Thread:Drew1200/@comment-5052737-20130821185252/@comment-4845243-20130822144453

Alemas2005 wrote: Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: First, it ought to be recognized that good administrators are assets. Not only that, but they are hard to come by, and thus they are rare assets. Not very many users on this wiki have the necessary qualifications to be promoted to administrator. Ergo, to demote an administrator because of temporary or semi inactivity would be to destroy assets which cannot be easily replaced: foolish at best, and highly detrimental at worst.

Second, this assumes that there is a pressing reason for administrators to be "100% active". It is true that activity is preferable to inactivity, but this does not provide sufficient reason for the drastic measures suggested. Rationale for this assumption would have to be strong indeed to merit destruction of assets.

Third, it should be noted that if adminstrators fail to reply within a reasonable ammount of time, they forfeit their right to be a part of decision-making. However, no concrete limits have been set, nor has this been put into writing— it is de facto only. I grant that it would be expedient to set guidelines whereby decisions might be made in a smoother and more expeditious manner. 1) There may be more of these "assets" than you think. There are quite a few trustworthy people here.

2) How about important decisions, which require approval of all admins?

3) Yes, guidelines would be best.

Any comments on my second idea? 1) Not enough, and none as experienced.

2) We're actually changing that.