Forum:Abstaining on VFH and other voting pages

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Abstaining on VFH and other voting pages

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5600 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

It's stupid. If you really can't decide, why vote? You're only bringing the voting page to the top of peoples' watachlists and giving them false hope that something is happening. The only real reason to abstain and write something there is if you're waiting for the original author to do something, like add links or something. I can't be the only one this bothers, am I? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 16:07, Aug 3

I agree for the most part. Usually. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey look! I said that 456 days ago!. But yeah, I'm all with Leddy on this one. Stop being pussies, either vote for or against. Pussies. I always wanted to say that on public tv. ~ 16:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that forum, but nobody else seems to, so I figured I'd bring it up again. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 16:29, Aug 3

I'm gonna abstain from this one. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully backing this one up. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This shit will never pass. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I consider abstaining at VFD particularly pointless. It's almost some kinda paradox or something. If you have bothered to read the thing why not pass an opinion one way or the other. You can always make whatever comment you to want when you vote. If you have read it, but REALLY don't want to vote one way or the other then just "silent abstain". Meaning say nothing. If ya ain't got the balls to have an opinion I don't really see why everyone else should have to read your comment. Obviously per Led anyone who actually has anything constructive to say, that's fine. Limited comments which might help improve the article are great, but pointless abstains are well... Pointless. MrN 17:11, Aug 3

I think an explicit abstain is better than a silent abstain. At least you know people are looking at the nomination with explicit abstains. --Mn-z 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

VFH isn't a page to show people your work; that's what featuredom is for. VFH is for voting, which an abstain is the exact opposite of. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 17:56, Aug 3

I mean abstain votes at least show the author/nominator that people are reading the article, and not bypassing it. I personally would rather have abstains than silent abstains on my nominations. --Mn-z 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Although for VFD, abstaining seems pointless to me. I hate abstaining (particularly if there is no explanation) on VFH/VFP, and I hate indecisive people who hold up the queue at cafeterias, but then I hate having to either vote for or against on VFH if I'm torn on which way to saddle my opinion. There are those 'conditional' abstain'ings though. I'll only vote for if you release my family, and whatever. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 17:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed being audacious. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

abstaining on VFD makes no sense to me. a VFD abstain is a keep. when i abstain on VFH it means i'm close to voting for, and i usually leave a reason why (needs better formatting, needs a bit of work, almost there, etc.). i also find abstains useful for overly british articles or articles where the concept escapes me. however, your points are well taken, and i will not abstain so lightly in the future. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

FOR!!!! VFD abstains counting as keeps. In fact, that's what I'm going to do. Thanks Gerry! Good point! Also, personally, if I saw an overly American article which I did not get then I would vote against because I would not have found it funny. :-) MrN 18:08, Aug 3

My general policy for articles that I don't "get" is to vote against. If I don't understand the subject matter, then I'm gonna go ahead and assume that there are at least a few thousand others in the same boat. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 18:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

i've considered this approach as well. i just really do feel awful voting against something like Baldrick when, for all i know, it could be brilliant. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Baldrick is brilliant IMO if you know Blackadder, but if you don't and you don't vote you end up trusting the British... MrN 18:19, Aug 3

i trusted the british once, in 1812. tossers burnt down my house. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And not a mention of how it killed off the colony of lice in the roof that was making your life unbearable. There's gratitude for you. --UU - natter 08:40, Aug 4

Badly Needed Header

What's wrong with abstaining? When I do it, it's because I'm either totally undecided or I don't like the article, but not enough to warrant a negative Against vote. Plus, Abstain votes do indicate that you've read said article, which, as an author, is usually somewhat assuring to me. On the other hand, voting Against on an article whose subject matter you know nothing about (I get those a lot) is just stupid. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 18:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We're supposed to be voting for articles that everybody finds funny. If you find an article funny, fine, give it a for vote. Odds are there are plenty of other people that like it too. However, as I said above, if you don't understand the subject matter, there's a slight chance that there are a few thousand, or million, other people that won't understand it either. This is exactly why in-jokes don't get featured; nobody else understands them. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this

Abstain and Against votes are to be accompanied by a comment explaining them and containing some kind of constructive criticism or relevant opinion. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Preferably in awkwardly-phrased bewildered-sounding rhetorical questions. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Against. meh, per above, and I just didn't find it funny. --Mn-z 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  But more seriously, because that will lead to "Against vote Inquisition-ism". I don't think a voter should be required to give an explanation for a vote. The article needs to earn for votes, the voter doesn't need to justify against votes. VFH is an election, not a community Pee review. Also there are times in which comments will cause more drama than they will prevent. --Mn-z 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  In that case, I say you should just say, "Against, didn't make me laugh, sorry. Like your sword, though." cause everybody likes swords, right?! Plus, I regard that as reason enough. If the nominator/creator of said article asks if you have an idea to improve it so it will be humourous to you, but you know it still won't be, then say, "Nah. Sorry.", instead of saying something like, "I DON'T HAVE TA JUSTIFY MY VOTE! Mudkips fer prez! WOOO!!", then start copping an attitude. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to justify an against vote. An against vote is an explanation in and of itself--"not funny enough to feature." An abstain is like going into the voting booth and leaving the ballot blank. You don't influence anything but you still waste everyone's time by holding up the line. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 23:02, Aug 3

Sheesh, once again I come in when a debate has raged and petered out a bit. Lousy time zones. Anyway, FWIW, I think abstains have the following point: at the very least, they show your nom is not being ignored. For me, the worst feeling is when you get few to no votes, and you start to wonder why: Are they reading it but don't care enough to vote? Other articles are getting more votes - are they being whored? - Should I start whoring? Am I not popular enough? Is it only me who can see the nomination? What did I do wrong? Plus, abstains with a good reason can lead to the minor improvements that turn them into Fors. I have no problem with abstains. Or uncommented votes. I do have a problem with obnoxious or completely meaningless vote comments - if you're gonna give a reason, give a proper reason, dammit! --UU - natter 08:40, Aug 4

Per UU. --Mn-z 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Except VFH isn't a page where you try to get a million people to see your article. It's a page where people vote on stuff. And an abstain is not a vote. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 17:42, Aug 4

Nonetheless, it is a signification that someone has seen your article and has considered it. Which is better than silently abstaining by just ignoring the page. You still get a better feel for if the article needs work. There are articles I have not found funny myself (most American sports ones spring to mind - purely through a lack of knowledge of the subject) and under those circumstances I can't vote against. I think leaving a comment is better than leaving the page alone under such circumstances. That's just an example, there are other times I think abstains are perfectly justified, but I don't want to leave a tl;dr essay here. --UU - natter 17:57, Aug 4

I see what you're saying, and there are circumstances in which an abstain is necessitated. The point of this forum is that 'I just can't decide' isn't one of those circumstances. Am I wrong in thinking that if the article isn't good enough to force you to vote FA then it probably shouldn't be one? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 18:11, Aug 4

Ideally, yes, but then there would alot more against votes. (I.e. it would switch every non-conditional-abstain to an against on VFH.) --Mn-z 18:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is that bad? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 19:04, Aug 4

Its not "bad" per say, but it will annoy those who think an against vote needs an explanation. --Mn-z 19:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone does. And if they do, there's no reason they can't just ask politely, or the voter can't say 'sorry, just didn't do it for me.' - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 19:20, Aug 4

Uh, unless I'm mistaken, Socky just suggested that, "Abstain and Against votes are to be accompanied by a comment explaining them and containing some kind of constructive criticism or relevant opinion. I personally wouldn't have a problem with voting "against" more if I didn't risk dealing with the Anti-Against Vote Inquisition. --Mn-z 04:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How dare you! What a stupid! Outrage! Etc! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Oh yeah, I guess he did. Socky, your parents never loved you. Mnbeuaxz, while your parents may very well have loved you, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure that if there were any kind of inquisition on Uncyclopedia, "anti-against vote" or otherwise, I would be a part of it. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 05:32, Aug 5

That's because nobody expects the Anti-Against Vote Inquisition!!! --Mn-z 05:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. But seriously, what are you talking about? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 05:52, Aug 5

People who have hissy fits because of against votes. This can be either be in response to a specific "against" vote, or a pattern of voting "against" "too much". Surely you've seen that somewhere. --Mn-z 06:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen any problem caused by a lack of an explanation. I've occasionally seen problems due to explanations that have come off as inane or downright petty--I think a week or two ago a certain well-established user voted against another well-established user's article because the latter had voted against an article by the former. The former had their vote stricken and was banned. So again...uhh... I don't really know what you're getting at. If you don't think an article deserves to be featured, mnbvcxz, believe me, I trust your judgment. Just vote against. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 08:45, Aug 5

Well I don't trust him. He's got beady eyes. His chin is pretty beady, too. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How about we just cut short yet another pointless discussion that will lead to no clear decision or to a bureaucratic policy that no one will uphold anyway

Stop abstaining, if you nave something to say, comment. Going back to the old saying on top of the VFH page that no one seems to remember, this is not a discussion page. Move all discussion to talk pages. It's VFH, it's not a constitutional amendment. ~ 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So... does all this boil down to: when I have something to say, but don't want to vote, you'd like me to type Comment: instead of Abstain? pillow talk 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment:*facepalm* Oh, screw this topic! Abstaining is fine! It keeps a balance in indecisive douches' votes!--Bad Shroom 20:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The only way to enforce a dumb bureaucratic law is to offer consequences. How about this: anyone casting an abstain vote that doesn't contribute a recommendation to the improvement of the article will suffer a five-hour ban. For example, this would be a "good" abstain:

• Abstain. As much as I like the concept, I can't say that I can vote For yet, due to that huge picture of tubgirl in the middle. - Joe-Shmoe 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a "bad" abstain:

• Abstain. I dunno, this just isn't doing it for me. - Steve-Shmuck 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Any agreement with this? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything to get people to stop being so god damned wishy-washy. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 22:39, Aug 3

Again, what is the harm of an abstain vote? Its basically a weak "this isn't good enough to feature", while an against is a strong "this isn't good enough to feature". Banning for an invalid "abstain" is ridiculous. Also, when I was active on VFH voting, I used the "abstain" votes to remind myself which articles I had already looked at. --Mn-z 04:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There's some script you can use for that. --UU - natter 08:40, Aug 4

Yes, but that sounds like it will require some effort to implement. --Mn-z 18:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. And we have a vote for 'this isn't good enough to feature.' It's the against vote. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 19:01, Aug 4

Are we running out of things to complain about?

If somebody abstains with a comment it just means they want to comment on whatever they're voting on. VFD abstains are retarded, yes, but where's the harm? VFH abstains are almost always accompanied by an opinion, and generally they're helpful to the author as advice to how the article could possibly be improved. Just like an other advice, the author can take it or leave it as they see fit. Now I suggest we all shut the fuck up and go write articles. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:05, 3 Aug

Be quiet, OptyC and stop trying to be a hero. The only way we can solve this is with Godwin's Law: This topic is like HITLER! I said Hitler, so the topic ends. There, Godwin's Law.--Bad Shroom 21:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not the boss of us, Optimuschris! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't steal our lunch money! (Because I have a credit card.)--Bad Shroom 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. I have no issue with an "I'm abstaining until you fix this thing with the article," but people who go "hmm, I can't decide, I'll just abstain--" no. Stop it. Vote against if it doesn't make you laugh enough to for feature, vote for if it does, or vote not at all. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 22:35, Aug 3

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I have a dream.....that one day users on Uncyclopedia will STFU and vote for or against." --Bad Shroom 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mix black and white, you get grey, either way. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And grey is the color of Abstain...Nachlader you are a fucking genius.--Bad Shroom 22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A VFD abstain means the voter isn't really sure if the article should be deleted or not. I think they are valid, as in a perfect world, VFD should measure the intensity of votes as well as the number. (I.e. a few strong keeps should outweigh several weak deletes) --Mn-z 04:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you aren't sure, then the article must have some merit and you should vote to keep. Deletion is for articles that are complete suck. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 05:03, Aug 4

Mnbvcxz, your second point is daft, and easily open to abuse. Plus, when you see things like "super-mega-ultra delete" or whatever, will that be so strong there isn't a need for any further votes? Each vote by each person counts once, it's the only fair way. As to abstains on VFD: there is utterly no point, and I'm right alongside MrN on this - from now on, I count VFD abstains as Keeps. --UU - natter 08:28, Aug 4

All hail UU and the soon to be admined MINIUU! ~ 08:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I said "in a perfect world". There is no valid way of measuring intensity. Well technically, we could count "weak" votes as half a vote, but that would be too complicated. --Mn-z 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I got an idea...

Whenever an argument comes up, we have our brutes settle it? And if you don't have a brute, you can make one or you can get someone on your side of the argument use their brute to represent you as well? Bam! Problem solved. But if it's clear you've been using some sort of bot to cheat on MyBrute to get a higher level so you can win more arguments here, you automatically lose. Eh? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm all For. that. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That bear becomes a burden once you get past level 30. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My character has a boa. A feather boa. It's fabulous. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Grr, Weak, weak, abstain.. zh I hate me new sig 08:04 August 4

You Can't Stop Me Abstaining!

Because I agree with what UU said up there. About the whole "What have I done wrong?" thing. Sometimes people do need to abstain. And if people bring in banning for "bad abstains" it will get really stupid. I mean, does that mean one admin has to be on "Abstain Duty"? Looking out for people whose opinions weren't strong enough or constructive enough? I think it should stay as it is.

Except on VFD. Abstaining there is retarded. Nameable • mumble? 12:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Except VFH isn't a page where you try to get a million people to see your article. It's a page where people vote on stuff. An abstain is not a vote. And I didn't say anything about banning people for it. I shouldn't have to, and I probably won't. I'm just trying to convey to you that it's a complete waste of your time and the author's. You read an entire article, and now you're just going to tell the author that although you went through the whole thing, it was neither good enough or bad enough to generate any kind of opinion? Well, if it doesn't scream feature, then vote no. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 17:45, Aug 4

Its basically a courtesy to the author to let them know that you bothered to read the article, like I said before. There is alot of abstaining, explicitly or otherwise. And like UU said, at least you know the voters are looking at your article with explicit abstains.--Mn-z 18:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you read an entire article. You now have to decide how to vote. But it didn't make you laugh enough to vote for it to be featured. Why wouldn't you vote against? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 18:15, Aug 4

As an author and admin who's dealt with almost every in and out of VFH imaginable, no one cares about recognition on VFH. They just want you to vote. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I care about recognition on VFH, someone nominated one of my UnNews articles, which went on to be the only VFH nom of mine that failed. I was just happy with the recognition. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this like

The most serious issue on Uncyc right now? Seriously, guys, an entire forum on this BS? Abstain. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:59 Aug 04, 2009

Abstain. I think I expressed a similar sentiment. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:18, 4 Aug

Where did I say this is the most serious issue? I don't I even considered this a serious issue, much less the most serious issue. It's just something that's pissing me off right now. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 20:50, Aug 4

If that was the only requirement, you'd start a forum about your haircut. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My haircut is gorgeous and I am the pinnacle of human sexiness. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 21:25, Aug 4

I've seen parts on the side, and parts in the middle, but I've never seen a transverse, ear-to-ear part before. If nothing else, it's unique. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The rainbow stripes were also an interesting choice... -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:35, 4 Aug

What's that? I'm having trouble hearing you guys over the sound of me being more attractive than you. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 21:40, Aug 4

I said interesting, not unattractive. I actually think you wear it well. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:00, 4 Aug

Yes. It distracts the eye from your potato shaped head. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're just jealous because it's high in carbs and can be prepared in such a wide variety of ways. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 22:18, Aug 4

The sour cream is a nice touch. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The point(s) of abstaining

1. Leaving comments.
2. Giving an idea to the community of the voter activity of said pages since the community likes crying every so often that people aren't voting enough -- or at least not voting how somebody wants them to vote.
3. A signature on another page is +1 towards the regular whore list (links to user rating).
4. Abstain.
5. ?????
6. PROFIT!!

--EMC ^[TALK] 14:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just say Comment, then? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 14:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See numbers two, four, five, and six in above list. --EMC ^[TALK] 14:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Can be done with comment, but really isn't the abstain I have a problem with anyway, so I don't mind.
2. Abstains aren't votes. They're usually the way people chicken out of casting an actual vote.
3. VFH isn't a whoring page.
4. I like adding extra numbers
5. to make it look like I said
6. more things as well.

- T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 15:50, Aug 5

I prefer the system you have. Abstaining isn't chickening out. I also notice that some voters do switch out of that category as well so it does leave a trail to show how people can re-read an article and then change their minds with a positive or a negative vote.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A contradiction is not a logical argument. Switching your vote around can easily be done just as easily from for to against or vice versa, or even from no vote at all to a vote for or against. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 21:16, Aug 5

Abstaining is contradiction ? Don't see that If I understand you correctly.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 21:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I said that abstaining is basically chickening out of casting a real vote. You said no it isn't. That's the logical equivalent of going "I know you are but what am I." - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 21:42, Aug 5

Nuh uh! -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:45, 5 Aug

That's a bit like saying 'All those who aren't with us are against us' position ? Abstaining is and should remain a valid option for all voters. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 21:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Romartus, I know how much you love to comment, but I, for one, think you should learn how to format comments properly. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get petty. And I'm on the "abstains are valid" side, in case anybody cares. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 01:20, Aug 6

No Romartus, that's actually not what I said at all. I said that when trying to convince someone of something in a discussion, you need to back up your contradictions with some kind of explanation. For example, I began this forum with a statement--"abstaining is dumb"--and backed it up with a few reasons. Others have continued the discussion. You entered the conversation after I said abstaining is like chickening out, to which you responded no it isn't. A direct contradiction without explanation. If this were a vote that wouldn't be a problem, but in a discussion such as this, it really makes no sense. Also, I would really appreciate if you would stop misinterpreting the things I say, now. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 01:45, Aug 6

Actually "No it isn't," is not a contradiction, it's actually a contraction. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I skimmed over this

And came to the conclusion that I don't give a shit either way.    Orian57    Talk   02:44 6 August 2009

What! Hea, this is a perfectly servicible argument. You have no idea what you are talking about. Um...

The problem(s) with abstaining

From reading some of the above it appears that people are agreeing that abstains are kinda daft on VFD, but not on VFH? Why? If anything VFH is more of an election whereas VFD is more of a discussion.

If anyone is still bothering to read all this! Anyway...

1. Comments about how to improve the article could be made on say... The talk page of that article? That way other users who are interested in that article and might not have seen the voting page (maybe months in the future) will see the comment. All the "encouraging the author" stuff still applies then...
2. It's kinda a loss of effort. If you read it you must have an opinion and we want it! Actually, we need it. A view one way or the other is a lot more useful than nothing. Come on, you must have some kinda twitching in your right toe or something? Come on man, which way??? Speak up!
3. VFH pages are watched a lot more closely than some other pages so when they are edited admins and other users who watch RC are more likely to feel the need to check the contribution. "Oh, great it's some guy saying he can't make up his mind"...
4. Abstain.
5. ?????
6. PROFIT!!

People prefer to vote abstain because they don't want to vote against. Why don't they want to vote against? Because very few other people ever have the balls to do so and when someone actually does it's out of the ordinary. So... What happens is... You end up with a lot of "silent abstains" (I think that's near Slough) which are totally useless to the process, and a few "vocal abstains" (I just made that one up). Had all those people who abstained voted against we could have shifted the article off VFH a lot quicker and got something better on... But who wants to vote against when you can chicken out and vote abstain eh?

Summary: Maybe don't help. I don't really mind either way, but if you do it on VFD I'm going to cut your balls off! :0 OK, I will not cut your balls off. You may not even have balls. Why is everyone talking about balls all of a sudden? MrN 03:08, Aug 6

Silent abstains are killer, and extremely noticable. For example, injokes are things that many people hate, so people aren't afraid of hurting anyone's feelings when an injoke comes around. That's why we had about 30 people voting on Dan Kwon when it rolled onto VFH. However, with other articles, with effort and authors, we get plenty of this silentness. We need opinions, people! Stop being afraid! Balls! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What about abstaining on VFG? --Mn-z 06:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

VFG isn't a real voting page. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It may not be official, but it's very real. pillow talk 18:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So, getting back to my point, should we stop voting "abstain" there or not? --Mn-z 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No. pillow talk 19:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)