Talk:Requests for Comment/NordVPN

Thanks for keeping Mirheze running.

That being said, I think a general discussion rather than a specific one would have been more appropriate. Robert Sterbal, 412-977-3526 Rsterbal (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This page is terribly biased
Why is there "The Miraheze Community does not feel entering a partnership with NordVPN violates Miraheze's 'ad-free' commitment." but not a complementary "The Miraheze Community believes entering a partnership with NordVPN violates Miraheze's 'ad-free' commitment."? PiotrGrochowski (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose implies that. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So does Support, what is your point? PiotrGrochowski (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are given a statement and asked to support or oppose it. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The page states this like it's the truth, it should have clarified "You are given the following statement and asked to support or oppose it:". PiotrGrochowski (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is how any RfC has worked since forever. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then there should be an immediate link to terms and conditions of RfC. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s just how everything has worked forever. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you should really do no more RfC because it makes no sense. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

To elaborate on my post on your talk page: There is nothing wrong with an RfC whose structure takes the form: "X is true. Support? Oppose? Abstain?" It is simpler to write a positive assertion and ask readers to agree or disagree with it.

The problem with writing, "Do you agree with X? Or do you agree with Y" is that Y might not be the exact negative of X.  It might be a false choice. It might omit other alternatives.

As I explained on the page: I voted Oppose not because I think Miraheze should not enter into the partnership (I don't expect anyone to work for free) but solely because I believe the proposition as stated was untrue:  The partnership would violate the "ad-free" claim.

Do not rephrase a proposition that other people have voted on. Not even if you are certain that every voter agrees with your rephrasing, which you are not, as you didn't even ask. 18:09 2-Apr-2020