Disallow admins to be able to veto community votes

0

Luke McSwagger99·3/17/2015

is it just me or does it seem that all this is mainly over emoticons

</noscript>

(Edited by Luke McSwagger99)

0

Mishkaiel·3/17/2015

Loney 97 wrote:

Mishkaiel wrote:

Nehpets7000 wrote:
Oppose, dang it. Admins are the most trusted users here and I hate just taking away all the influence they have. Gosh, I really do not like our community or the way it thinks anymore, which is why I think our admins have to have more "power" than the average user here.

Well, in real life when one person or one group of people takes more power for themselves, it turns into a dictatorship and turns the people against the leadership. The "ideal" form of government, and the government America once had, is a government in which the people had the ultimate power. The people elected the leaders, and had the power to remove the leaders by electing different leaders when it came time to vote again. There should be a balance of power between the people and the leaders.

Now, in regards to the wiki, I agree that the admins shouldn't be able to just veto something they don't like if the community votes on something which gets a majority vote; however, what if the community votes on something rediculous or uneccesary? The admins should be able to vote against something like that. Therefore, what about having the policy of not removing the part where the admins vote something down, but adding in a policy of where the admins tell the community why they struck it down, and then giving the community a second chance to vote. If the mods explain why it would be rediculous or uncessesary, then the community might change their vote based on that explanation.

In short, the admins can vote it down, but then they explain why, and the community has another chance to pass it again.

Hope this all makes sense. =P

=l

America has never had a government where the people had absolute power. That is referred to as a direct democracy, which many of America's founders were strongly against including John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He said that ""Pure (direct) democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." That statement is one of the reasons I am strongly against what Obi has been doing lately, taking this place away from being a representative democracy and turning it into a direct democracy.

I know that, America had quite a good system back in the day. =P

Well, if the admins block a vote, then they'd be excersicing their powers, however, the community would get to hear their reasoning and possibly change their minds. A balance of power, basically. But yes, the admins should be able to prevent stuff that the community would otherwise get away with, etc.

=l

(Edited by Mishkaiel)

0

Loney 97·3/17/2015

Mishkaiel wrote:

Loney 97 wrote:

Mishkaiel wrote:

Nehpets7000 wrote:
Oppose, dang it. Admins are the most trusted users here and I hate just taking away all the influence they have. Gosh, I really do not like our community or the way it thinks anymore, which is why I think our admins have to have more "power" than the average user here.

Well, in real life when one person or one group of people takes more power for themselves, it turns into a dictatorship and turns the people against the leadership. The "ideal" form of government, and the government America once had, is a government in which the people had the ultimate power. The people elected the leaders, and had the power to remove the leaders by electing different leaders when it came time to vote again. There should be a balance of power between the people and the leaders.

Now, in regards to the wiki, I agree that the admins shouldn't be able to just veto something they don't like if the community votes on something which gets a majority vote; however, what if the community votes on something rediculous or uneccesary? The admins should be able to vote against something like that. Therefore, what about having the policy of not removing the part where the admins vote something down, but adding in a policy of where the admins tell the community why they struck it down, and then giving the community a second chance to vote. If the mods explain why it would be rediculous or uncessesary, then the community might change their vote based on that explanation.

In short, the admins can vote it down, but then they explain why, and the community has another chance to pass it again.

Hope this all makes sense. =P

=l

America has never had a government where the people had absolute power. That is referred to as a direct democracy, which many of America's founders were strongly against including John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He said that ""Pure (direct) democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." That statement is one of the reasons I am strongly against what Obi has been doing lately, taking this place away from being a representative democracy and turning it into a direct democracy.

I know that, America had quite a good system back in the day. =P

Well, if the admins block a vote, then they'd be excersicing their powers, however, the community would get to hear their reasoning and possibly change their minds. A balance of power, basically. But yes, the admins should be able to prevent stuff that the community would otherwise get away with, etc.

=l

Oh okay, I misread you there; thought you were saying that any form of government with a leader would be considered a dictatorship in a negative sense.

(Edited by Loney 97)

0

Mishkaiel·3/17/2015

Loney 97 wrote:

Mishkaiel wrote:

Loney 97 wrote:

Mishkaiel wrote:

Nehpets7000 wrote:
Oppose, dang it. Admins are the most trusted users here and I hate just taking away all the influence they have. Gosh, I really do not like our community or the way it thinks anymore, which is why I think our admins have to have more "power" than the average user here.

Well, in real life when one person or one group of people takes more power for themselves, it turns into a dictatorship and turns the people against the leadership. The "ideal" form of government, and the government America once had, is a government in which the people had the ultimate power. The people elected the leaders, and had the power to remove the leaders by electing different leaders when it came time to vote again. There should be a balance of power between the people and the leaders.

Now, in regards to the wiki, I agree that the admins shouldn't be able to just veto something they don't like if the community votes on something which gets a majority vote; however, what if the community votes on something rediculous or uneccesary? The admins should be able to vote against something like that. Therefore, what about having the policy of not removing the part where the admins vote something down, but adding in a policy of where the admins tell the community why they struck it down, and then giving the community a second chance to vote. If the mods explain why it would be rediculous or uncessesary, then the community might change their vote based on that explanation.

In short, the admins can vote it down, but then they explain why, and the community has another chance to pass it again.

Hope this all makes sense. =P

=l

America has never had a government where the people had absolute power. That is referred to as a direct democracy, which many of America's founders were strongly against including John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He said that ""Pure (direct) democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." That statement is one of the reasons I am strongly against what Obi has been doing lately, taking this place away from being a representative democracy and turning it into a direct democracy.

I know that, America had quite a good system back in the day. =P

Well, if the admins block a vote, then they'd be excersicing their powers, however, the community would get to hear their reasoning and possibly change their minds. A balance of power, basically. But yes, the admins should be able to prevent stuff that the community would otherwise get away with, etc.

=l

Oh okay, I misread you there; thought you were saying that any form of government with a leader would be considered a dictatorship in a negative sense.

Lol, kay. Yah, but, and I'm gonna get into Biblical things here, so keep your shoes on, =P the Mellinial Kingdom will technically be a dictatorship. The only difference is that when man rules as a dictator, it will ultimately be bad because man is bad. However, since it will be Jesus Christ ruling during the Mellinium, and He is perfect, it will be the perfect dictatorship. =P not that this has anything to do with the wiki xDDD

Anyway, yah, I agree with ya. =P

=l

(Edited by Mishkaiel)

0

Nehpets7000·3/17/2015

Loney 97 wrote:

Mishkaiel wrote:

Nehpets7000 wrote:
Oppose, dang it. Admins are the most trusted users here and I hate just taking away all the influence they have. Gosh, I really do not like our community or the way it thinks anymore, which is why I think our admins have to have more "power" than the average user here.

Well, in real life when one person or one group of people takes more power for themselves, it turns into a dictatorship and turns the people against the leadership. The "ideal" form of government, and the government America once had, is a government in which the people had the ultimate power. The people elected the leaders, and had the power to remove the leaders by electing different leaders when it came time to vote again. There should be a balance of power between the people and the leaders.

Now, in regards to the wiki, I agree that the admins shouldn't be able to just veto something they don't like if the community votes on something which gets a majority vote; however, what if the community votes on something rediculous or uneccesary? The admins should be able to vote against something like that. Therefore, what about having the policy of not removing the part where the admins vote something down, but adding in a policy of where the admins tell the community why they struck it down, and then giving the community a second chance to vote. If the mods explain why it would be rediculous or uncessesary, then the community might change their vote based on that explanation.

In short, the admins can vote it down, but then they explain why, and the community has another chance to pass it again.

Hope this all makes sense. =P

=l

America has never had a government where the people had absolute power. That is referred to as a direct democracy, which many of America's founders were strongly against including John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He said that ""Pure (direct) democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." That statement is one of the reasons I am strongly against what Obi has been doing lately, taking this place away from being a representative democracy and turning it into a direct democracy.

(Edited by Nehpets7000)

0

Randomized·3/17/2015

Support.

(Edited by Randomized)

0

Plurky of House Targaryen·3/17/2015

what's the use of this vote, if the admins have a sense of humour they'll just veto this :P

(Edited by Plurky of House Targaryen)

0

Vonness11`·3/17/2015

Packachoo wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:
This "veto" clause gives me a degree of security. Like a "security blanket".

What if there's a vote for removing certain parts of the general policy?

What if there's a vote for allowing petitions asking for demotions?

What if there's a vote for the removal of the duplicate account guidelines?

If those 3 happen and are successful, then there wouldn't be anything stopping them. The clause is like a safety net, with the admin team operating it. If we remove it, the admin team would be left unemployed and useless in regards to "controlling" the Wiki. If we can't

Therefore, I'm firmly opposed.

(And don't even bother sucking me into yet another debate, I'm sick of them)

"admins are meant to use their rights to help the community, not their own interests"

I don't like how you expect that the admins are "controlling" the wiki. The admins are still employed in fighting vandals and spam, and editing. That's why you're an admin, not because you have the most say on a topic, or because your choice matters more than a regular user's.

^this, also @highlighted, if you're really so concerned about that, make a vote to outlaw those type of votes

</noscript>

(Edited by Vonness11`)

1

C886553·3/17/2015

Support to cancel out Alemas' oppose. Naturally an admin convinced that he can do whatever he wants by nature of his "powerful" position on a site on the internet would dislike this.

If the community changes so much that they support widespread use of the F word, for example, then a few tenured admins shouldn't be able to prevent that.

(Edited by C886553)

0

ItsCryptiid·3/17/2015

Support

(Edited by ItsCryptiid)