Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-10789912-20151109180419/@comment-10789912-20151116013544

Bluesonic1 wrote: Chat only represents a fraction of the entire community, this was the same point brought up when some users thought the moot was overstepping it's boundaries in terms of decision making.

And with regards to you not saying she was dead, I refer you to the last sentence of you second paragraph of your OP: "She has died of her illness."

With regards to the "honoured editors = dead editors", I quote the Honored Editors page description: "Honored Editors are certain individuals who no longer edit The Elder Scrolls Wiki, but left an impact on us during their time here or when they left. Because of this, the wiki decides to remember these editors for their actions."

The only one who's being disorderly is yourself, making false claims about another user's life and re-bringing up a thread that was already voted on and passed twice based on some informal conversation with a fraction of the active community.

I apologise if you believe I was referencing 2 particular users with my last post- I didn't mean for that and I don't really know what that statement was meant to mean, but my apologies there.

With that statement, you are the one spreading false information. As I've said above, chat does not represent the majority of the community. CTs do, and considering that 2 CTs have already passed on this issue, I think that alone speaks volumes for how the community feels about all this. You have to understand that this isn't just about policy anymore; just as we respect that you don't care whether she's passed on or not, you need to respect that some of us do care, particularly those of us who have been through a similar situation as Grams. You have the privilege of having a user who also had to leave wiki editing for 2-3 years due to health reasons, and the privilege of that user telling you how this could all be interpreted by someone in that situation, and you choose to discard that information in favour of "this is about policy" instead of trying to understand where the opposing votes view point is coming from.

I think it's disgusting the admins let you get away with saying what you did in that OP, and that they would allow this whole situation to be dragged up for a third time. Votes are irrelevant in this sense as they don't encompass the full nature of the situation here. Voting is never the be-all-end-all.

Notice the majority of votes are supports. There you go. Majority.

Admins made the choice to mark her as an "honored editor", which means they made the decision of her death. Not me. This was pointed out twice previously. In the same OP, I later state "She is either dead, or has bigger things to worry about and doesn't care about the wiki." Read the whole thing before typing, please.

Notice that both honored editors are dead, or seen as such. The only other honored editor is one whom died via car crash, I believe.

You're ignoring everything said, every valid point, and ever positive vote. This is not how you debate. This is how you flame. Again, the claim of her death was a '''community choice finalized by those with rights, and I specifically say in the same post she could very well be alive, but not care about the wiki. This shouldn't have to be beaten into your head.'''

'' Votes are irrelevant in this sense as they don't encompass the full nature of the situation here. Voting is never the be-all-end-all.''

The absolute most idiotic thing I've read all day. Democracy works in quite literally, the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. I have not made any assumptions, and again, it was a choice made before I even came to this wiki nearly two years ago.

If you can't harvest a single point that isn't easily debunked with basic knowledge of this thread and user's background, I can not see why your opposing vote should be taken seriously.

The majority speak, and the outcries of the minority are irrelevant. Keep this a civil debate, not a flame war.