All posts by Keplers

no

<div class="quote"> <p>Michaelyoda wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: Slice was the one who called it a loophole to begin with with his admin RfR </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote: <p>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. </p> </div>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?</div>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 <i>currently</i> has rights or <i>previously</i> 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.</div> <p>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.
</p><p>IDK if that made sense, but there's my two cents, inflated though they may be. </p><noscript></noscript> </div> <p>What I'm suggesting is actually to keep the policy the way it already is. </p><noscript></noscript>

<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: Slice was the one who called it a loophole to begin with with his admin RfR </p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote: <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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? </p> </div> <p>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 <i>currently</i> has rights or <i>previously</i> 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. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">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</div>We should totally promote Nigma since he has experience with CM rights. <p>AAA, by the way. </p> </div>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. </div> <p>Well, you did say "...if you resign from your rights" </p><p>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? </p> </div> <p>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. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">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</div> <p>We should totally promote Nigma since he has experience with CM rights. </p><p>AAA, by the way. </p> </div> <p>Because people would vote Nigma for admin like sheep because he had the experience. </p><noscript></noscript> 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.

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

yes

no

D

Per Rio tbh but my vote remains A

<p>I vote neutral, simply because I believe it would be morally incorrect to support a vote in favor of promoting my own website. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Lilac Neko wrote: B, no. I don't know if LMBE is necessarily complete enough that we should link to it for now. If it's meant to be, it will be. It's not that hard to find. Also, since it is spammed on many users' message walls, it isn't too hard for people without wiki accounts to find. Let's come back and see how it's doing in a month. </p><noscript></noscript> </div> <p>I do suggest you visit it before making such a comment. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>KnightoftheLight wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Tuvok95 wrote: I vote B. </p><p>We have this place: </p><p>http://lego-message-boards-eternal.wikia.com/wiki/Lego_Message_Boards_Eternal_Wiki </p> </div> <p>To clarify, an endorsement literally means a link on the front page. The LMBE wiki in no way whatsoever compares to LMBW in regard to popularity. :P </p> </div> <p>> ~200 users within two months of founding
>in no way whatsoever compares to LMBW in regard to popularity </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Johnyjo wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote: <p>The crux of your argument is for recording "achievement" as if that's a big deal. I think what BCGirl said sums it up — we are here to record facts, not twist them because we dislike them. The rank tab says "Alien" and they are Alien. That's why Benboy et al. still have their ridiculous ranks despite it being a publicly-known fact that they cheated. </p> </div>Yes, but the ranks existed to reflect the accomplishments of the user depending on what they accomplished with their time on the MBs. For example, in this case, the Alien rank is a not an accurate reflection of someone who only accomplished being on the boards for 3 weeks, posting several hundred times, and receiving a few thousand likes. It is an accurate reflection of someone who accomplished being on the boards for several years, posting tens of thousands of times, and receiving hundreds of thousands of likes, and they should be attributed with the rank. If we simply leave everyone at "Alien", it completely defeats the purpose of having a rank in the first place, and will no longer have any relevance to the history of a user. <p>And for the record, I do not condone cheating in any form, and believe that fair action should be taken to rectify the issue with Benboy's rank and the ranks of others who cheated. But that's an entire other topic to discuss, because we're not talking about cheaters; we're talking about people who actually achieved their rank.  </p> </div>Again, though: at the time of the MBs' closure, they held the rank. Nobody could feasibly hold the rank given most estimates; it would require as much time of activity as the MBs had existed, hundreds of thousands of posts, etc. We cannot simply ignore that the rank was given to all users because we dislike it on principle. I still support the idea of including the fact that the user held a different rank previously. </div> <p>Keps that's crazy, if we give everyone alien there will be no organization to this wiki. :P I think it'd be better to give no one alien, and choose one of the other options.  Then we should make a page detailing all the requirements changes and the alien rankup or. </p><p>TBH I regret making this a vote and not simply a discussion :P </p> </div> <p>How does it ruin organization... it'd be easy to do. :P </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote: <p>Again, though: at the time of the MBs' closure, they held the rank. Nobody could feasibly hold the rank given most estimates; it would require as much time of activity as the MBs had existed, hundreds of thousands of posts, etc. We cannot simply ignore that the rank was given to all users because we dislike it on principle. I still support the idea of including the fact that the user held a different rank previously. </p> </div> <p>I never said that we should ignore the fact that all users were given Alien during the closure of the MBs. I do believe that we should include it somewhere; however, because I believe their rank prior to the "invasion" should still take precedence, that should be the rank that they are officially recorded at. </p> <div class="quote">Benboy755 wrote: <p>Considering that I only cheated to even the field with users who had 600,000+ extra minutes because of glitches, you're going to have a big problem with truly figuring out who actually earned what. </p> </div> <p>Okay, then we have to draw the line somewhere. If this is truly the case, then I support recording your rank at what it was just prior to the Alien invasion, as we should with every user. We can't tell when a user achieved a rank as a result of glitches or cheats, but we sure as hell can tell when (a) user(s) achieved a rank simply because it was just given out to them willy-nilly, and that's the difference to me and where I draw the line. </p> </div> <p>It's still a fact that they <i>held the rank.</i> Like I keep saying, this isn't about whether you thought it was "willy-nilly" or not earned -- it's about what was on the rank tab. </p>

<p>A because it's not as if 100% of a nonexistent number is even capable of voting. If 51% of the community votes to begin with, I'd consider myself lucky. Looking at recent votes that did have a higher cap of 25, I would say that the total votes would be roughly 30, meaning that a vote of 21 would necessarily have a 75% majority anyway. </p><p>Why the number is nonexistent: We rounded 36 up to 40 in our census (we should have halved 36 down to 18), and it seems we've only shrank since then. The "51%" of twenty-one votes is somewhat over 51% </p><p>
tl;dr: A and please take a new census. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote: <p>The crux of your argument is for recording "achievement" as if that's a big deal. I think what BCGirl said sums it up — we are here to record facts, not twist them because we dislike them. The rank tab says "Alien" and they are Alien. That's why Benboy et al. still have their ridiculous ranks despite it being a publicly-known fact that they cheated. </p> </div> <p>Yes, but the ranks existed to reflect the accomplishments of the user depending on what they accomplished with their time on the MBs. For example, in this case, the Alien rank is a not an accurate reflection of someone who only accomplished being on the boards for 3 weeks, posting several hundred times, and receiving a few thousand likes. It is an accurate reflection of someone who accomplished being on the boards for several years, posting tens of thousands of times, and receiving hundreds of thousands of likes, and they should be attributed with the rank. If we simply leave everyone at "Alien", it completely defeats the purpose of having a rank in the first place, and will no longer have any relevance to the history of a user. </p><p>And for the record, I do not condone cheating in any form, and believe that fair action should be taken to rectify the issue with Benboy's rank and the ranks of others who cheated. But that's an entire other topic to discuss, because we're not talking about cheaters; we're talking about people who actually achieved their rank.  </p> </div> <p>Again, though: at the time of the MBs' closure, they held the rank. Nobody could feasibly hold the rank given most estimates; it would require as much time of activity as the MBs had existed, hundreds of thousands of posts, etc. We cannot simply ignore that the rank was given to all users because we dislike it on principle. I still support the idea of including the fact that the user held a different rank previously. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote: <p>We're recording the ranks they had, whether legitimately earned or not. Should we downgrade Benboy et al. for cheating because they didn't <i>accomplish</i> it? </p><p>Seriously. You didn't climb a mountain. It's a tab on a forum on a website about a plastic brick for children. </p> </div> <p>If they cheated, yes. </p><p>This has nothing to do with such a monumental achievement as climbing a mountain, nor did I ever say it did. Stop putting words in my mouth. </p> </div> <p>The crux of your argument is for recording "achievement" as if that's a big deal. I think what BCGirl said sums it up — we are here to record facts, not twist them because we dislike them. The rank tab says "Alien" and they are Alien. That's why Benboy et al. still have their ridiculous ranks despite it being a publicly-known fact that they cheated. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote: <p>Nobody validly obtained any rank achieved in late February. We should leave ranks unchanged if we want to recognize "hard work." </p> </div> <p>So we go back to just prior to all of the req changes and keep it at what each user actually achieved. </p><p>I did nothing to obtain Alien, so why should I have it? My rank should be a reflection of my <i>actual</i> accomplishments on the Message Boards, not because the Moderators were feeling generous, and it should be recorded as such. </p> </div> <p>We're recording the ranks they had, whether legitimately earned or not. Should we downgrade Benboy et al. for cheating because they didn't <i>accomplish</i> it? </p><p>Seriously. You didn't climb a mountain. It's a tab on a forum on a website about a plastic brick for children. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Benboy755 wrote:
it would be nice to include what rank they had before the first req change, after the first req change, and after the second req change if possible</div> <p>Also per this, but looking for a more simple and less time-consuming solution, I vote <span style="font-weight:normal;">B. I don't think it's fair to attribute an accomplishment to people who did not meet the requirements to earn it. I feel like it completely undermines the whole idea of "working to obtain something" and to me would be a slap in the face to those who want to be remembered for having actually obtained the rank through lots of time and hard work.</span> </p> </div> <p>Nobody validly obtained any rank achieved in late February. We should leave ranks unchanged if we want to recognize "hard work." </p>