Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1251315-20140724203301/@comment-24627711-20140724210547

SuperSajuuk wrote:

The Sienna Who Couldn't Decide on a Username wrote: Wait, are so are you saying that we should have more CTs like the one Elch made? Because if that's your point, then I fully agree. I thought that the debate and the discussion was healthy for the whole community. This would give everyone a chance to read both insights before being given the chance to make an official vote. The purpose of consensus is to discuss. For some unknown reason to me, this wiki has decided to change the meaning of "consensus" to mean "use of voting templates". This is NOT how wiki's reach any kind of outcome, as a vote does not show anything whatsoever.

Basically, the goal here is to reach an outcome that everyone can agree to, without using any voting templates While I do like your ideas and I do see where you're coming from, I don't see a vote-less system working here. Just because the way that people are, unfortunately, no one would be able to come to any agreement. As you can see on Elch's consensus, which has been up for several days now, people are sharing their opinions--but there are still two solid sides of opinions being shown. There was never really any form of "agreement" made. Discussions are good for swaying people's perspectives, but I don't know that in this case they'd be the best for coming to one conclusion.