In post 215, Gamma Emerald wrote:The thing I dislike about this is that you took people in to agree with you. You should take people who know what they're doing, not have a particular stance.
The thing is most of the people that know what they're doing--rather than just thinking they know what they're doing when they really, definitively don't--just so happen to agree on the majority of topics on a broader scale.
Yeah, there's a whole lot of disagreement on particulars. Yeah, there's discussion, debate, and alternative opinions on metrics and whatnot. Yeah, even on major things there are the occasional outliers. But
by and large
, on most topics, most of the people that are competent reviewers have more or less similar understandings on.
Also, the listmod in particular is in certain situations the one whose stances I'd say differ the largest from that of other reviewers. (This doesn't come up very often, but it comes up a LOT when there is a
major
change to the NRG. The latest being the complete rehaul of the system. There were a number of listmod-proposed ideas which NRG members near-universally shot down.)
So in that regard, the listmod is tremendously successful in recruiting people that disagree with them. So much so, that when there's disagreement with the listmod, it is almost universal among the members of the NRG. Admittedly, yeah. Doesn't happen that often. (It only happens with said big changes.) But it's a thing, a thing which is notably
there
.