Right, look at this:
Voter 1 = Manager, name should be Habbo matched. (It needs changing)
Voter 2 = Manager but Habbo name not currently required.
Voter 3 = Manager but Habbo name not currently required.
Voter 4 = Staff, Habbo name not currently required.
Voter 5 = Has been staff previously. Has Habbo name anyway.
Voter 6 = Is community staff.
Voter 7 = Has been community staff in the past
Voter 8 = Is community staff
Voter 9 = Has been community staff in the past
Voter 10 = Is communtiy staff
Voter 11 = Is community staff
Voter 12 = Has been community staff in the past
Voter 13 = Is community staff
Voter 14 = Is community staff
Voter 15 = Is community staff
Voter 16 = Has been community staff
- 8 of the 16 voters are already community staff that are using their Habbo names.
- 5 of the 16 voters have been community staff in the past and have used their Habbo names. One of which still goes by their Habbo name.
- A mere 3 of the 16 voters have never been community staff or are not currently using their Habbo name.
So my points are this:
- If 8 people who votes yes already use their Habbo name, then what was the point in voting?
- if 5 of the people who voted yes didn't have a problem with using their Habbo name in the past, what is the problem now?
I'm sure you'll have something to say about that, but thats one of the reasons it was decided against.