Board Thread:Wiki Discussion/@comment-5264386-20140810061848/@comment-5632187-20140811214516

You seem to have a problem discussing anything without being snarky with the person you're talking to.

I believe you're misunderstanding what I mean by "no responses to other voter's posts" so let me ellaborate. Let's say that Bobby159340(arbitrary username) got put up for a Chat Mod nomination. Timmy269451 would come along and say "Hey we should make Bobby here a Chat Mod". Then a consensus would be opened where people could voice their support or opposition, as well as giving their reasons for supporting or opposing. You can give all the concerns in the world you want to in your own post, but my point is to not have something like this happen:

User 1: "I don't think Bobby should be a chat mod because blah blah blah"

User 2 in response: "Well aren't you one to talk about blah blah blah because you're guilty of blah blah blah, hypocrite"

And then a flame war ensues. Instead we would have:

User 1: "I don't think Bobby should be a chat mod because blah blah blah"

User 2 in his own post not responding to User 1: "I think Bobby should be a chat mod because so-and-so"

Now User 3 comes along, sees both posts, and if he was neutral before, he could say: "Well now that I know Bobby did so-and-so, I think I'll vote in support of him" or "Well now that I know Bobby does blah blah blah, I think I'll vote in opposition".

My point is that by not allowing direct responses to another voter's opinion, we avoid flame wars entirely.

My last part is completely relevant, as it was not directed at you but this entire thread, where we were discussing how to deal with all Wiki decisions. So please actually read the whole thread before you act in such a condescending manner.

"You sure you are a chat moderator already?" I have no idea what you mean by that, you're just not making sense anymore.