Generally, I'd consider a user's having of rights to mean that they are in good standing on the wiki, and if they don't have rights, maybe there's a reason?

Because people would vote Nigma for admin like sheep because he had the experience.

Keplers wrote:

TheShadowAssassin wrote:

Keplers wrote:
I personally find this ridiculous since you don't miraculously lose your experience if you resign from your rights but okay time to hop on the bandwagon and AAA

We should totally promote Nigma since he has experience with CM rights.

AAA, by the way.

Because people would vote Nigma for admin like sheep because he had the experience. If people are idiotic enough to vote in someone malignant after two months of experience, they deserve whatever happens to them. As it stands, that wouldn't happen because we're not idiots. Let circumstance guide how people vote, not regulation.

Well, you did say "...if you resign from your rights"

So what if the user was demoted? Say if I was demoted from CM and and then I ran for admin and actually got it. Is that fair?

I don't think it's a good gauge to depend on though - someone could not have rights simply because they were inactive, and someone could still have rights but be pretty crappy admin-wise. I don't consider this a loophole, and I think Alemas was a little biased in the wording here.

TheShadowAssassin wrote:

Keplers wrote:

TheShadowAssassin wrote:

Keplers wrote:
I personally find this ridiculous since you don't miraculously lose your experience if you resign from your rights but okay time to hop on the bandwagon and AAA

We should totally promote Nigma since he has experience with CM rights.

AAA, by the way.

Because people would vote Nigma for admin like sheep because he had the experience. If people are idiotic enough to vote in someone malignant after two months of experience, they deserve whatever happens to them. As it stands, that wouldn't happen because we're not idiots. Let circumstance guide how people vote, not regulation.

Well, you did say "...if you resign from your rights"

So what if the user was demoted? Say if I was demoted from CM and and then I ran for admin and actually got it. Is that fair?

If the people wanted it, and thought you were capable, sure. Like Loney said, we don't even know the context of your demotion. It could have been for anything. Again, I trust the people here not to vote in Nigma just because he had two months of experience. Having two months and putting up an RfR doesn't guarantee rights, it just allows you to make an RfR. Don't act like this has a 100% chance of putting some bad hombre in office.

B to all because losing rights =/= losing experience

Slice was the one who called it a loophole to begin with with his admin RfR

It doesn't, and I don't think it does. But if we're understanding each other, then whether or not somebody has rights would not influence a change, making regulation irrelevant, so this vote is really quite pointless?

I don't understand the wording of this part, but what I'm saying is that people should be trusted to vote competently regardless of whether the person currently has rights or previously had rights. I do think the regulation is irrelevant and pointless, since people should be free to decide for themselves whether a user is a good choice or not.

I mean, I'm totally inactive and stuff, but, from what I gather, what your suggesting a new a completely new idea that would need to be considered in a separate vote.  This vote is about certain policies that have specific purposes, but they are worded in such a way that they can be void in the right circumstances.  What you or anyone believes the RfR policy should look like doesn't really belong in this vote, as it deals with already existing policy.

IDK if that made sense, but there's my two cents, inflated though they may be.

Michaelyoda wrote:

Keplers wrote:

TheShadowAssassin wrote: Slice was the one who called it a loophole to begin with with his admin RfR

Keplers wrote:

If the people wanted it, and thought you were capable, sure. Like Loney said, we don't even know the context of your demotion. It could have been for anything. Again, I trust the people here not to vote in Nigma just because he had two months of experience. Having two months and putting up an RfR doesn't guarantee rights, it just allows you to make an RfR. Don't act like this has a 100% chance of putting some bad hombre in office.

It doesn't, and I don't think it does. But if we're understanding each other, then whether or not somebody has rights would not influence a change, making regulation irrelevant, so this vote is really quite pointless?

I don't understand the wording of this part, but what I'm saying is that people should be trusted to vote competently regardless of whether the person currently has rights or previously had rights. I do think the regulation is irrelevant and pointless, since people should be free to decide for themselves whether a user is a good choice or not.

I mean, I'm totally inactive and stuff, but, from what I gather, what your suggesting a new a completely new idea that would need to be considered in a separate vote.  This vote is about certain policies that have specific purposes, but they are worded in such a way that they can be void in the right circumstances.  What you or anyone believes the RfR policy should look like doesn't really belong in this vote, as it deals with already existing policy.

IDK if that made sense, but there's my two cents, inflated though they may be.

<noscript></noscript>

What I'm suggesting is actually to keep the policy the way it already is.