Thread:Eagleeyedan/@comment-25625534-20150414141126

I'd like to preface this by saying that disabling the comments on your blog comes off as an extremely immature and insecure move. It indicates that you are afraid of discussion, critique or - even worse - debate.


 * Our philosophy at the time and I hold still is that we admins are not just users, not the rulers, not the dictators, not the hosts, not the upkeep crew of the wiki, we are the shepherds and moderators of the site.

This seems to conflict with some of the sentiments you make later in the blog.


 * I am told now that the community has changed and the rules must change as a result. To this I would suggest that the community has not changed, but a second community has grown up inside. While indeed, most users I've mentioned so far have retired, those who truly are dedicated to this place are still here.

Why do you say that? The only difference between the "old" or "original" community and the supposed "second" one (post-2011 members?) that has "grown up inside" is their join date. I don't see a reason to make the distinction beyond petty xenophobia.


 * The new community that has grown up inside seems to be, at least to me as one on the outside, a community with a social, chat-centric focus versus a focus on what a wiki truly is designed to be, an educational resource. Don’t get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against a chat-based community as such, however I don’t believe a wiki is the right place for it.

And where is a better place? LMBW has developed its own individual community and style. There is no reason to dismantle all the work that has been done in the last few years developing a community-friendly platform, unless you value your own and your several self-described "dissenters'" opinions above the sentiment of the rest of the community?


 * This brings me to the next point: the purpose of a wiki. As mentioned, this wiki is meant to be an educational resource with the content being created by the public community of users. The content of this specific wiki is focused around the LEGO Message Boards. It is to be a resource for users of the LEGO Message Boards to use to learn about the users, history, events, topics, and trends of the LMBs and is intended for the audience and demographic of the LMBs.

This is still the "purpose" of the wiki. Our mission statement, if you'd rather call it that. And it's being accomplished quite well. You'll notice the main page makes note of 4,048 pages (at the time of writing) and that we have several Patrollers and at least a dozen active editors. I fail to see how the "purpose" of the wiki is not being fulfilled, or has somehow been strayed from.


 * Because of the intended audience for this site, for the most part children, the founding admin team set it up as such with a focus on safety, based on the real MB's principles. This was much easier back then as chat was not yet a feature of wikia, and chat legally is only for users over the age of 13, which is around the age when most LMBers retire. Some of the things we did were to disallow swearing, using originally the same word list as the Moderators use on the LMBs though we've gotten laxer now, which I so far have not been against.

The most glaring flaw in this concept is that it is illegal, under US law, for any person under the age of 13 years to sign up for Wikia or interact on any wikis. I don't think anybody would argue that the majority of the wiki is not from the US - I'd estimate at least 75%. Unless we have some lawbreakers among us, and there are <13 year old non-Americans that I'm not aware of, we are a wiki composed largely of teenagers who should be mature enough to handle content that wouldn't be "safe" for the MBs. You may argue that underage users monitor the wiki without making accounts; I don't doubt this is true, but then you must ponder whether we should cater for the minority of users who do not even interact with the wiki and its members, or the members themselves.


 * We also originally had a system where only the admin team could decide who would be on the admin team and we would add admins as needed. This was done to make sure that only qualified users would be in the position. Soon, however, the community wished to be allowed to vote on the admins which we allowed, though not unanimously.

You say this like it's a bad thing...? Would you wish for your government to be made up of a small number of politicians, wielding total power over yourself, who would pick and choose those lower on the political ladder than themselves to elevate to their small circle of power, with yourself and hundreds of millions of other like yourself having no say in this? It's a natural progression of any sort of government-esque community to move toward some kind of democracy. In a community as small as LMBW's, there is absolutely no reason this should not be the case.


 * With the new elected admins came a new generation of policies. Not that that in itself is necessarily bad, for most of the older admins such as myself had all but retired and most are now gone meaning there was a need for a new team, however, the same level of homage to the qualities and safety measures of the LMB’s has not been upheld. In consequence, the quality of editing has decreased, the amount of article-based editing has drastically declined, and the respectability of the wiki's image has dwindled down. I do not know why this has happened, but I can only speculate that this is due to an increasing disrespect for the LMBs.

This is a ridiculous and offensive notion. You're accusing the admin team of being incompetent and disrespectful, when the wiki has only flourished since you became inactive. Not to say that you were stunting its progress - but to say that they were is a ridiculous sentiment. Can you provide any evidence that "the quality of editing has decreased, the amount of article-based editing has drastically declined," or that "the respectability of the wiki's image has dwindled down"? That last one in particular is extremely subjective and in particular offensive to the admin team. And please don't try to sugarcoat your previous statements by saying "I do not know why this has happened". It's very obvious that you're blaming your successors for the implied "failure" of the wiki, which is simply it moving on without your direct influence.


 * Several times I have seen comments like, and I quote from one I saw last week, "As if I give a crap about the message boards." If you don't care about the message boards, then why are you participating in a wiki focused on the message boards?

While the aftermentioned mission statement of the wiki is still being held to as high a - if not higher - standard as it was in 2011, the community itself is no longer as MBs-centric as it once was. This, however, has also been changing on recent months. Again, a year ago, if you asked me whether the community really cared about the MBs, I'd have said no, most don't. But with the influx of users, the number of editors and active MBs users has increased dramatically. The MBs are discussed regularly on chat, message walls, and elsewhere. There are certainly those who don't care - myself included - but this is no longer the sentiment of the majority. There are plenty of users who do.


 * Indeed, the disrespect for the moderators of the LMBs has translated into a disrespect for the moderators of this wiki. Chat mods are promoted to keep the chat clean, but there have been many incidents where if they kick someone who, after due warning, still persisted in trolling, are barraged with anger from others on chat and told to stand down as if they are abusing their rights rather than protecting the image of the wiki. In general, the chatmods that I speak with feel afraid to do what they are elected to do for fear of an outcry from the community. To those who have felt as such, know that there are still those who appreciate what you do.

You just likened the admin team to the moderators, but now you go on to say that the CMs are like the moderators...? And as for the rest of, that's not even remotely true as far as I've seen, especially recently. Certain users, in the past, have become very cocky about how far they can push their luck, but the admin team and CMs have done a great job of cracking down on that kind of stuff and I haven't seen any moderators accused of abusing power for several months. I do agree to an extent with the CMs fearing backlash from users who disagree with their actions; this is not something they should be afraid of. There are still users who will try to push their luck, though far less than there were in the past. These users are far from the majority, and they have very few who agree with them.


 * Now, on to another subject: that of the change in the tide of the wiki. Several times I have heard that the wiki needs to change because the community has changed. To this, I will use an analogy. Let's say you are going through your Grandparent's attic and come across an antique rug swatter. You see it and think, hey, that would make a great grilling surface for a campfire and take it with you that day. Next year, during spring cleaning, your Grandma needs that rug swatter to clean the living room rug, but after having been used for so long as a campfire grill, it is useless and she is forced to either spend a lot of time cleaning the tool or buy an expensive vacuum, though the vacuum would wear out the carpet since it is also antique and not designed for being cleaned with the destructive electric time saving vacuum cleaner. I use this analogy to say this: Just because something is misused over a long period of time does not mean it should be repurposed for that new use. It might as well if it's too far gone and broken, but if at all possible, it should be cleaned up and fixed up. That's basically how I feel about this place right now. Not that I am the right person to do the cleaning, or that anyone could do it alone, but obviously there is significant dissent in many areas of the wiki.

This is a worrying and disgusting sentiment. The wiki has not been misused, or perverted, and the only dissent I find is you - you called yourself a dissenter, after all - it has simply evolved into a more community-friendly thing. Rather than a misused rug, it's better likened to a piece of media, a TV show, movie, book, whatever you like. It began as an original piece of fiction, about X Y or Z, and it gained a following. The author or whoever has embraced that following and worked to better facilitate his fans in his work, while maintaining the original as best he can. The piece of media didn't begin with the fans worked into it, but as they came along, it worked in some of the ideas that the fans liked - the sensible ones, of course. There was no misuse, just change.


 * Now, there is an argument to be made, based on that same analogy, that there is a reason vacuum cleaners were invented in the first place to replace the swatters. However, as I mentioned, the rug in question was antique and could not handle the vacuum. In order to replace the tool of cleaning, your theoretical grandparents would have to also replace the rug. In the same way, if the community here would like to turn it into a social site, unprotected by the administration team, then sobeit, but there will be a lot more involved in this. No longer would we be able to consider ourselves a safe website. Admittedly it hardly is anyway, but at least there is a group of people trying to keep it safe. In the past, there was little need for such a focus on safety as the generation past knew this, and cared about the safety of the users on this wiki and upheld the values set forth by the LMBs on their own. Now, chat moderators are tested constantly, there is a constant push for more lax rules, and the general tone of the wiki has moved toward an edgy value system. Again, I say all this not with the intent to point fingers at the users of the wiki or with the intent to offend, but rather to point fingers at myself, point at the older generation, and point out why I and the others supporting me are trying to uphold that system.

I'd like to question your sources for this. I haven't seen a single person ever indicate the sentiment that they want LMBW to "to turn into a social site, unprotected by the administration team". Why would anybody want that? It's like trying to found a country with no governmental system and turning loose millions of people. Destined for failure and even an idiot could see that. I feel like the only antique thing here are your views. Since you seem to like analogies so much, let's give you one about progress and change. People in older generations will, still, today, staunchly oppose social progress. Racism and gender discrimination is, regretfully, still relatively widespread today. Society has advanced past these things. Your concept of "safety" and "edgy values" are not the same as what the community dictates them to be today. Not to equate what you're saying to racism or sexism, it's just analogy.


 * Next topic, the job of an administrator. The comment has been made now that administrators do not run this place, that we are not in charge, and that we have no more rights than any other user. To this I say poppycock. What does the word "administrator" mean? According to my New Webster dictionary [...] Tell me, what part of that says "is not in charge"? Every single definition means an administrator manages. Synonyms for manage? To be in charge of, to run, to support, to command, to call the shots, to direct,... etc. You see my point.

I don't really. You quoted a dictionary definition of the word - thankfully, Wikia has its own definition, which states that admins can block, ban, promote, delete, alter wiki functions, and some other stuff. Nowhere in there is the specifically-granted power to "manage" or "be in charge". Whose definition do you think is more applicable to this situation - the definition of a dictionary, or the objective rights granted to the administrator usergroup? This pretty much invalidates the remainder of your paragraph. Yes, some users don't have the necessary skills to use rights appropriately or well, I'll certainly agree. I don't think I'm at all cut out for any position of responsibility; I don't deal well with pressure and generally find it difficult to take a neutral viewpoint. Also, serial procrastinator. Yes, generally people who are cut out for administrator rights will make good leaders, but that doesn't make these two things one and the same.


 * That reason? Once again, safety. The world is an evil place, the internet all the more concentrated and since we are a site aimed at youth, we must be kept safe for youth. That doesn't mean we are here to bar out all mention of anything on the outside, but we are here to keep this place as close to PG as possible. It is undeniable that the message boards attract a large number of users from Christian Homeschooling backgrounds. Why is this? Because, for the most part, the parents in those families are very concerned with the safety of their children's minds and innocence, and the LEGO Message Boards have an outstanding reputation of safety. Seeing as this site is a wiki, there is no way we could ever hope to come even close to meeting that same standard, the admins here are not full-time paid experts, we are just seasoned users from the Message Boards. That being said, there is no reason to ignore the fact that we must try our best to stay at least within a zone of the values set forth by the LMBs. I will reiterate again and again, this is the primary task of the admins.

Pretty much countered all of this already. But the line "That being said, there is no reason to ignore the fact that we must try our best to stay at least within a zone of the values set forth by the LMBs" - there is. Because we really shouldn't try to do that. Again, we're not the MBs, it's literally illegal for any <13 year old Americans to be on here, so we shouldn't cater for them like the MBs do. We are a different community from the MBs by far and we should acknowledge that and adapt to it, which thankfully, we have been doing.


 * With the new policies being suggested and I fear passed, the ability of the admins to protect the safety of this wiki is being drastically compromised. There is absolutely 100% a need to allow the admin team, I emphasize team here since it is only by a decision of the entire admin team that we can veto anything, to be allowed to veto community votes. One admin, no, but if the entire admin team says no, then that should be the end of it. The admin team is made up of seasoned users who should know right from wrong and sometimes, what's wrong can seem right.

From a purely democratic point of view, I'd disagree, but as it is I'd say it's a sensible idea to have this an option, but I feel like it's not for the same reasons as you. If the community vote system is abused, such as it has been recently by Mishkaiel and Keplers, and a vote similar to those passes by some stroke of luck, the admins should be able to stop that. As is, it shouldn't even get to that stage, since admins can shut down votes, but if it ever happens, it's best to have a safeguard in place. Unfortunately, and forgive me if I'm wrong, you seem to be implying the admins should veto perfectly legitimate community votes that you in particular would deem to be against the "moral values of the MBs". Again, if I'm wrong, do correct me, but this is a completely anti-democratic idea.


 * French Revolution thing cut out because it's too long.

It's difficult to equate an online wiki with a population of 40-50 active users to a country of millions. There's not really a need for a veto capability unless there's an abuse of the system, in which case it would be justifiable for them to stop it before it even happened. If they catch it too late, however, a veto is a sensible fallback option, but only for those instances.


 * Why am I, and the others supporting this blog who are not all admins, insist that we should be allowed to retain this ability? By now, you can probably guess the answer, safety. We are seasoned, we've been around for awhile, and we usually know what is right and what is wrong for the wiki. If all of us, all of those in management think that something proposed by the community is wrong, all of us agree that something is so wrong that it should not be imposed, do you not think more weight should be given to our opinion? If in one voice the admins, a group of seasoned users, speak against something, obviously with the due and proper explanation as to why, then there must be either something fundamentally wrong with the proposed policy change or it would be a dent in the security of the site and the community, because let me tell you we do not agree as an entire team on hardly anything.

No. Extra weight should not be granted to your voices. This entirely goes against the concept of equality between users and admins which has been developing and progressing for years. The veto capability for things that the admins don't like is one major barrier between real equality. With a community this small, there is no real need for a veto policy unless it's one of the rare instances I mentioned above. Yes, you're seasoned users, your opinions should be considered, but they should not be able to silence the voices of the majority. It could be equated to granting older students extra marks on exams because they're older, or making people with higher IQs' votes count twice in elections. It's simply not fair.


 * Now, I realize that no system will ever be perfect. This is plainly a fallen world and utopia simply does not exist on this Earth neither in the physical realm nor the internet domain. Everyone has a slightly shifted idea of what utopia should be and therefore, there is no such thing as a perfect world that suits everyone. For this reason, one particular word is used: compromise. The one thing we cannot compromise on is safety, however the means of maintaining that safe environment can be attained in different ways. I do not see any reason for the current system to have been changed, but it has, and now the safety of this wiki has been harmed. Therefore, a compromise must be reached, and one was proposed in the Veto thread that I am willing, resistively but still willing to concede is a viable option, though considerably less secure than pure admin veto abilities.

One thing I have not touched on yet is what your definition of "safety" is. If it's sticking to the "moral values" of the MBs, I've countered that adequately above. If it's not, then I'd like a specific definition. As it is, I don't see why the community should not be able to dictate what is adequately "safe" and what is not. Again, we're a small community, and I'd say there's enough conservative Christian homeschoolers here to keep us from becoming 4chan, wouldn't you? Jokes aside, I don't think it's the place of any few people to decide what we are and aren't allowed to do/say/whatever in a community this size. You also continue to mention how terribly immoral and unsafe the community is becoming, and yet I fail to see inappropriate phrases or expletives scattered throughout your post to demonstrate how bad it's getting. Because those things aren't allowed. Again, do define "safe".


 * What is that idea? A revote. I won't delve into details here as it wasn't proposed by me in the first place and I'm sure it will come up for a community vote soon enough, but basically how I see it as working, now that the admin veto has been canceled, would be like this. If the community votes on something, and the admin team is wary of it and thinks the community might not be informed as to why it could be a harmful policy, a formal write up of the admin's concerns and reasons behind the revote would be posted along with a revote thread. Not sure how it should all work out beyond that right now, as I said it wasn't my idea in the first place and has not been written up as a true proposal yet therefore the details still need to be worked out.

It seems rather useless. The admins would have presumably already voted on it and stated their thoughts, the community would have voted too, the outcome was decided, and if (was it Jdude?)'s policy is implemented, then all CVs will be a two-step process; the first vote where the options are decided on, then a second where it's pure yes/no. So having the admins say "stop let's try again" seems kind of pointless if it already happened and everyone's already been exposed to their opinions. And, again, it destroys the idea of equality between admins and normal users.


 * As a clincher and to alleviate the stark presentation of the content, here is a poem I wrote about a year ago. (in case you didn’t know it, I am quite a poet. I rhyme all the time and I’m not afraid to show it.) We all must do what do what we believe to be right. You may disagree with what I have layed out in the blog. In fact, I suspect many of you will. I am just one who has a lot of experience in the world of the LEGO Message Boards and feel very strongly about how things have been turning. This is pretty much my last-ditch effort to lay my thoughts on the table. What happens now, is no longer in my hands. I’ve served many years here, even more on the LMBs. I’ve stayed strong through many generations of users who’ve grown up and left as I’ve grown up and stayed. I don’t think many of you realize the impact the LMBs and this wiki have had on me, and how that would never have happened had my parents not trusted the safety of them. This same rigid, unfaltering level of protection is what I am trying to retain here with the realization that is entirely impossible. Nowhere is perfect. If there was such a place, I’d pack up and move there in an instant but the best I and anyone can do is do what I can to work toward such a community.

What it boils down to is whether to prioritize "safety," the integrity of safety true to the MBs and what is allowed there or to priotize democracy and equality between users. In the current state of the wiki, I think it's more important to accommodate the existing users rather than the MBs' morals and policy, which aren't even designed for this wiki's (legal) demographic.

That was a very nice poem c:

And that audiobook offer! Very nice :P Again, if I'm misinterpreting anything, do tell me. :P 