Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-24947676-20170917132559/@comment-24947676-20170917180955

KuuderessioPlusvalín wrote: Oppose. If people is not forced to give their reasons when they support or oppose, they are not forced to justificate why they voted neutral either.

PD: Sorry for my english. This isn't about "forcing neutrals to state their reason". In fact, neutrals that just have "leaning towards X" or "I don't want to state my reason" are perfectly fine and would NOT be classified as spam.

These are the neutrals that, if this were to pass, will remain perfectly fine and pure and good:
 * Neutral, leaning towards support.
 * Neutral, leaning towards oppose.
 * Neutral, I'll state my reason later.
 * Neutral, I don't want to state my reason.
 * Neutral, insert-reasons-here.
 * Neutral, because insert-reasons-here.
 * Insert-variations of the above here.

Now, here is the list of neutrals that would be banned for eternity if this were to pass:
 * Neutral.
 * Neutral!
 * Neutral?
 * Neutral

As you can see, most of the acceptable responses don't involve stating reasons. Two out of the six involve leaning towards a stance but not fully picking it, one is postponing the reason, one is stating that they have a reason and don't want to say it, and two are actually stating reasons.

The unacceptable responses are the one-word responses.

In other words, this suggestion won't force people to state the "why" of their neutral.

Instead, the suggestion aims to have people clarify if they'll elaborate on the neutral - they do NOT have to elaborate on the why of their neutral, but they would have to state if they will in the future.