On 9/16/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I meant to respond to Ryan on this. As a AfD closer, I do expect all participants in the debate to spend a few minutes, or whatever it takes, reading the article, and then read the other comments in the debate, and
have a bit of a poke around the subject, possibly look at the article history. If they're not doing at least the first two of those, they're not making an informed comment. If I see them write a few words in the context of the debate, I'm happier that there has been an informed discussion.
I don't think it's your business to decide what is and isn't an "informed decision". The person casting the vote thought their decision was informed enough or they wouldn't be voting. If you think someone isn't well informed, you inform them. You don't just discard their votes without comment.
I cannot discard a stated good faith opinion, even if I am not sure it was well informed. But I would certainly be justified in giving it less weight than an opinion that clearly showed serious thought, in determining whether consensus had been reached.
And if an AfD result were to be challenged I would be inclined to present such sheep voting as evidence on behalf of the appellant's case for a review. An Afd closer has to climb right inside the debate, to wear it like a piece of clothing. We're not mere clerks tallying votes. The debate I closed last night--at the request of someone who found the task too daunting--was exemplary. I don't often see that level of engagement. Afd participants cannot just run down the list of debates ticking keep/delete according to their prejudices, and then expect their opinions to be given equal weight with those who consider the question seriously.