Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-25995065-20150317063943/@comment-4845243-20150319172126

Eagleeyedan wrote: Bourgeoisie wrote:

Eagleeyedan wrote:

Madkatmaximus wrote:

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote:

Eagleeyedan wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote:

Legoanimals750 wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote:

Legoanimals750 wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote:

Legoanimals750 wrote:

Legoanimals750 wrote: I support. But only if the community agrees over 66% on that topic. Never mind i change my vote Disagree. What made you change your mind? Well i didn't really care either way. But i thought about it and it makes more sense that the people in charge should get more power. .......admins aren't in charge and their rights aren't power. Your just trying to make me agree again aren't you? :P No, I'm pointing out a huge flaw in your reasoning. That'd be like saying "I don't want to vote for because I don't think they can run this restaurant very well", as if you thought the United States was a restaurant and not a country. User rights are not power, and administrators are not in charge of the community. You say we are not in charge, yet we are elected (I use we loosely, having not been elected myself), and even you make the analogy to us and the president? Do you claim the president is not in charge? And if user rights are not power, than what are they? Power is the ability to do something, users have the power to edit among other things, admins just have more because we are qualified to run the community as indicated by the community through voting. ▂▃▅▆▇█▓▒░Eagleeyedan▒░▓█▇▆▅▃▂ First of all don't misread my analogy. The analogy doesn't involve administrators. The analogy compares this vote in this forum to a presidential vote. Both are votes. It's not comparing administrators to the president.

User rights are sets of tools trusted to certain members of the community to help them further contribute to the purpose of the wiki. They do not entitle power, authority, or diplomatic immunity. And administrators are not in charge of the community. For example, if the community votes for something like a policy change, what are the administrators going to do? They can't just say "no" to the entire community consensus, or the community will either suggest them for demotion for abuse of rights, or you'll see your community just leave. You have a very confused idea of how wikis work. You haven't been exposed to very many, are not open-minded, and have been absent from this wiki for several years. You forget who supported people for adminship, who the admins are using their rights to benefit, and who can choose to have the admin's rights removed. The answer to all three is the community. Administrators are nothing special compared to anyone else, they're simply users with some extra tools to help build the wiki, and to quote Jimmy Wales, adminship is no big deal. Evwn though you may know much about wikis in general, it woild be "common sense" that this wikis founder would know more about this wiki in general The founder has been inactive for several years, so it would generally be assumed that he knows absolutely nothing about the wiki as of now... The founder, Legoguy1866, may be inactive, but I am one of the founders after he retired a few months after creating this. Drew and LBK took it over from him, and then I joined them about 2 weeks after. It was just us and a few others at the time and I do consider myself a founder of this wiki. I've been with it nearly as long as it's been around and I've been an admin pretty much since I joined it. ▂▃▅▆▇█▓▒░Eagleeyedan▒░▓█▇▆▅▃▂ You've been inactive for several years yourself. And either way, no wiki can expect to keep everything the same as when it was founded when the community itself changes. In fact, no community, network, business, government, sovereign state, etc can stay the same unless it doesn't expand or change at all over time. But this is a wiki, and wikis change. This one already is vastly different than the LEGO Message Boards Wiki that Legoguy1866 founded all those years ago. Just because someone founded something doesn't mean they know what's best for something. Not saying any founders of this wiki don't/didn't know what was best, but EED appears to miss the point that things on the wiki do need to be changed as the community changes. Why? Why do things need to be changed? Why does this need to be changed? What are the admins doing wrong that constitutes a need for this change?

Not to point fingers, but Ii anything, it's what the users are doing wrong that is causing the problem. Users toyed with trolling the LMBs with Nashtron and BCC. Users push the limits of the rules. Users are breaking the rules and are pushing for those rules to be changed, so that they no longer have to fight the rules, but can break them freely since they would no longer be rules. The rules are there to keep this site safe. The admins are here to enforce those rules and keep the users from getting into trouble. Sadly, the right people for the job of adminship are either inactive or tired of fighting.

I may have been inactive on chat and editing, but I have still visited nearly daily, and have been more active on the admin side of things. I simply do not have the time for the others, but this directly affects my job as admin and therefore I am coming out of public inactivity to speak my mind. I may sound brash, but only to fight what is causing me much ire. ▂▃▅▆▇█▓▒░Eagleeyedan▒░▓█▇▆▅▃▂ This should be changed mainly just because it's a bad policy. Say down the road, all/most of us current admins have left, and the admin team at the time decides to go against the community, and constantly vetoes everything they say. Now this is unlikely, because the community selects admins, so anti-community admins are unlikely to get rights. However, it's just a bad policy to have in general.

Also, there's honestly no good reason to keep it. Extreme stuff is against the ToU anyways, so the community can never decide to allow it. For other stuff, the admin team is able to vote in forums and exert our influence that way and probably make sure nothing absurd gets voted in. There are quite a few admins, so if we all opposed something there's no way it would get voted in, because there are always a few reasonable users willing to listen to us. You might argue that in the future we might have a community without anyone reasonable, but that's the same kind of hypothetical argument like the one where we have a bad admin team that shouldn't have veto powers.

You say "The admins are here to enforce those rules and keep the users from getting into trouble." Certainly admins have the tools to prevent disruption and abuse by enforcing the rules. That's not going to change, so why is that a problem?

Also, sorry to call you out on this, but you haven't been very active "on the admin side of things" either.