This time, I'm a bit perplexed.
I'll try my hand at some arguments.
johnmedina999 wrote:
I think trying to control who is part of the OT community and who is not is harmful to it as a whole. The only reason that the OT community is as crazy and active as it is now is because people are free to do (nearly) anything they pleased, and that includes joining and leaving on a whim. Restricting that would ruin this freedom, and therefore the craziness that makes OT fun.
The difference is, we're primarily speaking of the candidate campaign. Not OT as a whole. Though being inclusive is pretty often a beneficial thing, I believe Abraker is talking specifically about this election. Lets try not to get these switched up, please.
It's fairly unlikely a whole crowd of new people show up, and it's just as unlikely that a more controlled method of voting will truly influence their decision in sticking around in OT.
OT as a whole, in my eyes, ideally should be open.
The OT elections, however, are at a strange point here. The legitimacy of votes won't really be clear unless we figure out a proper way to vote.
I'm not certain on what my position is with abraker's thoughts. But I have this to say, at least.
Even then, there's some familiar things in this sort of situation.
...maybe...
Well, it'll take some debating, I suppose.
abraker wrote:
Letting external entities choose a leader for a community they are not part of is sabotaging the community for those who are part of it.
I call forth every denizen of OT, are you ok with this?
I'm wary of that decision. It's somewhat akin to letting people outside of your country and citizenship to vote for your next president. It's very difficult to trust.
With that, I guess I'll have to say I'm just not okay with it.
That isn't to say I'd be sure of that happening right now. I frankly have no idea if this sort of thing is what's happening, and though it's something I'm doubtful of, it's always possible. But if that's all we've got, I can't just accuse someone out of that possibility.