Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-4848837-20140901041132/@comment-4848837-20140902030120

Blaziken rjcf wrote: Cokedragon wrote: They're definitely one suggestion put together in one part for a reason; you can't reach the tiebreaker without setting when time is up. I don't see a better suggestion coming for how to deal with ties; with a fairly random number of users active at any one time, the only other way to mend this properly is to have one user (preferably one who's been around for awhile) to sit out every vote so in the event of a tie, they can break it. I agree that we should have a tiebreaker (who doesn't?), but we shouldn't settle on a random system. Maybe have only the admin votes count or something, but don't rely on randomness for something like this.

Relying on admin votes would somewhat ignore everybody else. Not to mention, what if there's then a tie among the voting admins?

Cokedragon wrote: I don't quite understand this part, could you elaborate or rephrase it? For example, assume the wiki had 100 members. 49 voted for option A, while 51 voted for option B. While it is true that, technically, option B won, the difference was minimal (1% - or 1 vote - in fact). This result is therefore meaningless. But that's how it's always been, and how it is in any vote. If even one person is the reason for a side winning, then so be it. There isn't a gray area around the tie.