I didn’t misuse the term subgroup, so first of all excuse you, for putting that in quotes.

Second: the poll hasn’t been up long and the sample size is pretty small.

But I’m willing to extrapolate these numbers and assume thete representative of the larger group.

In that case, if by your estimation around 20% are against the rule, that means around 9,000 of the subs current members would prefer not to be forced to include oregano.

But the number is higher if you break the two large subsets of data appropriately. Of those that voted, the poll response which got the most votes was not “op must provide og, no exceptions” it was “og must be provided, don’t care who.

Ultimately, the what the poll shows if you understand statistics is two things.

1. There’s an clear majority who believe oregano should be required

2. Within that majority who believe it should be forced, most respondents do not believe OP SHOULD BE FORCED.

I wish the pool had been worded differently, because as it is it’s pretty confusing and includes redundancies.

Ultimately, it’s abundantly clear that the community culture is to want oregano, and that a significant number of respondents believe an oregano should be required. But there is not a majority saying that the poster should be forced to proved the original.

And all things considered, this is still not a consensus

There’s a sense of majority in the poll results, but is it enough to determine restrictive policy for those who would oppose any such rule? Again, that’s possibly around 9,000 people.

I do not envy the mods the task of determining final policy on this.

I know which “ruling” would be the most reasonable and rational but it is bound to make a large subgroup of the community unjustifiably angry.

If they rule in favor of the supposed majority they will be alienating a smaller subgroup, but they’ll also be flying in the face of any objective rationale.

So do they cater to a majority and restrict the freedoms of a minority?

Or do they cater to a minority and disappoint a majority?

Very tough decisions.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I think if everything had been left as it was this wouldn’t have been such a controversy.

But the thing with controversy is that most of the grey area comes down to feelings not actual reason or logic.

People want to appear right, more than they want to make sure they actually are right.

I’ve done the appropriate self searching on this particular, and I’m confident that I’m on the right side.

Dissent is to be powerless, and vulnerable.

But I’d rather say what’s true than say what’s popular.

What are you even trying to say?

Definitely artists should be credited, no exceptions . To not is to steal.

And I made it pretty clear in the comparison that the meme thing is way low priority compared to the gay marriage thing.

I’m not by any means saying that this scenario comes close to that scenario in terms of injustice.

But I think the comparison still illustrates the heart of the matter being people overstepping the limits of what they should try to control.

It’s not a control thing to comment asking for oregano. It’s a control thing to demand that everyone who lobsters also shares oregano placing an actual restriction on the broader community is a control thing.

I’m not at all opposed to people commenting asking for oregano.

I’m very opposed to people making it a requirement. They could very easily just not do that. They’re being extra, trying to tell others how and what to do.

And again, this is small potatoes.

It’s a non issue in the real world, but if this discourse helps people investigate their own willingness to unfairly control what others do, then perhaps it will help them move away from forcing their way in real world scenarios where the consequences actually matter.