Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.
Forums: Index War Room Abstain/Neutral votes
Forum logo

Just a general observation. We've recently passed a motion to not count Neutral votes for consensus. However, some users are still using Neutral or Abstain votes. While they haven't been banned, I want to point out that making an Abstain vote (or similar Neutral vote) achieves absolutely nothing. I'm talking about votes who state, simply, "I don't care" or "I don't want to be involved". The very definition of abstaining is not being involved. By posting, you are becoming involved, thus defeating the purpose of what you are saying. Unlike committees and organisations, not every editor is obliged to vote and thus there is no need to abstain from any voting process. If I see a motion that I'm not interested in or don't care about, I don't post in it.

In short, please stop Abstain voting or using Neutral votes to say "I don't care". I'm personally in favour of abolishing Neutral votes in general, but I'd like to push for pointless votes to be deleted entirely to clean up voting pages. --Scottie theNerd 08:24, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Very well stated Scottie and I'd have to agree wholeheartedly, there is absolutely no reason to post an abstain or neutral vote. Either you support or oppose the discussion. Period. Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 08:31, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
Or you can comment. --Scottie theNerd 10:35, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — I realised a while ago - "abstaining" means "staying out of/away from something", right? So basically, with Abstain votes, you're voting to say you're not voting. What's up with that?

On another note, I always thought Neutral meant a user was undecided on the matter, not necessarily that the user "doesn't care". Sgt. S.S. 15:34, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Scratch all that, I just read Scottie's explanations. So, my opinions are:

  • Keep Neutral votes, as they are meant to be used by user who are undecided on something. We should make sure they are being used properly, though.
  • Get rid of Abstain votes, as they are completely worthless - there iis no point in voting to say you're not voting. Sgt. S.S. 15:38, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather just get rid of them personally. I find that if you have nothing to say on the matter, don't say anything at all.Personal AdvancedRookie Sig2 15:39, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

I like neutral votes because they at least illustrate a user's opinion and their ability to possibly change it. Abstaining can also be used to illustrate the same thing except with the added thing saying it's impossible they'll ever change their opinion. Both should be kept, but users should never use them just to use them, but to post actual reasons/comments. Black Ops Official logoPoketape Talk 00:47, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

I like neutral votes that actually illustrate points (for example, someone who identifies pros and cons and is undecided). However, Abstain doesn't equate to being neutral and does not mean that an opinion cannot be changed. Abstaining means refusing to vote. You don't ever need to state that. It's like making an edit that says "I am going to edit", or in contrast, posting "I'm not going to post". No point is being raised, nothing is contributed to the vote or discussion. If anything, it feels like people use them to keep up a pretense of being involved with War Room votes. --Scottie theNerd 12:17, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
What about these undecided votes are changed to Pending votes? — -- mr_expert talk 16:21, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of using neutral/abstain votes because it doesn't really help anything. RC 05:55, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

I personally think that abstain votes should go and neutral votes should stay as long at the voter identifies pros and cons of the subject, and is literally undecided. — -- mr_expert talk 16:21, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

I can think of one reason to keep the Abstaining. Abstaining should be used only, when a member is stating that they are abstaining for an important vote, due to a conflict of interest issue. Other than that, Neutral will suffice. --Razgriez 16:28, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep Neutral votes but not Abstain votes. Neutral voters can be swayed over to one side and the neutral vote summarsies why they can't choose between the two.Personal AdvancedRookie Sig2 16:31, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'm "assuming" the neutral/abstain votes are meant to show "hey, I read the discussion" since war room participation does affect users in certain situations like becoming an Admin and what not. I think a clearer difference between the two needs to be decided (assuming they stay in place).

Abstain = I read the topic and choose not to vote.

Neutral = I read the topic and can't decide.

Personally, I think abstaining may need to be reserved for Admin voting since if you have a personal issue with the person, you could vote oppose out of spite whereas if the user abstains, they choose not to vote since their vote would've been out of spite and not on the user's qualifications. Carbonite 0 22:42, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to vote, don't vote. It's not hard to...well, not post that you're not going to vote. --Scottie theNerd 07:27, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
Personally the idea of an Abstain Vote and an Neutral Vote should not even be considered. I have never, ever seen an abstain vote or neutral vote in a election or decision making process in real life. These kinds of votes are pointless and absurd. If you like the proposal, you vote support. If you don't like the proposal you vote oppose. If you have no opinion, you don't vote, PERIOD. If you have other views on the matter you comment on it. Is that such a hard concept to grasp!? Voting neutral or abstain just confuses the whole process. Why must we make something so simple, so hard? GEEZ...... Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 07:41, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
Abstain votes are used when all members must vote (e.g. the United Nations), in which case abstains are relatively common. In an open voting process where members are not required to vote, stating an abstain is pointless because no one is actually keeping track of who is voting. A neutral vote, however, is equally pointless. A motion suggests something needs to be changed. Either you're in favour of that change or you're against that change. If you're neither, then you're abstaining and you don't need to say so. --Scottie theNerd 14:04, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you both but that still doesn't change the fact that if they're removed outright, it may come back to haunt people who would normally vote neutral/abstain in war room topics when they decide to run for a higher position/powers here. War room participation is brought up in just about every single RfA and that one time that user decided not to vote at all could be the difference between an unsuccessful and successful RfA. Carbonite 0 17:11, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
No. RFAs are never decided by that "one time" a user did not vote. An abstain vote is not a vote. Anyone can pop an edit in and claim to be "involved" in War Room threads for RFA brownie points. People who pretend to be involved are the ones who should not be admins, and counting irrelevant and ineffective contributions only degrades the actual responsibility of being an admin. You know who is best suited for being admins? People who actually effect change, not affect it. --Scottie theNerd 11:31, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support removing Abstain, Neutral on removing neutral votes ;) - When I saw abstain votes, I thought "Why are they wasting space saying they're not going to vote anyway?", so yeah... And I think neutral votes should not be banned, because those could give new views on the forum. I don't really know a lot of how everything works here, so I might also be wrong or something, which is why I'm voting... yeah.. neutral. Joeytje50talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA
18:42, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to vote.   Hax 217    talk-page   22:10, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
How important... I hope you get my point. Joeytje50talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA
00:10, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

I assume that the leaning neutral votes will be abolished as well? They're the same thing as a weak support/oppose anyways.   Hax 217    talk-page   22:18, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Voting to abolish Neutral and Abstain voting in the forums Edit

Per the above forum I move to abolish the Neutral/Abstain Voting in the War room Forums. people who are inclined to vote neutral/abstain can just put it in the Comments section of the voting section on said forum with out have to confuse the voting process. I think it proper and important to keep the voting process as simple and straight forward as possible.

Support Edit

Pictogram voting support Support — as nominator. Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 01:00, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — For Removing abstain, PierogiTalk 01:05, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Strong Support — for removing abstains. Sgt. S.S. 11:19, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Abstains can go. They're useless, really. All they do is show you don't want to vote, well then, just don't vote. I know I've used Abstain votes in the past and therefore this may be taken as hypocritical, but I've realised that they're actually pointless.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  22:15, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Abstain votes have no place in voting systems. When people simply vote "I don't want to comment" they contribute nothing. Per all.Personal AdvancedRookie Sig2 22:17, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Per all, neutrals have no point to them. If you abstain, there is no need to vote in the first place. If you are undecided, the comments section is equally an appropriate choice to state your views. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 22:25, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Per my comments above --Scottie theNerd 11:27, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Strong Support — Per all, a neutral vote = not voting at all. It just takes up space on the voting pages. --Thundergun 3rd Person BOAJ.BialkeTalk!Wunderwaffe DG-2 3rd Person WaW 04:39, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Edit

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — For neutrals. PierogiTalk 01:17, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — Things can't be that black or white when it comes to people's opinions, every user has the right to be able to voice their views. ZachHerring 04:28, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

But if a user is abstaining from the vote, they aren't expressing any views. Sgt. S.S. 11:18, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
Thats what the Comments section is for........ Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 07:59, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Comment Edit

Pictogram voting comment Comment — I still believe we should have one of them, to make sure that the person is known as Neutral/Abstained, so people dont try to win them over.Personal Drkdragonz66 Admincrown DrkDragonz66 Personal Drkdragonz66 Garintina  Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   01:19, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Votes that add nothing to the conversation should be deleted on sight. If a user posts "Pictogram voting neutral Neutral — Doesn't affect me", that should be grounds for deletion. It's not the vote that matters but the lack of any contribution to a discussion/motion. --Scottie theNerd 11:36, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — Abstain is plain useless, if you don't want to give an opinion, not everyone needs to know. On the other hand, neutral votes can show that someone has taken into account both sides of the argument and has decided that the reasoning on either side is equally weighted. Anyone saying "Neutral - doesn't affect me" is basically abstaining as well. — Real Not Pure (talk) 19:01, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the point I was making above. Sgt. S.S. 20:39, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Neutral/Abstain votes will no longer count in consensus. -- azuris_ 05:35, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.