Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-26409147-20151227095540/@comment-26409147-20151228082021

BlueSpeeder wrote: I suppose so. I mean, it can show some bias, but isn't that assuming bad faith? To believe someone not putting a reasoning for another's nomination indicating that they were forced or asked to vote for them? That sounds a lot like bad faith assumption to me. Point taken, but this being a safer step is more important than assuming bad faith. Simply making the RfA a more elaborated isn't actually assuming bad faith if you think about it, otherwise that would make the faith rule too strict. Users are still given the will to support/oppose, so 'assuming' doesn't really get in the way of it.

You can't assume anything out of a signature, good or bad, actually.