Thread:Orecreeper/@comment-32651233-20190126211828/@comment-28112409-20190127024059

That's hypocrisy. You say the normal users are not biased only to contradict yourself by saying everyone deserved TotM in your eyes. That right there is bias, because you are only taking your perspective and have given no evidence or reason other than that it is your perspective. You make less than no sense.

What do normal users being biased have to do with staff anyway? Those 2 are different things, they are not linked. Staff behave differently from users, they have different stances and standards from normal users. I don't see how that logic stands.

Being absolutely unbiased on an individual level is impossible, because that's the state of human beings where absolute neutrality is simply unachievable by a single individual. That doesn't mean we still can't have judges who are significantly much less biased than the general community. The staff have their own discord server where they discuss things, they check contributions and not the general friendliness or social popularity of someone, so what puts them at the same level as a normal user in terms of reliability?

By having multiple staff who discuss things among each other for a final decision, whatever biases they have are equalized by institutional disconfirmation, a process where the confirmation biases directly oppose each other via group conversation and create a debate or a clash of arguments that will eventually end with a definite and reliable answer since you have multiple perspectives considered rather than just a single crude one. The community doesn't do that, they just vote for whoever they want. There is no neutralizing or equalizing of biases for them because the vote is done by an individual and given out to the community rather than the community coming together to make a decision and giving it out as a single and individual result.

If I'm biased, I'm not just going to accept it from you blindly with a smile either. You need to show how I'm biased or else your claim is empty words. You also need to show how the staff can be biased despite the previously mentioned methodology and criteria utilized by them to decide a winner, or else that claim would also be all style but no subtsance.

Opinions are biased, they are subjective, they are not necessarily based on fact or knowledge, they can be ignorant until they are informed of otherwise, that's why they're opinions and that's why they constantly differ even when one side is proven wrong. You literally said they're not biased at the start of the post only to adopt that bias and say it's fine? Despite the contradiction, your logic goes both sides anyway. Here look, just because you think someone is helpful on the wikia means they are helpful? The other side can be just as biased as the next one, it's not mutually exclusive.

And if you had a problem with helpful being subjective and the bigger contributor being subjective, then why are you against a group of people putting all their opinions together for a final answer? People coming together to discuss negates the subjectivity as much as possible, and views supported by reasoning and evidence always get to stomp over and shine above those that are based on directionless emotions or ignorance. Letting the community vote individually is letting the error of subjectivity loose above anything else, and they have no obligation of giving you a reason of why or a guarantee that they'll change if you convince them that one nominee deserves it over the other. It is ridiculous to point out how subjectivity is an issue in your last paragraph because of the ambiguity it creates and then proceed to outright oppose a method of decision that dismantles said ambiguity and subjectivity. Do you want to allow bias or do you want to disallow it? Make up your damn mind.