Why I am not putting my opinions in the discussion:
Discussing the voting most likely would result in me having to explain why I pick one over the other, or enter a discussion with others about this when I do not want to talk about this. I just want to put my "vote" and leave. Along with that, I do not (And most likely cannot) want to change others opinions on this. I am "voting" for who I believe would be better suited for the Senior Administrator role, and that is it. I have no interest in trying to convince others in any way to pick the same person, because if they pick it due to me, then there is an issue. Plus others with way more influence are discussing it, a nobody is not going to change anything or anyone's opinions.
With the matter of making it harder to tally votes, it is fairly simple to check the votes and who can and cannot vote. If there was a hundred or more people voting, or just one admin checking the votes, I could understand having extra people voting being an issue. But when it is not even over 30, a group of Admins should find it easy to check, even easier considering that most of the people voting are known by said admins and do not need to be checked if they are valid or not.
Questioning the point of this:
I also want to know why one of the invalid voters has not been messaged about this, or why it was even needed. Anyone who reads the voting rules (Which is likely if they are interested enough to vote) knows that the vote would be invalid regardless, so there is no need to notify them of this unless they kick up a fuss about it. So why was I notified of this?
Also why was the amount of time on the wiki mentioned, especially when I have been here longer than you DroneDestroyer, by almost 3 months?
Tl;dr version I guess?:
I voted because I wanted to show who I picked, nothing more, no attempt of convincing others.
Tallying up votes is not as hard as it seems, with a group working on this or even one person it should be simple to remove 1 or 2 votes (3 so far in this case)
Why was there messages even sent out, no disqualified voters caused a fuss and it does not effect the outcome.
I have been on wiki since merge so time spent on the wiki is invalid.
Been here a bit longer, just without a login. Even longer if the Diep.io conception wikia is included. But this is beside the point that I have made, which is that the 2 week thing was pointless, and added nothing, and you can see on my profile that I have been here way longer than 2 weeks. So, again,why was it mentioned?
And the point is so that it shows my opinion on which one I would pick, which shows what a person from this community thinks without having to speak up about it. Even though it is disqualified, it still shows what someone (me) thinks. If I had wanted to be more open with discussion about the whole thing, I would have typed up something on the discussion post. I did not want to do that. I just wanted to show who I would vote for if I could vote, and be done.
The idea that someone has to have edited in mainspace a load of times to be allowed to vote, ignoring how long someone has been here or such, is a bad idea anyway.
But this is beside the point that I have made, which is that the 2 week thing was pointless, and added nothing, and you can see on my profile that I have been here way longer than 2 weeks. So, again,why was it mentioned?
Because you were plain wrong.
ignoring how long someone has been here or such
is wrong, as I noted
No one on this wiki will care what your opinion is. Not unless you become verified or get a medal. Yes of course it shows that
someone (me) thinks
but that would be there for absolutely no reason and create havoc for admins.
@Coolestpip it's just plain disruptive to do so, although if you do not care at all and do not wish to take 5 minutes to fix 10 articles (look at how fast Royalbaby was able to do it) you may certainly state your opinion in an inconsequential yet mildly irritating manner as you have done. For now, note that your vote has been prominently discarded at the top of the thread.