Board Thread:Policies/@comment-10473115-20170415164119/@comment-10473115-20170419002404

I came to a interesting Wikipedia discussion and an article slightly addressing our issues.

AnnabellRice wrote: Anyone willing to filibuster the process until they've chased away or lessened the interest of all other debaters "wins" by default under that scenario taken to the extreme, because if you couple others' avoidance of engaging in discussion with no minimum requirement for how many must participate for something to be considered a community consensus, then a tiny number of individuals can set policy as they see fit. I had to google filibuster and learned a new word, thanks. But I see that it's only a problem which could delay things, not change their course. Proposed changes (to a policy) need only one editor to oppose to ensure there's a voting. Participating in the debate isn't required and anybody could to opt for just voting. Can you link to the examples of where tiny number of individuals can set policy as they see fit?

@Adour and Shabook I'm sure that you acted with good intentions. But we all should also be considerate how some actions can be looked on and felt.

@all I don't know if this discussion have been helpful or not to clear our problems and misunderstandings. I've found it helpful and have proposed new policies to help in our discussions. Is there still problems we should discuss and address to? Are the things any better than before this discussion?