All posts by TheShadowAssassin
I don't consider this a loophole, and I think Alemas was a little biased in the wording here.
Slice was the one who called it a loophole to begin with with his admin RfR
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?
TheShadowAssassin 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
AAA, by the way.
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'm with Keplers but voting BBB - the main reason for those requirements are just so a user who's running knows what's expected of them and has the knowledge of this community and the way these tools are used. It shouldn't matter when they did or if they currently still maintain the position.
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?
So do you want us to change your vote?
Slicer Vorzakh wrote: BBB sixth try's a charm
Pretty much. A lot of the time, a person's stated intentions (or in fewer cases, a lack thereof) =/= actual intentions
And then the people wonder why the admins react so suddenly towards them or why the admins have such a hard time believing anything that comes out of their mouths. Congratulations, you played yourself
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 they didn't remove the reqs for rank 28 and 29 in order. They removed 27 - 1, then took out 29. They removed 28 the following day.
No, of course not! The LMB Mods are some of the most competent people I've ever known!
Because they didn't remove the reqs for rank 28 and 29 in order. They removed 27 - 1, then took out 29. They removed 28 the following day.
Seems logical
How will a mutual endorsement work if we have more lenient rules than LMBE?
I'd imagine something along the lines of what Astrokid mentioned above
I vote B.
We have this place:
http://lego-message-boards-eternal.wikia.com/wiki/Lego_Message_Boards_Eternal_Wiki
That literally nobody knows of.. 
</noscript>
Tbh it'd be mostly impossible to record the ranks most people got on February 23, unless someone has a sizeable archive, because I do not.
Fair enough. In that case, I change my vote to D. To me, I'd be okay with B, C, or D, as I heavily oppose A.
Tbh it'd be mostly impossible to record the ranks most people got on February 23, unless someone has a sizeable archive, because I do not.
Could the same not be said about recording the ranks people got after the January 23rd change and before the January 23rd change? It would be just as hard, yes?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We're recording the ranks they had, whether legitimately earned or not. Should we downgrade Benboy et al. for cheating because they didn't accomplish it?
Seriously. You didn't climb a mountain. It's a tab on a forum on a website about a plastic brick for children.
If they cheated, yes.
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.
Nobody validly obtained any rank achieved in late February. We should leave ranks unchanged if we want to recognize "hard work."
So we go back to just prior to all of the req changes and keep it at what each user actually achieved.
I did nothing to obtain Alien, so why should I have it? My rank should be a reflection of my actual accomplishments on the Message Boards, not because the Moderators were feeling generous, and it should be recorded as such.
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
Also per this, but looking for a more simple and less time-consuming solution, I vote 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.
EDIT: Changed my vote to D
lol, neutral again, because this will also be reversed in less than a year
I'll hold ya to it
</noscript>