Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Neutral Votes - what does it mean?


Hi Folks,

In light of one of the recent rights request, a pressing subject since it started is what is a neutral vote supposed to mean?

Take for example a vote that has 6 yays, 5 nays, and 2 neutrals.

  • Should we be counting the neutrals as effectively "no support" or a vote for the "status quo"? In this case, the popular vote would fail.
  • Should we be counting the neutrals only for quorum, if at all? In this case, the vote would pass.
  • Should we just eliminate the confusion and simply eliminate it completely? You either support the change, or you don't. If you don't know, either say in the comments, or stay out of it

(NB- quorum is the minimum number of votes required for a poll to be counted, currently 10 votes for policy discussions).

Part of the problem seems to be there is no unified idea as to what a neutral vote means. Its used by some to express that they're split on the idea, and others to simply vote "present" with a note that they simply haven't been around enough to know if they should vote.

So, how should we solve this conundrum? Agent c (talk) 00:44, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

For a very long time now I have wanted to remove neutral votes as they're typically one of two types:

  1. I don't have enough faith to say yes but I don't have enough negative feelings to say no
  2. "I don't have enough info to vote"

In the case of the latter, then this should not appear in the "Votes" section at all as "I'm not voting" is not a vote.
In the case of the former if you do not have enough faith to say yes, then it's a no. This is a question of "Do you support X?" in which there are two options "Yes I support this" or "No I do not support this", there is no neutral because unless you support it enough to say "yes" then you don't support it, in which case you should vote "no".
People seem to take "no" as insulting and wish to avoid voting "no" sometimes but they seem to forget that no isn't a vote against someone, it is just a lack of vote for.
If there is a fork in the road, one goes straight on how you were going and the other off to the left, which looks a little bit darker and could be risky but is accompanied by a sign claiming to be safer and more profitable and you think to yourself "do I take the side road?" Yes is obviously "take the side road" No is obviously "carry on the way you were going" Neutral is "sit on the ground and wait to starve to death because you can't answer a fucking yes or no question"
If you do not have enough faith in the claims of the sign hat the side path is the favorable option, then you keep going down your road.
"Do you have faith in X?" is a binary choice. 1 is true, 0 is false. You cannot have a 0.5. If you can't bring yourself to vote because you don't think you can do so fairly (for whatever reason) do not vote, if you have concerns as to why you wont vite yes or no then do so in the comments section below, but there is no point having a section for "yeah. I'm not going to vote because reasons".
JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 00:53, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the removal of neutral votes. Thats why the comment section exists.
Going off the subject of unnecessary votes, I personally think there should be tighter restrictions as to what qualifies as a legitimate vote. People voting yes because "I don't know you but you seem nice", or people voting no because "I haven't seen you in chat" shouldn't be allowed (unless they're running for chat mod, in which the latter is relevant). Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 01:01, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
Although I agree with the premise I do think there are issues with that. Personally, I think that admins should spend some time in the community they're moderating, plus it can be very hard to put in to words why you would say yes or no. As much as I hate all the "friendship" or "niceness" votes (such as "I don't see why not" or "sure, you're a nice guy") it would be too restrictive. When it comes down to it, people are just stating what way they feel and why they feel that way and censoring that is a step in the wrong direction. It may be worth, however, for bcrats to consider the quality of votes as well (but I do assume they already do this), either way, if the community is against a proposal passing then bcrats should not have the power to pass it anyway, regardless of why people said no because, when it gets to that point, it'll just become a "getout-of-jail-free-card" for crats to do whatever they want. We're not North Korea after all. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 01:07, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
Fair point. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 01:10, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

( I don't like this restriction. If people aren't sure, let them vote neutral. That way everyone can be involved. The number of neutral votes has some factor too; the more neutral votes there are, the (slightly) lesser chance there is of passing the vote. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 01:48, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you trust someone is the say as lack of trust for someone, if you are unsure that is a no. People do not have to vote, they can express that in the comments section but having a redundant section just so "everyone can be involved" is an awfully primary school way of dealing with the matter. We're a professional and mature wiki, we have no need for a consolation-everyone-is-a-winner-it's-the-though-that-counts prize. A neutral vote of "I can't bring myself to say yes or no" is still a vote of "I lack faith this proposal" whatever way you look at it, which is a "no" vote. If you were unsure if someone was going to shoot you in the head you wouldn't hand them the gun. If you are unsure if a proposal should be passed, then you are not supporting it and, seeing as yes is just "I support this" and no is just "I lack support of this" then at the end of the day a neutral of "I can't bring myself to vote yes or no" is still a lack of support. There are then the "I won't vote" neutrals which, seeing as they are a lack of voting, shouldn't be in the "votes section".
If people have comments to voice, they can do so in the comments section, we do not need a "neutral votes" section just for people to say their comments.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 02:32, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I see no problem with Neutral votes. Isn't the point of allowing our Bureaucrats to make the final decision because of the fact that we have faith in their abilities to look at each type of vote as well as the comments, and make a uniformed and unbiased decision from there as to whether or not the vote passes? For instance, we had Tezzla in the past, that ran for Administrator multiple times. He had overwhelming support, but was denied each time because the amount of yes, no, and ever neutral votes didn't matter. What did matter is the rationale put behind votes.

So neutral votes aren't an issue for me. What is an issue for me is if we ever get complacent enough to the point where we only look at the yes, no and neutral votes, and should we ever make the final results solely off of the numbers of each variation of vote. If it ever gets to the point where this does happen, then what we need to worry about is whether or not we should remove the Bureaucrats ability to make the final decision instead of removing neutral votes because they're mucking up how we perceive how votes are going. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:57, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Leon. Our BCs get the final say and I trust their judgement. Even more so with Chad, almost certainly, getting BC rights in the near future.
Our BCs are people who know this wiki, its people, and its history and each have enough experience to know when someone truly deserves user rights or if a proposal should really go through. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:25, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
Only looking at the yes, no or neutral votes is not what is being discussed here. No one is implying that we only look at the number of votes for yes or no, only that we remove the redundancy of having the "neutral votes" section. Bcrats will still have the power to overturn a positive vote based on a judgment call and will still, at the end of the day, decide if it passes or not. But seeing as that is not what is up for discussion here it doesn't really matter.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 02:32, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
And now I'm inclined to agree with Jasper, BC decisions isn't the topic here and we shouldn't discuss it any further.
Back to the topic, I personally feel neutral votes to be unnecessary clutter and think they should be removed. If you don't know what's going on then either enlighten yourself or don't vote. If you don't know how you feel, then figure it out or abstain. All neutral votes do is add an aura of uncertainty and wishy-washy-ness to a yes-or-no? question. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:39, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
What if I said the neutral votes help me with my decision? It's good to know how much of the community is either for, against, and also importantly ambivalent or undecided on an issue. Does that make it germane now? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:41, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
Well then I guess you can veto this proposal in the end on those grounds I suppose. Just because I struck out, "...I trust their [BCs] judgement." doesn't necessarily mean I turned over my stance on that matter. For the record, I still trust our BCs. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:46, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Let me give an example of where neutral votes would make a big difference. Let's say someone has a hairbrained idea to change something on the wiki. The topic is so minor that it barely merits discussion. It goes to a vote. 6 yesses, 5 noes, 10 I could give a crap lesses. Vote's not gonna pass with that. The number of people who just don't care ends up being the deciding factor. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 03:00, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

What I said was fully on-topic. I trust our Bureaucrats, and neutral votes help them make their final decisions. By saying that they don't, it is being said that only the yes and no votes should be looked at, which in reality, the yes and no votes are a part of the final determination along with neutral votes and the comments section. The moment we stop looking at every bit of information on a request to make a final decision is the day we need to revamp our current system. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:05, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

In other words, what I am saying is that there is really no issue with having neutral votes. They actually have more merit existing since they help specify why exactly someone thinks the way they do when giving their feedback. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:06, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
We'd still be looking at the comments section. It would just be more like shifting the content that is usually in the "neutral" votes area to the "comments" area instead. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 03:12, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
If the comments section isn't ignored? I would fully agree with you - the neutral votes would be absolutely redundant and pointless. But neutral votes have and will continue to be used for final determinations, with the comments section largely used and referred to as 'flavour material'. I don't necessarily agree or condone such a tone towards our voting system. But at this point, I support the neutral vote system as they are paid attention to, whether or not the person voting neutral actually has a point to make, or if they're just being pointlessly indecisive. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 05:10, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

I proposed a while ago moving to a majority-required voting system in an attempt to essentially remove neutral votes as I really don't care for them. If one votes neutral because of a lack of information they should simply not vote, and voting neutral to find a safe zone between yes and no often seems like a cop-out to me. I understand that one may not feel secure with either option, but it should be encouraged to make a yes or no decision especially if the user in question is an admin. I say remove neutral votes, or as a compromise only allow them after the voter has had a discussion with the user requesting rights. Perhaps, if the voter is still undecided after that conversation they should be allowed to vote neutral, but I still prefer removing neutral altogether. Removing the neutral option for only admins/bureaucrats is also an option, as it should be expected the leaders of the community be able to make a simple yes or no decision. Lots of options and lots of room to compromise here. Stars and Stripes (talk) 06:11, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, neutral votes work for discussions not pertaining to users being promoted. If there's a proposed change to the wiki, such as a new chat rule or a possible template to be implemented, and some users are unsure about if the change will prove beneficial, then voting neutral is alright. Because at least that way if there are enough voters saying they're on the fence, a test period can be implemented and a second vote can be put up later once everyone has seen whatever it is they're voting on in action. But as far as users requesting additional rights goes, a neutral vote doesn't help much in making a decision. And you can't do a trial period for an administrator because that's asking for trouble.
So if, hypothetically speaking, we were looking to remove the neutral voting section I personally think that we're better off removing it for additional rights requests, but let it stay for proposed changes to the wiki, because at least the latter isn't as much of a permanent decision. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 07:09, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement