Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-4984687-20150326211251/@comment-11345660-20150403172947

SuperSajuuk wrote:

Wulfharth wrote: That is kinda the system now - is it not? It might look it, but it's actually just based on majority support from a vote. If you just write "Support: your signature here", it's still counted, despite having zero reason for why you are supporting. Kroq-gar78's nomination several years ago is an indication about how the system doesn't work as it should: he got 2 supports, one from the nominator and one from another crat, and was promoted without having any community involvement, which is crazy.

We should assume good faith in any user contributing to promoting people to staff. Some users with only a couple edits may just be long time lurkers who haven't contributed or have watched the wiki as an anonymous user and registered to put in their two cents. While I applaud you for finally giving us a specific example, I do not feel it is relevant given its time frame and I think things have significantly changes since then, so I think a better argument for you would be to give us more recent examples. I am not insuating you are lying to the community even though you "clearly know more about the subject," which in itself is a laughable claim  because your main argument is not even supported by anything except "Voting is totally a popularity contest" without recent examples to prove your point. And even if the Kroqgar78's nomination was relevant, one example doesn't exactly give us the preponderance of factual evidence needed to prove your claim. The burden is not on me to look for them. I don't have to do anything. That's not how the burden of proof works. You are trying to prove something, so you have to tell us why it is nothing but truth instead of using theoretical scenarios. You act as if every nomination decided by vote was a mess of incoherancy, yet only have one (bad) example to back it up. I remain unconvinced.