Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-26896471-20151004010902/@comment-26896471-20151009131332

Bluesonic1 wrote:

Bronkiin wrote: No, because you have only cited yourself as someone who is cut out! Look at the poll... As it currently is, 6 people want to keep it as is and further 4 want it to be moved forward instead of back. So moving it back 6 hours will cut them off straight off the bat, and the 4 hour vote is an unknown as we don't really know their situation, plus the 5 who don't care are also in a grey area. I'm not citing specific people, I'm letting the poll numbers speak for themselves as that is the current method for getting a general picture as opposed to people's subjective comments about she said this and he said that. You are reading far too much into the poll. My vote there, for example, should be in the "...hours back column", but for a misunderstanding. We do not know who it is who is voting in this poll, many of the votes could be from people who never have and never will attend the Moot. If we move it back four hours, the five "don't minds" will attend the moot, as well as the six (including me) who want it moved back, will combine to equal eleven people at the Moot. As signifcant improvement on the last one.

But as I said, that's not how I'm operating. You have to cite specific people to validate your claims. I am not using 'subjective comments'. I am using direct responses to my direct questions in chat, on talk pages and on this thread to get the numbers I have.