UDWiki:Voting

There are so many things wrong with voting on this wiki at present that its ridiculous. Such stupid and sloppy voting just drags the standard of the whole wiki down, and thats a shame for those of us genuinely trying to improve things for everyone. The following are a selection of stupid ways in which people undermine the entire purpose of the democratic system, often without realising it.

Read before you vote

It is a seemingly obvious step, but you would be simply amazed at how many people forget to do this. People who skimread a suggestion rather than read it through often make glaring errors in their vote comments. This most often happens with people in a rush, or with the summoned minions of another user, trying to flood the voting in his/her favour using IRC or forums to rally infrequent or new users to his/her banner. Doesnt make it any less silly.

Understand what was Read before you vote

Many times people have been told to read before voting. It has happened often enough that it has become pretty much a rote response for almost everyone but the most basic and hasty of wiki newbies. Unfortunately, reading the bloody policy proposal or suggestion is only half the battle, and it is amazing just how many people cock up this seemingly obvious step of the entire process. Dont just read the proposal, but take a few minutes to evaluate the proposal on its merits, and how the various parts of it interact and mesh to create the greater whole. It is quite simply amazing how many people take shots at one small section of a policy without noticing that the author anticipated their objections and provided a section to deal with what they object too. The voters ignorance merely drags the whole thing down and fucks a perfectly good proposal up in the voting process.

Understand the reasons for rejection

This happens on the Suggestions page quite frequently. People read the Do's and Do nots, and hear fancy terms like Auto Kill and Auto Defense, and then apply them incorrectly to current suggestions without understanding the intent.

For a recent (At time of writing) example, many people have been saying that a 12 damage attack with a 25% overall hit rate and the requirement that the enemy be at or below 12 hp for it to work is an autokill suggestion. By that very same reasoning Rend Flesh is an autokill on anyone with 3 instead of 2 hp. In the sense intended by the No Autokill tradition, an Autokill would be something that, whenever used and hits, it would instantly kill a person regardless of their HP or defenses, costs only one or a handful of AP, and can be used repeated to clear an entire building/block of opponents for minimal effort.

Irrelevance

It is amazing how much irrelevant crap people use to justify their own votes on things such as deletions. Many people base their votes on not whats best for the community as a whole, but on what pisses off the most people, or a group of people. In essence, it causes nothing but drama. Its a pathetic way for small minded fools to get their rocks off and at the same time it shits all over a system that is intended to help keep the wiki working properly. Dont do it.

See the difference between Long and Short term

This is suprisingly important, but many people completely fail to see that there is a difference between the two. They get so wrapped up in breif drama that lasts a few days, maybe two weeks at most, and try to force through in that time some sort of policy to wrap up what happens to be a nonexistant problem, usually by running roughshod over the rights of other users. Try not to get caught up in the heat of the moment when voting, and maintain a clear and level head when doing so. Remember that all things pass, and soon enough things will all be back the way they were, just like a longer episode of The Simpsons, only not as funny.

Who cares who proposed it?

Not me. Who should care? No one. To put it as clearly as possible, no matter what you might think of a person, and no matter how bad/good that person has been in the past, and irrespective of that persons personal feelings towards you or yours towards them, the person making the proposal should not be a factor in deciding how to vote on something. The identity and behaviour of the person proposing something is completely irrelevant to the quality or validity of whatever is being proposed and/or the arguments they make. Who cares if you are fueding with them? Not me. Not anyone else. If the reason for your objection is a personal dislike of the person, or actions of the person, who proposed the item up for voting, then you arent actually voting on the item at all. You are just fucking up the wiki for the rest of us who do give a rats arse about improving something.

This applies to abstaining from voting because of the person too.

Think for yourself

So what if a person has called you in to vote for/against a policy or suggestion? Read it through and Make up your own damned mind rather than just being a puppet of whoever summoned you. Billions of years of evolution have resulted in creatures like you and I who are capable of evaluating the pro's and cons of a proposal, as well as the opinions of previous voters, and the ability to decide based on that if we like it or not. Unless you use your head and think about it, all you are doing is undermining the democratic process by giving another guy who may or may not have your best interests at heart your vote.