5,988
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by Nehpets7000
<div class="quote">Vonness11` wrote:
<div class="quote">Nehpets7000 wrote:
<div class="floatright">
</div>B.</div>
that was rather uncalled for </div> <p>Excuse me, cats can be very called for. They hunt pests like mice, as well as provide us with cute youtube videos, internet memes, and a song about a cat who is a poptart shooting rainbows in space. </p>
<div class="quote">Nehpets7000 wrote:
<div class="floatright">
</div>B.</div>that was rather uncalled for </div> <p>Excuse me, cats can be very called for. They hunt pests like mice, as well as provide us with cute youtube videos, internet memes, and a song about a cat who is a poptart shooting rainbows in space. </p>
(Edited by Nehpets7000)
<div class="quote">Bourgeoisie wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Nehpets7000 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Ajraddatz wrote:
If the community changed enough that a supermajority wanted to allow the F word than the desires of the community at the time should prevail. Obviously that won't happen, but the same could be argued of any other change. If the community wants it, then there shouldn't be a group of users who can veto that.</div>I don't agree. That might be how you think things should be, but there has to be a line on what the community can and can't do. </div>And the community determines that line. That's how wikis work. The content, policies, guidelines, etc are all determined by the community for them to create the most effective system to build the wiki and community. Since you and other members of the community agree that words like the F word shouldn't be allowed, you've already determined that line. However, if at any time you and your fellow community members find it to be beneficial to the community to change that line, there's no reason why any group of users can prevent you from redetermining that line after the community voted for it. </div> <p>Welp. I'm starting to hate this place. I can't agree on a lot of the ideologies going on anymore. If things like this are going to keep happening, I don't think I'm going to stick around for it. </p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Nehpets7000 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Ajraddatz wrote:
If the community changed enough that a supermajority wanted to allow the F word than the desires of the community at the time should prevail. Obviously that won't happen, but the same could be argued of any other change. If the community wants it, then there shouldn't be a group of users who can veto that.</div>I don't agree. That might be how you think things should be, but there has to be a line on what the community can and can't do. </div>And the community determines that line. That's how wikis work. The content, policies, guidelines, etc are all determined by the community for them to create the most effective system to build the wiki and community. Since you and other members of the community agree that words like the F word shouldn't be allowed, you've already determined that line. However, if at any time you and your fellow community members find it to be beneficial to the community to change that line, there's no reason why any group of users can prevent you from redetermining that line after the community voted for it. </div> <p>Welp. I'm starting to hate this place. I can't agree on a lot of the ideologies going on anymore. If things like this are going to keep happening, I don't think I'm going to stick around for it. </p>
(Edited by Nehpets7000)
<div class="quote">Ajraddatz wrote:
If the community changed enough that a supermajority wanted to allow the F word than the desires of the community at the time should prevail. Obviously that won't happen, but the same could be argued of any other change. If the community wants it, then there shouldn't be a group of users who can veto that.</div> <p>I don't agree. That might be how you think things should be, but there has to be a line on what the community can and can't do. </p>
If the community changed enough that a supermajority wanted to allow the F word than the desires of the community at the time should prevail. Obviously that won't happen, but the same could be argued of any other change. If the community wants it, then there shouldn't be a group of users who can veto that.</div> <p>I don't agree. That might be how you think things should be, but there has to be a line on what the community can and can't do. </p>
(Edited by Nehpets7000)
<div class="quote">Bourgeoisie wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Nehpets7000 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Ajraddatz wrote:
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. <p>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. </p> </div>That's actually exactly why admins need more power than the community, to keep crap like that from happening. -_- </div>As much as it lacks it, this community does have enough common sense not to allow such things to happen. Users like you and everyone else who clearly has a problem with swearing here would at no time turn around and all support a proposal to allow the F word for example. There'd be no need for admins to have to veto it, because the community wouldn't vote for something that clearly negatively impacts it. </div> <p>I wouldn't be so sure. The community is changing all the time and it's not out of the question to be left with mostly people who just want the word unblocked. </p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Nehpets7000 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Ajraddatz wrote:
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. <p>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. </p> </div>That's actually exactly why admins need more power than the community, to keep crap like that from happening. -_- </div>As much as it lacks it, this community does have enough common sense not to allow such things to happen. Users like you and everyone else who clearly has a problem with swearing here would at no time turn around and all support a proposal to allow the F word for example. There'd be no need for admins to have to veto it, because the community wouldn't vote for something that clearly negatively impacts it. </div> <p>I wouldn't be so sure. The community is changing all the time and it's not out of the question to be left with mostly people who just want the word unblocked. </p>
(Edited by Nehpets7000)
<div class="quote">Ajraddatz wrote:
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. <p>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. </p> </div> <p>That's actually exactly why admins need more power than the community, to keep crap like that from happening. -_- </p>
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. <p>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. </p> </div> <p>That's actually exactly why admins need more power than the community, to keep crap like that from happening. -_- </p>
(Edited by Nehpets7000)
<div class="quote">Loney 97 wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Mishkaiel wrote: </p> <div class="quote">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.</div>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. <p>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. </p><p>In short, the admins can vote it down, but then they explain why, and the community has another chance to pass it again. </p><p>Hope this all makes sense. =P </p><p>=l </p> </div>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. </div> <div class="floatleft">
</div>
<div class="quote"> <p>Mishkaiel wrote: </p> <div class="quote">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.</div>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. <p>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. </p><p>In short, the admins can vote it down, but then they explain why, and the community has another chance to pass it again. </p><p>Hope this all makes sense. =P </p><p>=l </p> </div>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. </div> <div class="floatleft">
</div>(Edited by Nehpets7000)
<div class="quote">FortressOfNight wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Drew1200 wrote: I've completely opposed having the community as the final authority. </p> </div>Right. From this point on I'm seriously not participating in any wiki politics. If this is the kind of scum we have running this place, I want absolutely no part of it. </div> <p>Way to just take cheap shots at our admin team. </p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Drew1200 wrote: I've completely opposed having the community as the final authority. </p> </div>Right. From this point on I'm seriously not participating in any wiki politics. If this is the kind of scum we have running this place, I want absolutely no part of it. </div> <p>Way to just take cheap shots at our admin team. </p>
(Edited by Nehpets7000)
<p>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.
</p>
(Edited by Nehpets7000)
<div class="quote">Bourgeoisie wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>ZXSpidermanXZ wrote: Shouldn't a vote have an ending time? And whether it's the majority or not, the winning vote passes? </p> </div>The ending time is whenever consensus is reached. The majority is in favor, so if that is considered enough consensus, then it can be closed whenever. </div> <p>1 person is hardly a majority... </p>
<div class="quote"> <p>ZXSpidermanXZ wrote: Shouldn't a vote have an ending time? And whether it's the majority or not, the winning vote passes? </p> </div>The ending time is whenever consensus is reached. The majority is in favor, so if that is considered enough consensus, then it can be closed whenever. </div> <p>1 person is hardly a majority... </p>
(Edited by Nehpets7000)
<p>Oh gosh, Alemas, it's not serious at all. Nor was that sparking any flame war. Go ahead and remove the replies if you want but it's rather unnecessary. At least in my opinion. 
</p><noscript>
</noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Nehpets7000)
<div class="quote">YJF: Angel of Darkness wrote:
<div class="quote">Nehpets7000 wrote:
<div class="quote">YJF: Angel of Darkness wrote:
D. Hell to the NO <p>
And if you must, just from wiki. Leave it on chat </p> </div>Umm....we have problems with it on chat, not the wiki.</div>People should MODERATE it then. It's ridiculous for some user's actions to punish everybody.
</div> <p>The thing is though, it's hard to moderate it. The emote is rarely used for anything else. It only encourages behavior like this. </p>
<div class="quote">Nehpets7000 wrote:
<div class="quote">YJF: Angel of Darkness wrote:
D. Hell to the NO <p>
And if you must, just from wiki. Leave it on chat </p> </div>Umm....we have problems with it on chat, not the wiki.</div>People should MODERATE it then. It's ridiculous for some user's actions to punish everybody.
</div> <p>The thing is though, it's hard to moderate it. The emote is rarely used for anything else. It only encourages behavior like this. </p>
(Edited by Nehpets7000)