Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Policy Review' started by Firestorm, Oct 24, 2010.
Fixed the above
So are we planning on rounding up or are we going to ignore what >65% of our users want? Even the UT poll rounds up to 66% and it has like 6 times as many votes. It's still not to late to change this obviously flawed method of deciding these things.
I agree with jrrrrrrr here. It seems ridiculous to ignore the wishes of more than 65% of PR voters and a supermajority of Stark posters simply for a .3% discrepancy.
No, what would be ridiculous would be to change our already defined and agreed upon rules because some people didn't like the outcome.
You're right about some people not liking the outcome, I'm pretty upset that 34% of users get to dictate pokemon policy. Especially when it involves users who don't play allowing anti-competitive moves like Minimize back into the game they dont play. Just look at the list of people who voted no, every other one has no BW experience. It's not too late to change this flawed and biased method of decision making, which is why we're bringing it up now.
Can a mod PM me please? I tried to vote on this but it wasn't letting me, probably because of the fact that I was in the ICBB user group? (I'm not anymore). Don't know who is controlling this thing.
I counted 3 times and had someone check me; there are 93 people who voted for evasion clause, not 92 (so either I'm terrible at counting, or Evasion Clause has "supermajority").
As mentioned by Hip in his first post in the topic, some people misclicked and they are on record in the topic saying so. It changes the number when an admin or supermod fixes it, but not the name.
There are currently 93 people voting "yes". jumpluff and JabbaTheGriffin had their votes changed from "yes" to "no". Lady Bug had his vote changed from "no" to "yes". The 92 vote figure shown in the poll reflects that state of affairs. However, JabbaTheGriffin later changed his mind again and deleted his post; the poll was not edited to reflect that.
EDIT: I have just edited the poll to reflect JabbaTheGriffin's reversal. In the future, MAKE A POST HERE IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND. DON'T JUST DELETE YOUR POST AND EXPECT AN ADMIN/SMOD TO NOTICE IT.
I would like to point out that a "No" vote is not to "ban a ban on Evasion clause" but to simply start without it and implement if necessary. If "no evasion clause ever" is what "No" actually means, I'll go ahead and change my vote just to stop this silly argument... (NOTE PLEASE DON'T CHANGE MY VOTE)
The reason we're "ignoring 65% of Smogon" as it has been put is because a ban vote is a lot harder to undo than a vote to try it.