On 2/1/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
For a start admins shouldn't be afraid to follow concensus rather than
the
voting majority. If, for example, someone bolds delete, but indicates they're happy with a merge, there should be no reason that comment can't be used to support a merge decision.
In fact I see this happen quite often. People are ambiguous about what they want, yet they seem to only bold one of the two extremes: keep or
delete.
As if any sort of middle way can't be discussed.
Mgm
I'd recommend ignoring any word in bold. Read and consider what commenters actually say, rather than what they think they're voting. If the commenter has done a good job of making their case, the bold word out front is extraneous. If they're ambiguous, the bold word is harmful and misleading.
-- Jonel
It wouldn't hurt to not count votes without any type of argument. At least if someone sys 'per nom', you know you can discount them if the nominator turns out to be wrong in their nomination. Let's make "Votes without a rationale will be discounted by the closing administrator." a standard rule on xFD. \ Mgm