Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1251315-20140724203301/@comment-24700384-20140730111709

Datadragon Odahviing wrote: No, Ghost Anubis, I was replying to the original post, not directing my post at you, although it might seem so due to placement (if you do happen to direct the post above at me)

I was just stating why both discussion and voting are essential for consensus. I am also proposing that there be a sort of criterion to judge whether a consensus should be carried out by voting or discussion.

Come see me and this guy argue over 1h vs 2h and find out why discussion alone isn't a great answer.

Sometimes, both sides have valid points in the same field of disscussion that make them both correct, and both wrong ,simultaneously. It gets nowhere fast for either side.

A disscussion plus vote idea sounds like a better way, even in a stalemate, there should be some margin of victory in one or the other. They jusy need staggered times; vote opens, people vote, vote closes, disscussion opens, Ideas and sides are explained at length, discussion closes, whoever's in charge, or whatever administrative group is, tallys the winnersof each and by what margin, and decides which side won based on a combination of vote/discussion win margins.

It's far from perfect, but with only two ideas to choose from, it's the best of both worlds, with te lowest margin for error or fraud. Relying on a single system leads to tampering even faster.