Forum:Refining consensus

It has come to the attention of many users since Redskin-26's successful RfA that the process of deciding if a vote is successful or unsuccessful is essentially left up to the bureaucrat making the decision. Users have complained that the bureaucrats taking these votes into account are completely disregarding votes that don't quite explain themselves, when in reality our policy on voting does not include a clause for that.

I see two possible solutions to this problem, and both include adding a clause to the voting policy:
 * 1) Establish that users definitely do not need to explain themselves when voting, and that their reasoning should be regarded as sound (unless it is something clearly out of place, like "I don't like him").
 * 2) Proclaim that users do need to explain themselves in order for their vote to count in any consensus.

Unless somebody else has a better idea to meet in the middle, I don't see a way around this. I'm not a particular proponent of purely number-based vote outcomes (and neither is our policy system, yet we can come close to it with option #1), but we definitely need to establish a new standard based on all your opinions. Please leave your detailed input so we may come to a complete conclusion. Shotrocket6 01:11, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Not every user can put what they think/feel down easily. Users don't need to put down a reason. If we vote, all votes should be counted (as long as the user meets voting requirments). If we don't do that, and B'crats just say their side won because the other side "doesn't have valid reasons," that creates a biased, top-heavy system. Conqueror of all Zombies
 * I was thinking along the lines of that, but that eliminates the ability to root out corrupted votes. Shotrocket6 01:20, March 18, 2012 (UTC)