Forum:Voting Method Changes

This is a personal issue I have, that has become quite apparent in this wiki's voting process in the past few months. The problem is: there is no process! People make a forum, and if most of the comments agree, that qualifies as consensus. I'm sorry and I don't mean to be insulting, but to be absolutely blunt that is a joke. That's a straw vote, not a clear User consensus. Is a bill passed in a single day? Does a court case go from beginning to end within a day? No. Both of these processes take months, maybe even years. Why? Because it takes time for all sides to be heard. It gives ample time for people to prepare and explain their sides and viewpoints.

Each and every discussion for changes to the wiki doesn't need to take months. But as with the aforementioned examples, they should take time, allowing a proper consensus with many people to get involved and state agreements, disagreements, or voice alternatives/suggestions. This is an issue I've had with most of the voting carried out on the wiki, but it is ESPECIALLY prominent with two very personal issues for me, namely the Fanon Forums and Main Page discussions.

I have to be quite frank: Sonic Fanon Wiki, with its wide variety of issues with quality control, trolls and vandals, and varying levels of User maturity and capability, still has a better method of carrying out consensus and site discussions. Yet SFW's previous method of consensus was "the admins decide everything" until it took up the User voting process initially inspired by SNN. You may or may not agree, but when you fall behind someone you inspired, that's just plain sad. I personally think that needs to change. So, I'm going to suggest a clear, definitive, and regulated method of carrying out a quality community voting process.


 * ) Each site discussion is given ten days. If the community consensus is unanimous, with no disagreeing votes, a 3/5 admin vote in favor from the current roster of active admins will bring the community discussion to a premature end. This gives many people ample time to find, read about, and get involved in the discussion, but if the consensus is clear without the potential for disagreeing votes, the discussion can be brought to closure quickly.
 * ) For a unanimous consensus, there must be votes from at least ten Users, who have joined and been active on the wiki for a month prior. Votes from users who have been active for less than a month do not count to unanimous consensus, but can be counted for total consensus. This prevents just a small number of Users qualifying for a consensus. It may seem like a lot, but from looking at site discussions the numbers have ranged from nine to fourteen; we most certainly have enough Users to qualify for this number.
 * ) All active admins are notified of new community discussions when they are made. This means the admins, experienced Users who know what they're doing, what the discussion involves, and what the effects may be, can quickly get involved from the get-go and share their opinions and votes, as an admin should. It also allows admins who can't be on all the time to be kept up-to-date on what's going on with the wiki. Maybe this could be programmed into the wiki or done via template or messaging, like what Wikia does for wiki-wide notifications. I personally know someone who could likely make it possible.
 * ) Any and all active Site discussions are listed on the community corner. In my time on wikis, not everyone bothers to check the Main Page, and some just go directly to the Recent Changes or Community Corner (or whatever Oasis uses for recent changes). So advertizing discussions that could potentially change the entire wiki should most certainly be a priority.
 * ) Like admin nominations, consensus must be clear and cannot be split near-evenly; there must be notable majority in favor for the subject matter of the site discussion to pass.
 * ) After ten days have passed, votes will be counted in terms of in favor, against, and neutral, with the results of each compared to the total. If consensus has been reached, the discussion will be closed and proceed based on the voting results.

I truly feel that these would help make sure discussions are regulated and efficient, with clear consensus that can be agreed upon by all parties, even those who may disagree with the specific site discussions themselves. We can't just continue to allow a small group of people make site-changing decisions within a small time period; we need both quantity and quality in terms of such important site discussions. However, some discussions and changes are quite clear-cut, hence why I made the addition for the case of unanimous votes, making it quick and easy.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 01:00, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

There may be a couple of issues regarding which users place votes and which are forced to remain quiet and observe any future discussions in silence. Suppose site discussions are limited to Administrators -experienced people, as you refer to them- only, because a few times I've only seen regular users adding agreements to certain parties. Naturally, however, I do see a problem with that type of proposal, as Administration is either too employed or too scarce, depending on who is active and who isn't. This for the most part is the only issue, as while some regular users tend to state their opinions in more detail, I don't see enough of said detail at times (I don't mean to be offensive to anyone. Many times, I myself have kept my opinions in two simple words).More

A 10-day limit is reasonable, considering a few of our minor discussion pertaining to add-ons and whatnot could potentially take less than two days, depending on the user-casted votes. Sometimes, the decision can be as simple as that: No objections, and we're off. Unless an objection does appear, than the discussion limit should assist in said objector expressing his thoughts, which may cause different parts of consensus to agree, or remain on a single vote. But, as you've stated consensus isn't always as clear as the RFA page: Suppose, the vote reaches a stalemate: What say, 4 out of 6 chosen users agree, while the remaining disagree. This isn't clear enough to pass on a vote, and there may be heavy debates over both sides of the arguments. Should this occur, then I support having the time limit stretched out a bit to reach a vote. 01:15, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I am not suggesting an admin-only vote, I am merely suggesting admins have notifications sent out to notify them. Admins are responsible for maintaining the site, and in order to do their job they must be kept up to date.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 01:18, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Here at the Sonic News Network, we go by consensus. This means general agreement. We shouldn't need to restrict site discussions, because they are quite simply, discussions. These are not requests. These discussions are used to propose new changes to the wiki, not to request something. This isn't the Requests for Adminship page, but rather, a forum discussion that discusses possible changes. We shouldn't need to restrict it to 10 days, because most of them have a tendency to need to go on longer.

Site discussions are as the name says, site discussions, you shouldn't need to be on the wiki for a month and be active to vote, and 3/5 admin consensus isn't needed either. New users can still bring up good points, and new users are some of our best source of information and editors, and shouldn't be restricted from site discussions. We shouldn't even restrict voters to five, because some forums apply to some users, and some forums, users don't know too much about and stay out of. Even our current roster of admins stay out of forums at times, which is completely acceptable.

The third bullet your pointed out is completely biased and should immediately be crossed out. Admins don't need to be notified, they can find these things on their own. Admin opinions don't weigh that much compared to other users. In fact, the title of "admin" makes no effect at all. Some of our rollbacks and chat moderators, and even regular users know more than some of our admins, and some are more experienced, they just aren't admins. The title of admin means a user gets a few extra tools to help the wiki out. Nothing more, nothing less. You, as an administrator should know that.

Site discussions are already listed on the community corner, so the fourth bullet point is irrelevant. They are listed on the Main Page, for that matter.

Again, admin nominations aren't at all like site discussions aside from the fact that both require consensus. However, this is already in place, as consensus is basically a "notable majority", and that's how we have been doing things. Votes do not need to be counted to see consensus.

Basically, most of your bullet points are already in place, or are ridiculous and shouldn't be rules. Specifically, your first three are the ridiculous ones, your last three are already being done. (Aside from the 10 days part and the counting votes in the last bullet). We do not need to wait 10 days, Kagi, some can be passed shorter, some longer. It varies, as these are discussions. You making this forum see,s completely biased, IMO, and it shows per your recent comments at Forum:A Few Main Page Changes. Admin votes don't take priority, the votes of experienced editors weigh more, but don't take priority. Administrator doesn't make a difference in the long haul, as admins are users trusted to have a few extra tools for the benefit of the wiki.

I entirely oppose, there hasn't even been an issue with the current system. We leave site discussions up for a reasonable amount of days. We usually leave them up until users lack interest and begin to not say anything for awhile, or if the forum has a reasonable amount of votes to be closed. We don't need a system like this to make our system work. Putting rules on this will just make people not want to comment, if anything. If we say admin votes are required, and we have to message them about site discussions, people won't want to vote, as they feel they won't have a say. We have not had a problem with the system we've been using for almost a year now. -- 01:19, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Bullet, this isn't biased. It's an issue I've had with recent voting for quite some time, but had not yet gotten around to making a discussion for. The Main Page changes forum was simply the breaking point, which pushed me to finally put my ideas and suggestions forth.

Also, "wall of text" Bullet. Try and split it into paragraphs.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 01:22, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Per Kyle.--The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 01:23, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I said seems biased. I still disagree with this whole proposal regardless. I can type out a response to the introduction paragraph too, if you like. -- 01:25, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the current system. I oppose.  Myself  123  01:32, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who "Kyle" is. Also, reading through your comment fully Bullet, you are completely missing and/or misreading many of my suggestions.


 * 1) NO-ONE is restricted from voting, at all. Everyone and anyone (aside from anons, I figure) is capable of voting, and all of their votes are counted. No-one is restricted. Everyone is allowed to be part of the discussion, and anyone can be involved.
 * 2) The discussions I've seen on the wiki so far have seen less than a week before being decided on. I was going to suggest two weeks, but I thought that was too long. And if the discussion needs to be continued, it will be.
 * 3) Admins are responsible for the wiki, and as such have a responsibility to be involved in these discussions with their experience.
 * 4) 3/5 Means three-fifths. That means a requirement of 60% Again, I was considering making it higher, but tried to make it reasonable. And the three-fifths vote is only required to close site discussions that have a so far unanimous vote, rather than just leave it there with no point. Admins cannot close site discussions unless there is indeed a clear consensus.

--Kagi mizu -Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 01:34, July 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Kyle is Bullet Francisco, and I oppose this, because I'm agreeing with Kyle. --<span style="; -webkit-border-radius-topleft:12px; -webkit-border-radius-bottomright:12px; -o-border-radius-topleft:12px; -o-border-radius-bottomright:12px; -khtml-border-radius-topleft:12px; -khtml-border-radius-bottomright:12px; border:4px ridge blue; background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(top, orange, red); background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(top, orange, red); background-image:-o-linear-gradient(top, orange, red); background-image:-khtml-linear-gradient(top, orange, red); background-image:linear-gradient(top, orange, red); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em #000000; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em #000000; -o-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em #000000; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em #000000; background-color:#000000"> Metal ' Mickey ' 272  01:37, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

We have not had a problem with the system, and I understood it all. I was already typing up a storm at that point, so I didn't need to go into full-length detail.

1. I realize that, but you are saying admin votes weigh much more basically. There are experienced users here who aren't admins and admins shouldn't have their votes have more say just because they are an "admin". Experienced users should have priority.

2. And no, some of our discussions have gone on for a month. There is hardly a difference between a week and ten days.

3. They are not "responsible" for it. This is a community that takes care of the wiki. Admins are users with extra tools because they are trusted with them, and use these tools responsibly to the benefit of the wiki. If they were "responsible" for it, they wouldn't leave.

4. Admin votes shouldn't mean more, experienced users should. This includes admins.

-- 01:42, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you have a "responsibility" for this wiki, why don't you take the time to look at site discussions? Why do you need to be told? -- 01:43, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose. Our system is fine as is and works great. Also, per Kyle. (Bullet) Time Biter  "The Rift"  01:47, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Kagi, this system has been working for us as long as I remember. Almost everyone still sees the discussions without being told about it directally. Admins don't need to be messaged everytime there's a new discussion because when one goes up, the discussion starts going like wildfire and most people in the main community on within the time it is not decided see it because of the wildfire spread. I oppose this change. --The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 01:49, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Kagi, I got everything you said originally, and so did the other users. I still oppose. -- 01:53, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Then why did you say I'm putting more weight in admin votes, when I'm not? Hm?--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 01:54, July 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * You still are. A majority admin vote shouldn't be needed for anything. Also, don't use that kind of attitude on me please. You clearly said things that show you are trying to put more weight on admin votes. -- 01:57, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I get what you're saying Kagi, but I still oppose. The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 02:01, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Bullet, the only, single thing an admin vote would be needed for is to close a discussion that is already unanimous, and as such does not need to be prolonged or continued further. Beyond that, admin votes carry as much weight as any other User, and only as much weight. No more, no less.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 02:03, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

...Then why would we have to notify admins, and why do we have to get a 3/5 votes if there is unanimous consensus? We've never had an issue with our current system, and we don't need to make it more complicated then it needs to be. -- 02:05, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

The admins would be notified when the forum is first made. You know how Wikia gives us notifications for upcoming changes? That's what the notifications would be for. I actually know someone who could implement such a feature, so it really wouldn't be a big deal. It allows admins to be aware of what's going on, and be involved in the discussions and voting from the beginning. And the 3/5 vote would be to see if admins agree that the forum needs to be closed prematurely, or if it needs to be left open for the potential of additional votes or changes in previous votes.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 02:09, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I still think you're putting more weight on admin votes. We don't need such a feature because one could just bookmark the main page and look at the new site discussions. It'd be too much work to update the message each time, when admins can look at the community corner, or the main page. And in your case, there is a link to the site discussions forums on the sidebar. We don't need such a feature, and if admins want to participate, they can look themselves. -- 02:12, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

The message would be automatic, no manual update needed. And the admin votes would not be for the forum itself, but whether or not it needs to stay open.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 02:15, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Why would we need to do that? We've never had a problem with how long forums stay open in the past. I still think you're giving unnecessary power to administrators, and making this process more complicated then it needs to be. We've never had an issue thus far. Our simple system works fine, and the changes you are proposing are unnecessary and ridiculous. -- 02:17, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Our simple system allows six people who agree on something to decide changes that could affect the entire wiki. That should not work.

The votes would be needed if and only if a forum with unanimous votes pertaining to the subject are unanimous. The thought process is "the votes are unanimous. Do we close the forum, or do we leave it open to see if more people want to vote?".--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 02:21, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I realize that. I still oppose for the same reasons. You are making this unnecessarily complicated for something we've never had an issue with. -- 02:23, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

We can't let just a small number of Users make decisions that effect the wiki and/or community as a whole. At the very least we need a minimum number of votes, so people know if they want something to pass/not pass, they need to say so.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 02:26, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

We never have. Every single time we've had a "small" number of users, it had been months and was put to a close. We've never had a problem with this Kagi. If you feel forum discussions have been closed to early, mention it to someone. We've never had a problem, and no one in this community but you has had a problem. You are going overboard with this. -- 02:29, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
Okay, clarifying each and every one of my suggestions.


 * 1) A majority admin vote is required if and ONLY if the general vote consensus (Users period, not just admins) is unanimous. In such a case, the admin majority allows the Site Discussion to be closed early, rather than waiting the full ten days.


 * 2) "Unanimous consensus" would be defined as "at least ten Users who have been on the wiki and active for a month prior, who all vote in agreement to the proposal". ALL User votes are counted when there is not a unanimous vote, but a simple consensus.


 * 3) Admins are meant to be responsible for the site. Admins are voted in because they are responsible and knowledgeable. There votes are not the only ones that count, but admins have a responsibility to the site and to be involved. Such notifications make sure admins are aware of new site discussions. Whether or not they vote or comment is up to them, but they should still be made aware.


 * 4) Is all site discussions are listed on the Community Corner, alright then. Don't use Oasis, so I wouldn't know.


 * 5) If there isn't a clear vote in favor for something, then it shouldn't be passed. We don't promote Users when there's only a slight majority that agree with the promotion. We most certainly should not make site-wide changes that only a slight majority agree with.


 * 6) This is meant to prevent Site discussions from varying so widely. If the suggestion passes, great. If it doesn't, oh well. If there is not a clear consensus, then the voting can either continue, or the discussion can be closed. Discussions shouldn't take a single day, but they also shouldn't take several months. There are my previous examples: If a Bill isn't agreed upon, it's sent back to the drawing board. If a Jury can't agree, a mistrial is called. If people can't clearly agree on something, then obviously it either needs to be revised, or needs to be dropped.

--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 01:51, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I perhaps suggest an addition to your proposal, something that has been bugging me as well? When things are proposed, there are no clear "For" or "Against" sections.  I see a column of comments and it is difficult to discern what any consensus is from that.  Hence why when I did suggest the NPA, I divided it up into sections.  I'm not saying that we should follow Wookieepedia's voting method, but sections for "Support" and "Oppose," sections that are clearly defined do help to organize the page and a better idea of a consensus can be discerned from it.  Same with having the votes numbered, but that's just personal preference.  Though, I feel that having clearly defined "Support" and "Oppose" sections would help considerably.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 02:26, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that is something I'm not opposed to. All other suggestions by Kagi (so far) I am still opposed to at this moment. -- 02:31, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what all the fuss is about. I understand the "If it ain't broke then don't fix it" idea, but I agree with Kagimizu. I don't completely agree with him, but I do think the current process needs a small amount of tweaking. I'm going to point out the bits which I like and which I would change by re-iterating Kagimizu's points, so be prepared for a massive CTRL+C and CTRL+V.


 * ) Each site discussion is given ten days. If the community consensus is unanimous, with no disagreeing votes, a 3/5 admin vote in favor from the current roster of active admins will bring the community discussion to a premature end. This gives many people ample time to find, read about, and get involved in the discussion, but if the consensus is clear without the potential for disagreeing votes, the discussion can be brought to closure quickly.
 * I agree with the 3/5 vote idea. However, I think it should be limited to our top admins, who have been with the community for a while (Ex. Supermorff). No offense, but not every admin is experienced enough to vote in such a crucial manner.


 * I'm neutral on the 10-day rule, but a vague timeframe should definitely be set so that nominations aren't left sitting for too long. On the gaming community I'm from, it's usually 2 weeks, which sounds more reasonable to me than 10 days.


 * ) For a unanimous consensus, there must be votes from at least ten Users, who have joined and been active on the wiki for a month prior. Votes from users who have been active for less than a month do not count to unanimous consensus, but can be counted for total consensus. This prevents just a small number of Users qualifying for a consensus. It may seem like a lot, but from looking at site discussions the numbers have ranged from nine to fourteen; we most certainly have enough Users to qualify for this number.
 * I disagree on the minimum of ten votes idea, and I disagree on the minimum activity requirement, however I'm not saying either are bad ideas.


 * I suggested something similar back when I had my Admin nomination up, where the votes from users that were known to cause trouble in the community or new users votes were weighted differently than that of users who have been on the site a long time. As for the minimum votes idea, I think 10 is a bit extreme. The current system does it fine, where if there's no votes it's left open. I don't see it working.


 * ) All active admins are notified of new community discussions when they are made. This means the admins, experienced Users who know what they're doing, what the discussion involves, and what the effects may be, can quickly get involved from the get-go and share their opinions and votes, as an admin should. It also allows admins who can't be on all the time to be kept up-to-date on what's going on with the wiki. Maybe this could be programmed into the wiki or done via template or messaging, like what Wikia does for wiki-wide notifications. I personally know someone who could likely make it possible.
 * I agree wholeheartedly. I think it might be my personal situation, but I love the idea of notifying admins about current nominations.


 * ) Any and all active Site discussions are listed on the community corner. In my time on wikis, not everyone bothers to check the Main Page, and some just go directly to the Recent Changes or Community Corner (or whatever Oasis uses for recent changes). So advertizing discussions that could potentially change the entire wiki should most certainly be a priority.
 * Yes. This is something that the Call of Duty Wikia does, and I like their system of listing open nominations in their weekly news blog. This needs to be done for Admin and Bureaucrat nominations, but for something like Chat Mod or Rollback, I don't think it's necessary.


 * ) Like admin nominations, consensus must be clear and cannot be split near-evenly; there must be notable majority in favor for the subject matter of the site discussion to pass.
 * Isn't this something that is already a rule? It should be if it isn't. I agree completely.


 * ) After ten days have passed, votes will be counted in terms of in favor, against, and neutral, with the results of each compared to the total. If consensus has been reached, the discussion will be closed and proceed based on the voting results.
 * Once again, I don't like the specific timeframe, but something similar should be done on a less strict schedule. This should only really have to be done in the case that there's varied votes on a person's nomination.

TL;DR: I agree with some things, but I don't with others. You have some good ideas in your post, but some are just unnecessary or need some tweaking. -- 02:38, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with most of the above. We don't need to make things more complicated. Our system has worked fine. Also, we don't have any "top admins". -- 02:42, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words... "There is no Cabal."  Trak Nar  Ramble on 02:48, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * You missed my point. I'm referring about the administrators who's judgement you can trust, the ones who've been active for a long time and who have countless hours of experience under their belt. I even listed an example of one. --AdmiralLevi.Signiture_B.gifAdmiralLevi._Salute_B.gif 02:51, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not missing your point. That's a terrible idea. It implies this wiki is run as a hierarchy, when things are decided by the community. This whole thing is a bad idea. -- 03:23, July 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you're arguing with me while Kagimizu is the one who made the first point. If you want to voice your opinions about this point, do so to Kagi, not me. All I'm doing is agreeing with him. --AdmiralLevi.Signiture_B.gifAdmiralLevi._Salute_B.gif 03:31, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing with you, I am voicing my opinion. We are not run as a hierarchy. -- 03:34, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I need to agree with Bullet on this, concerning the "top admins" hierarchy. To pull from the "There is no Cabal" section... A common complaint in online communities is that there are groups of users, usually longtime members of the community, who have all the power, make all the decisions, police the behavior of everyone else, and disclaim any responsibility for such actions &mdash; a cabal.  Granted, there are user ranks, and some users are trusted more than others, but to categorize them in their own group serves to create a cabal.  And to have a unified community, the last thing you want is a cabal.  Thus, all the admins are equal in my eyes.  All users are equal.  The only things that separate us are our rights; some can delete stuff, some can rollback things, others can't.  But, there is no cabal.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 03:35, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to suggest that we're a "hierarchy" if we have the admins make a formal vote on something. It works on the large majority of sites that use this system so there's nothing to be concerned about. It's not unusual for web staff to have the final say on something. --AdmiralLevi.Signiture_B.gifAdmiralLevi._Salute_B.gif 03:40, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not "the large majority of sites". First off, we are a wiki, so other sites don't apply. Second off, we are run by the community. The community has the final say on this wiki. Not the administrators. -- 03:46, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're so adamant about this. I've got my opinions and I reserve the right to voice them. You're not accomplishing anything by yelling me, I'm not going to change my vote. --AdmiralLevi.Signiture_B.gifAdmiralLevi._Salute_B.gif 03:51, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I never yelled at you, if I were yelling, I'd type in all caps and bold it like THIS. I was simply making a certain sentence more clear with that bolding. Also, I'm not saying you don't have your opinions and that you don't have the right to say them. I'm saying I disagree, and explaining why. Don't accuse me of that. I never even told you to change your vote. People disagree on site discussions and go back and forth all the time. I'm simply doing the same. -- 03:54, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Per Bullet. <ul class="wikia-menu-button" style="list-style: none; margin:0px"><li style="margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">[ Rhythm Thief] <ul style="list-style: none; border-radius:4px; border-top-right-radius: 1px; border-top-left-radius: 1px; margin:0px"><li>[ Want me to steal sumin?]</li><li></li></ul></li></ul> 02:45, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current system in my eyes. I oppose. Lloyd the Cat "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  04:29, July 23, 2012 (UTC)