Forum:Defining consensus

I have seen quite some thread closes for which the final outcome was mainly based on the amounts of votes. I have re-read your consensus policy, and I saw the words "Most issues are mediated by a neutral administrator, who will determine what the consensus is by considering points made by both sides of the argument.". Here, this does not seem to happen a lot, but only the "alternative" is used, in case considering the points would not create a consensus either way: "In the event that a consensus cannot be reached in a voting process, such as a request for adminship, a rough consensus of 70% of the votes should be used to determine the outcome.". As the policy says, this is only in case consensus cannot be reached considering the arguments, and if there were votes on the thread (this is the case anywhere, so you could reduce that sentence to "In the event that a consensus cannot be reached, a rough consensus ....". Anyway, this alternative is used quite often, even though arguments could be weighed easily, and a consensus could easily be obtained that way.

In my opinion, counting the votes everywhere is exactly what the second line of the policy says not to do: "This method of settlement is different from a "majority rules" system". Only looking at wether the supports are 70% or not is almost exactly a "majority rules" system. You are turning your consensus-based community into a democracy that way, even though COD:NOT clearly states you are not a democracy.

What I propose is that the consensus policy is clarified, so that it is clearer that the amount of votes should only be voted when consensus can't be reached by weighing arguments. 08:08, September 9, 2011 (UTC)