whatevering." So basically "common sense, per Ataru." Wildyoda 22:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Nothing about Esjs's compromise forbids consensus seeking over simple counting, or more sophisticated options than "keep as is" and "crush kill destroy", which I think was the point of Sikon's idea. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Crush kill destroy. Per Silly Dan. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per Silly Dan. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'd just like to state my agreement with those above who have indicated this change should NOT have been implemented unilaterally. Even if one thinks that voting is evil, discussion is not; had discussion happened first, this vote might not have been necessary. jSarek 18:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd like to register my agreement with jSarek, which is also why I think that "Compromise" seems to be the consensus so far. Nobody really argued that comments/arguments should be necessary. But voting simplifies things, and a vote with a requirement of reason to back it up seems to fulfill the requirement of "Consensus, not just a vote". I think we would have arrived at the same, equally-pleasing-to-all-parties-involved conclusion with less anger if this had been brought to the attention of the community instead of being simply Imperiously implemented. Wildyoda 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.