All posts by FortressOfNight

Alemas2005 wrote:

What vote is that?

Jdude420 wrote: I clarified the vote a bit, sorry for the lack of information when posting it guys (Fort, Rio, Ben, Brick). I haven't posted a CV since like forever. :P

Jdude420 wrote:

Essentially I'm saying a user shouldn't be able to just say "X would be bad with right Y", rather they should say why that user would be bad with right Y.

The reason why I'm putting up this vote is because some of the Admins don't always agree on what votes are acceptable, and which ones should be disputed. I realize that there is policy covering this (generally speaking), but I desire more clarification so I can feel confident when acting on situations in the future and there won't need to be much/any debate between Admins over acceptable votes.

Essentially I want the process of addressing non-acceptable votes to be quick and easy in the future.

«†J•cI•u•cI•e•420†» ^(Wall) -Retired Bureaucrat

Jdude420 wrote: And is that a problem? To have an opinion that differs from your own on some subject/matter? I have my reasoning for my opinion(s), you have yours, I don't see the issue.

I'm not even trying to argue or start a debate with anyone here, I simply stated my opinion.

I don't feel Buros are more leaders, than just Admins with a couple more rights, because Buros have more 'physical' power over decisions in/on/around the community, but because I feel they are more supposed to be leaders in the 'personal and individual' (for lack of better words at this time) way, not the Bureaucratic workings of the Wiki way. This is why I prefer maximum community support for elected Buros in the future.

Again, I will say that in no way am I trying to start a debate on this matter, I simply stated my opinion, and since someone desired to challenge it with their reasons for their opposing opinion I figured I might as well state my reasons. We have differing opinions, with our own reasons, we're not going to change our opinions on this matter - why debate over it? Just trying to nip it in the bud, so to say.

«†J•cI•u•cI•e•420†» ^(Wall) -Retired Bureaucrat

Madkatmaximus wrote: If they were leaders, they would have final say on votes, RfRs, etc, however we had a vote that was explicitly for disallowing vetoes like that and as such admins, and in effect buros, do not have a more important opinion than community members with no special rights. In reality, all buro rights really are is one more right that admins do not possess, and inability to be demoted by anyone besides staff. I would say that a buro position proves you are one of the more trusted admins by the community, but while it may have been in the past, it is not a leadership position.

Michaelyoda wrote: F

Dark Yada wrote:

So wrong, LMOW, LUW and others doesnt have badges.

Brick425 wrote: You're reporting a problem that doesn't and has never existed. B.

Alemas2005 wrote:

Convenience, perhaps? Isn't it more convenient having all Pokemon cards in a box rather than spread around your room?

...I see sense in it, instead...

Well, having this forum doesn't bring any harm, does it? So let it serve its purpose silently. I even put it close to the bottom of the forum list so that it doesn't detract too much from the others.

Alemas2005 wrote:

"the end result will be the same": Not really, at least we'd have this sort of blogs concentrated in one place...

Well, sorry, but seeing Wiki Activity completely run over by blogs, no thanks. Threads occupy a MUCH, MUCH smaller space, leaving more space for proper edits and other types of blogs.

Alemas2005 wrote:

C'mon, when the fad's it's over, I'll delete it.

And aren't you annoyed by the hundreds of comments of those blogs filling up Wiki Activity...?

Alemas2005 wrote:

Have one look at Wiki Activity. The problem with this sort of blogs is that they actually need comments. The "what you look like as X" and "X should not be trusted with Y matters" blogs can be more safely ignored and not be commented on than "what do you think of me?" ones.

It's in the title itself, "what do you think of me?". It's a question. It requires answers. That automatically means comments, and loads of them.

Plus, the aforementioned blog types have never been created at a rate of 5 in 24 hours...

Alemas2005 wrote:

You serious?

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

If 6 separate blogs of the sort doesn't warrant a forum, I don't know what does...

Michaelyoda wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote:

Michaelyoda wrote:

Da Weirdo wrote:

Michaelyoda wrote:

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote:

BusyCityGirl wrote: What?! Guys really? ...this is nuts.  :S Discussions of voting like this were brought up various times before and we've always agreed it's most improper, quite unnecessary, and all around not a great idea. We were satisfied and it was settled.

Check up on LMBW history. Why on earth bring it here now?? How desperate for drama can you possibly be? Half of you don't even know the very people you're voting on. D: (And why here? If anything this should be a RFR)  

What this does is stir up turmoil, feelings of uncertainty and criticism, brings back little thorns that had healed over, and dismisses respect for the authenticity, careful decisions, and hard work of these mods, the admins, and community of just a short time ago. It ends up as a dumb and painful popularity contest.  :/  

We are just as valid, approved, and official as any of the others. So what's the deal? While we're at it, why not vote on all mods and admins, or on all wiki things done before current users were around to vote, hm?  :|   Seriously, why does everyone need to put their little say in? If they were around when we earned our stars, they could have spoken up then. We all had community support at the time, you know. For goodness sakes, if you have a problem with one of us in the current day, then take the proper steps and make a vote or something for that specific user!  

Don't even get me started on the whole "we want to declutter the stars" attitude. That's one of the saddest things said around here. A retired, hard-earned star is part of a legacy. It's like having your name on a recognition statue. But it's far more than that... Ugh, like I said, don't get me started. 

Oh and the whole, "why do they need mod (or admin) when they're mostly inactive and not around often to use it anyway?" makes me want a wall to bang my head on. What if this was you we were talking about?? Have a heart! Why do you need an account when you're not logged in sometimes? Hm? You'd have to start just about from scratch if you came on one day and found it deleted. Imagine the hurt you'd feel too... 

Gah, inactivity is not a crime by any means! Who's even to say who is active and inactive anyway? Look at the comments here even. No one can agree about it for anyone. Some even listed me as inactive and others active. And no, it's not anywhere close to as hard as you seem think to catch up on the community and be ready to go and help out. Believe me, I would know. I was inactive for a whole year, yet was able to jump back in and was fully up to date within a week no problem. 

Well, I'm disappointed I guess. I've said my piece, so I'll shut up now. Just sometimes... *shakes head*  

<noscript></noscript>   Strong support for each one of them. 3: 

It's pretty simple if you'd paid any attention to the events preceding this; people figured that non-democratically voted-in admins/mods should be voted on to see if they should retain their rights, the (not really) majority voted yes on those, and thus we have this. There's no deeper malicious intent of "drama," "popularity contest" and "criticism". Though criticism is not a bad thing.

It's not a RFR because RFR stands for "Request for Rights". This would be more of a "Reconsideration of Rights," since it's a community-mandated vote which none of the participating parties can back out of.

<noscript></noscript>

Per this, it's not an insult to anyone, the fact is we can't have a democracy without elected staff. The point of this vote is not to demote people, it's to get community approval for them.

Let me be the first to point out that you don't have to be intentional to be insult someone.

Along the same lines, approval can also be indirect.  When you don't speak out against the status quo, in a legal sense, you are implicitly giving approval to it.  No one (that I'm aware of) has properly conveyed their concern to an admin about these user's rights, thus suggesting their approval.  You don't have to explicitly say "I am ___, and I approve this CM" in order to convey approval.

Some of us (including me) are too lazy to tell people should they have a problem, but for the most part I agree with this.

Then why should other, perfectly capable CMs suffer the consequences of someone else's "laziness?"

why shouldn't everyone be allowed to drive over the speed limit just because some people crash

How is the danger manifested by driving even remotely relatable to moderating a wiki chat?