Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-5643582-20150926061833/@comment-5369341-20151003163350

FortressOfNight wrote:

Michaelyoda wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote:

Michaelyoda wrote:

Da Weirdo wrote:

Michaelyoda wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote:

BusyCityGirl wrote: What?! Guys really? ...this is nuts. :S Discussions of voting like this were brought up various times before and we've always agreed it's most improper, quite unnecessary, and all around not a great idea. We were satisfied and it was settled.

Check up on LMBW history. Why on earth bring it here now?? How desperate for drama can you possibly be? Half of you don't even know the very people you're voting on. D: (And why here? If anything this should be a RFR)

What this does is stir up turmoil, feelings of uncertainty and criticism, brings back little thorns that had healed over, and dismisses respect for the authenticity, careful decisions, and hard work of these mods, the admins, and community of just a short time ago. It ends up as a dumb and painful popularity contest. :/

We are just as valid, approved, and official as any of the others. So what's the deal? While we're at it, why not vote on all mods and admins, or on all wiki things done before current users were around to vote, hm? :|   Seriously, why does everyone need to put their little say in? If they were around when we earned our stars, they could have spoken up then. We all had community support at the time, you know. For goodness sakes, if you have a problem with one of us in the current day, then take the proper steps and make a vote or something for that specific user!

Don't even get me started on the whole "we want to declutter the stars" attitude. That's one of the saddest things said around here. A retired, hard-earned star is part of a legacy. It's like having your name on a recognition statue. But it's far more than that... Ugh, like I said, don't get me started.

Oh and the whole, "why do they need mod (or admin) when they're mostly inactive and not around often to use it anyway?" makes me want a wall to bang my head on. What if this was you we were talking about?? Have a heart! Why do you need an account when you're not logged in sometimes? Hm? You'd have to start just about from scratch if you came on one day and found it deleted. Imagine the hurt you'd feel too...

Gah, inactivity is not a crime by any means! Who's even to say who is active and inactive anyway? Look at the comments here even. No one can agree about it for anyone. Some even listed me as inactive and others active. And no, it's not anywhere close to as hard as you seem think to catch up on the community and be ready to go and help out. Believe me, I would know. I was inactive for a whole year, yet was able to jump back in and was fully up to date within a week no problem.

Well, I'm disappointed I guess. I've said my piece, so I'll shut up now. Just sometimes... *shakes head*     Strong support for each one of them. 3:  It's pretty simple if you'd paid any attention to the events preceding this; people figured that non-democratically voted-in admins/mods should be voted on to see if they should retain their rights, the (not really) majority voted yes on those, and thus we have this. There's no deeper malicious intent of "drama," "popularity contest" and "criticism". Though criticism is not a bad thing.

It's not a RFR because RFR stands for "Request for Rights". This would be more of a "Reconsideration of Rights," since it's a community-mandated vote which none of the participating parties can back out of. Per this, it's not an insult to anyone, the fact is we can't have a democracy without elected staff. The point of this vote is not to demote people, it's to get community approval for them. Let me be the first to point out that you don't have to be intentional to be insult someone.

Along the same lines, approval can also be indirect. When you don't speak out against the status quo, in a legal sense, you are implicitly giving approval to it. No one (that I'm aware of) has properly conveyed their concern to an admin about these user's rights, thus suggesting their approval. You don't have to explicitly say "I am ___, and I approve this CM" in order to convey approval. Some of us (including me) are too lazy to tell people should they have a problem, but for the most part I agree with this. Then why should other, perfectly capable CMs suffer the consequences of someone else's "laziness?" why shouldn't everyone be allowed to drive over the speed limit just because some people crash How is the danger manifested by driving even remotely relatable to moderating a wiki chat? it was a bad analogy. but in essence we're only as strong as our weakest link. Ah. That makes a little more sense now.