Thread:Goggles99/@comment-4845243-20150310002722

Goggles, why are comments disabled on your blog? :P Do you not want a massive refutation discounting all your arguments where everyone can easily see it? :P (mostly joking, but why exactly are comments disabled? Was that intentional?)

Anyways, I'll respond here I suppose.


 * But necessity is the mother of invention and as times changed and our wiki grew, the admins quickly saw the need to somehow spare the wiki from the swirly maelstrom of foul smelling poop-flinging flame wars that ensued from these discussions being held publicly.

Can you show some examples of alleged "flame wars"? You weren't there when this happened, so you're really just working with assumptions (and maybe some anecdotal evidence from people who were there?). Also, can you show any convincing reason for why such flame wars would occur with the discussions that we are proposing? ''Many, many policy discussions have already been held on-wiki without any flame wars. Empirical evidence suggests that we are capable of holding such votes without flame wars, so you'll need to prove otherwise.''

RE: Secrecy:

What you've said under this point is fine and dandy, but entirely irrelevant to the advantages to the proposal that I outlined in my blog. It's good that we aren't secretive about the topics we are discussing. That's not really an impressive feat, however. The point is that the specific opinions of the admins are veiled from public opinion (if and only if the admin chooses to not disclose them to the public). Idk if you've seen it, but we actually have some stupid admin policy somewhere (not on wiki) about not being allowed to share the opinions of other admins that they have disclosed on admin talk. :P

RE: Trust

All of these are good points. I'm glad you agree on what admins are, and I also agree that the discussions we have a discussions by a part of the community, and that we're not special. However, if we are not special and are just members of the community, then it follows that there is no particularly compelling reason for us to make decisions on our own without input from the rest of the community. The community is made up of many bright and imaginative individuals, who, while they are not admins, have good ideas that they can contribute to our discussions. Why not have the discussions here and include them? This point you make provides absolutely no reasons for opposing the proposal. It's simply another red herring.

RE: Chaos

Now you actually are making a point that is relevant to my arguments and the proposal. You are presenting a disadvantage for the proposal, namely, it's negative impacts (which you call "chaos"). But here's the thing. No one is asking that we have the most "fiery and controversial" discussions on the wiki. Those would be things like blocks and bans and IP checks. Everything else is already allowed on the wiki, and is already discussed on the wiki. Things like policy have been voted on multiple times without any of this pretended "chaos" actually occurring. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the claims that if we continue to have these discussions, something will change. The proposal just wants to make it so these discussions are only on the wiki, instead of on the wiki and admin talk. If they were going to cause this imaginary chaos, they already would have done it. :P

RE: Indecision

Um, wow. I want to be careful to not sound rude here. However, Goggles, you completely do not understand how admin talk works if you are honestly making these points...You say:


 * You either have all discussions here, or all on the Admin site.

What the heck? You do realize, don't you, that we already have discussions here on the wiki, and on admin talk. We already have both. So your whole argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, you say that there is no standard for deciding what would be talked about on admin talk and what should be talked about on wiki. '''That's the problem. Right now there is no standard. Riolu's proposal is that standard that we need. It outlines what can be discussed on wiki and what can only be discussed off wiki. It's really, really simple. Things that affect the entire community are discussed with the entire community. Things that affect only some (like blocks) are discussed in private with admins and the user being blocked or unblocked. This isn't complicated.''' RE: Wat iz adminz

Great points here, however, they don't mean the proposal shouldn't be implemented. First let me respond to this:


 * It's been suggested that if admins keep discussions private that somehow major rules and changes would be added (or not added) with no input from anyone else. This is blatant fear tactics, and is totally untrue. First off, look at all the successful community votes that we've had

Actually, we have added major rules and policies, like the Duplicate Guidelines (for a fairly recent example), without community input. Really, Goggles, you need to get your history right. You are making factually inaccurate claims about how administration works. With all due respect, you've only been an admin for a few months or less. I've been an admin for almost two years, and trust me, we have made huge decisions without community input. The reason that we do get as much input as we do is because I had, with the help of admins who agree with me, successfully pushed for more community input before you became an admin. In fact, it's because I pushed so hard for Requests for Right that you even are admin. :P

RE: Demand

First of all, it's entirely absurd to discount the opinion of users merely because they have been blocked in the past. Users like Bourgeoisie have called for change in how we use admin talk, and so have all the users who have voted yes on Rio's proposal, and so have admins like Rio and I who have seen how many decisions have been made without community input.

RE: Better Options

Preach it, brother! Admins definitely need to be more personally involved. This is actually something that would be accomplished by the proposal, however, as it would require admins to discuss things more often with the community. :P Your "better option" is not exclusive to the plan, however, we can and should do both. It's not a matter of one or the other. :)

RE: Last Point

It's true that the community is divided in their opinions, but it has not caused disharmony between actual people. This isn't a debate like Brickimedia which has everyone at each others' throats. :P

You say:


 * But anyone who looks closely at this can see that those "benefits" are impossible here, and will never happen by this proposal. It will only destroy everything we've worked to build here and cause major problems for our future.

No, actually, that's entirely false. I'm part of "anyone" and I have examined this issue and am considering arguments from all side. However, all arguments that have been made against these proposal are either based on personal preference and emotion or riddled with logical and historical errors like your post (although you have plenty of good things to say as well!). You have not made any compelling arguments against the proposal, nor has anyone else. Neither have you actually directly responded to my arguments about why the proposal is beneficial to the community.

Also, you're TL;DR version is horrible. Please re-write that, for the sake of good reasoning and respect for evidence. :P 