User blog comment:EthanKoenigsberg/Change the Seasonal Wiki Polls NOW/@comment-5590986-20161218235800/@comment-5590986-20161219001559

I am taking this as constructive critisizm, thats why I can respond back "constructively"

We had this discussion before. We will remain unanimous voting. because for one the more unanimous voters we have, the less likely new staff will come in and thats GOOD, because the system would say that "we already have enough admins" and the more admins we have the more likely we won't get anything done either. If there is a problem huge enough to be alarming, then admins would be more likely to have more people voted in. the unanimous vote serves as more of a wall.

and plus, if it is not broke, don't fix it. Change is fine if there is a problem such as internal disagreements, but since admins generally do agree on most things it is not a problem, the problem is when the more diverse admins there are, nothing gets done even if there is a majority vote, so we'd keep pushing it down to "75% of the vote" then "two third of the vote" then "50% of the vote" just for things to get around. It would also increase the chance of a rogue admin to come in to start vandalizing things (because there has been a case, or close to it, that like 4 out of the 5 admins voted for someone to come in, but the last one denied it. Later on the suspicions of the last admin were correct when the person turned out to misbehave as we know him a bit more, whether or not because of it is debatable, but it proves the person is incapable if he is easily upset at loss and doxx people). A smaller yet active and manageable administration is better than a large one that can be subjected to a higher chance of corruption