I've been following this thread & there's, um, something about this
proposal that I don't understand, but I'm sure someone will explain it to
a literal-minded person like me.
Let's say the rule is put to a vote, & it passes, but afterwards we
discover that people voted for it sarcastically (e.g., "Yes -- this is
obviously the most brilliant idea ever proposed on Wikipedia"), shouldn't
their votes have been counted as noes? I mean, we could have countless
hours of fun debating whether or not this thing actually passed or
failed, & whether one person casting a sarcastic ballot invalidates the
entire vote? Or even better, if casting a "no" vote was actually a
sarcastic "yes" vote. I can't think of an, um, example of what a
sarcastic "No" vote would look like, but there are a lot of bright people
on Wikipedia, so literal-minded people -- who have ideas like this --
would suspect that some of those smart people who voted "No" were being
sarcastic.
Am I the only one who envisions the possibility that most of the people
who voted for this rule could be banned for various lengths of time for
sarcasm? And what would then prevent all of the people who voted no -- &
who were, um, careful not to be sarcastic during this period -- from
holding another vote & repealing this rule?
I guess no one wants to raise this question because it might appear to be
trolling. I hope not, because it raises some issues that I feel are just
as important as many of the arguments in favor of this prohibition. But
if someone figures out a really good answer for how a literal-minded
person can tell when someone else is being sarcastic, could they email it
to me? I'd like to participate more in this discussion, but I must get
back to working on articles.
Geoff