Board Thread:Wiki-Related Discussion/@comment-34924658-20170919184815/@comment-1916997-20170926055636

Lady Junky wrote: Tysonjackson wrote: Lady Junky wrote: Tysonjackson wrote: So is this a consenus then? I don't know how these types of consensus' work but we all seem to mostly be agreeing on this... Lol no x) 4 people agreeing on something while 2 other agree on something else is absolutely not a consensus x) No one else seems to be commenting on the thread and our vote is the majority...

Then, we wait more opinions because it is absolutely not a consensus x) Well, the thread has been up for almost a week. If people don't care enough to give an opinion we can't really just wait forever, because then nothing would ever get done on the wiki. I feel like this happens often on here to. We talk about something, are told (usually by you and usually when you disagree with the majority ruling) to wait until we get more opinions, and then nothing ever gets changed, because everyone just forgets about it. I know your not from the US, but I think you will still understand this example: Many people didn't vote in the US presidential election. Like millions of people who have the right to vote. It doesn't mean we don't get a new president until all those people vote. They had their chance, and decided not to vote. Out of the people who voted, Trump won (well, the electoral college, Clinton won the popular vote, but that's not the vote that counts). Yet he has a terrible approval rating, probably partially because many people who didn't vote, wouldn't have chosen him if forced to vote. But all that doesn't matter, the people who chose to vote got to decide who won. So right now, even if it's not by a lot of votes, the people saying to do that both allude to both are winning. If no one else is going to give their opinion, they lose their chance to give won, just like in an election. So the majority vote would be the consensus.