There were a lot of discussion over the years. Are we suppose to track every conversation about it, because this was a conversation, not a vote on id questions. If you were really sincere about that, you'd put something clear and set a time frame and take an actual voting. And I hope for the sake of the world that's not how elections will be, people talking and upvoting each others, then decide that this was the election.

@madmada We gathered the inputs from community and the ones we got were against these questions.

@madmada not all of them. just the ones you want a say in. as for a time frame on 18th of December, Napoleon commented "Thanks to everyone for all the input. We're assessing the situation and will likely come up with progress on this at the start of the new year". maybe a bit obscure for some but for about 2-3 the time frame was known.

(Cont.) as for elections, in most democratic counties i know (which might not actually be alot) the leader/winning party is decided by majority vote and you can see it in the way of your party that a vote for them are upvotes and votes for other parties are down votes against them. but the point i wanted to make was that being silent is not a vote as if everyone didn't like the party leader for their party and didn't vote out of protest allowing a racist/xenophobic party no one likes to win, it's kinda pointless to complain about the result when you didn't participate in making any decision.

Again, I didn't know about this and it's not realistic to keep track of every conversation. And "Check in on Identification questions" isn't the same as "Voting on banning and deleting id questions"

@madmada Because that's not what it was. Noone was voting on anything. We were gathering input and discussion from the community about an ongoing problem. However, that discussion turned out very one-sided and together with the current situation and existing history of the site, the stand the community had to make was obvious and clear.

What I responded to mentioned election, and no vote and and a count for the upvotes and down votes. Also this discussion wasn't a big enough scale to be considered the reference. The previous one gathered 3 time ~ the views, and upvotes for both the question and top answer, and with the site (probably) got bigger, it seems a stretch to consider this one as such.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that a lot of users were asking, answering and upvoting id question at the times (not aware of this discussion). That's surely mean more than a conversation.

@madmada See this and this comments.

@madmada as i pointed out in the answer, there is a box that shows featured Meta Questions and it's there on almost every page of the site you would use except for text searches and asking a question. this includes a question page where you would be upvoting and answering. the Meta Question was there so. to be blunt if people are choosing to ignore this there's nothing more mods and high rep users can do to make it more visible

Roy Moore would demand a recount. Ask yourself. WWRMD?

@Memor-X And as I pointed "Check in on Identification questions" is a vague term and it's not the same as "Voting on banning and deleting id questions", Also sorry but it's really something to say "I should've said something but can't now"

@madmada Which is not what it was for anyway. Noone was voting for anything, it was an open discussion to gather community feedback. However, the discussion turned out entirely one-sided and together with the current situation and the history of the site, the stand the community had to make was clear and obvious. If you didn't regard the topic even remotely important enough for a minor glimpse at the discussion at least, I'm afraid that's part of the problem.

@A J Are you suggesting that no one else is active at id questions? most people in this discussion isn't active in id questions (other than the down and close votes) to begin with.

@madmada Which...is telling...and part of the problem.

@Napoleon Wilson ♦ Again, a one sided discussion most user wasn't aware of it. And I for example didn't found out about it until I opened an id question a few hours ago. If there are a real desire to listen to the community, then do listen when the users actually know about it and give some feedback.

They did, and they did. Sorry you weren't part of them, though.

@madmada how are you gadgeing activity? i would think AJ is active as i see that name show up editing ID Requests alot of the time and trying to keep the expected quality and i am quite sure i've seen Napoleon's name show up asking for more details to stop them getting closed

And so is Paulie, but generally most most users against it don't. My point don't attribute id activity to those users because someone commented "upvote as usual for now".

@madmada sorry but you're wrong about that the users who voted against IDs are not active on them

@madmada "My point don't attribute id activity to those users" but why not? if they are editing and commenting trying to improve a question's viability on the site and they are doing it regularly enough they are just as active as a user who answers every id request. you don't have to ask/answer questions on the site to be active. you can be active by editing posts to be more readable, fixing tags and question titles for SEO, requesting clarification in posts. and for high rep uses they don't get anything for their work (as rep form editing is capped and comment upvotes don't give rep)

Don't attribute all of it. Since it was a response when I said there are a lot of activity by users who don't know about the discussion and A J responded by this link. So no, I don't think all users were aware but read this comment and was just being active as instructed.