Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-5790218-20160211203109/@comment-5790218-20160212151346

Flutterbutter wrote: For the time being, I'ming to change myto oppose. As of now, disregarding the fact I feel this is also for personal gain, I feel this forum has one major flaw. It is ignorant to all negative possiblities.

If we start demoting users, wouldn't admins be more wary as to who they kick and ban, possibly getting to the point where they won't kick/ban certain users and will be biased against others so they gain the majorities favor? I've seen it happen before when something like this wasn't being enforced, whose to say it will under even more pressure?

You've a point. If a council member or staff really do this, we won't have any proof he/she did such a thing, our only proof will be the other users voice. But that's exactly the thing we want to bring in with the council. If someone sees something like that happen xir would be wise enough to print it or record everything so they can report what they just saw. This would be enough proof that the specific staff isn't doing xir job properly, taking most of they chances to be from the council or to get a majority vote. If the council is getting approved, them for sure majority vote will partly vanish of the wiki due to the huge quantity of the new voting rules, especially the one who forces you to give a reason to you vote on some votes.

As mentioned earlier, people will definately be demoted during this period of time, opening new spots in our staff page. This forum also points out a fact many have refused to accept: the problems of this wiki. By flat out stating it, people, by nature, will want to help fix it, so we could very possibly have an overflow of users running for staff positions and refusing to vote positive for others as there are only limited spots.

Flutterbutter wrote: This forum also lacks a concrete way of resetting the staff members. Talking to Bubble, she says it will be done one by one, which will only lengthen the time for the first problem, but also lacsk to describe HOW we'd do it one by one. Will we make them redo their running pages? If so, what about mods whose requirements have recently changed? What type of arguments will occur with this? Who will oversee this entire process?

One thing: I'm a she.


 * 1) The council is chosen by nomination process.
 * 2) Jackboog21 loses power if he isn't nominated for the council.
 * 3) A vote is set for each member of the staff to choose if they need to continue or not. If they don't meet the new requirements, they get demoted anyway.
 * 4) As I said million times, the users have all the voice in this new council democracy. So everyone is going to oversee this process.

Flutterbutter wrote: Speaking of the last question, once again, Bubble said it would be trusted people, but let me honestly ask you if we know anyone on here who is trusted by 100% of the community? And a group of at least 3 of them? No one. But why would we let the admins who are currently undergoin evaluation to host their own evaluation?

I also feel, these contributers would also lead to even more wedges in our weak community, which, overall could be it's downfall. I do support the general idea and the possible positive outcome this forum may hold, but I feel we're all overlooking the lack of detail this forum holds as well as the outcomes that wouldn't be beneficial to us as a whole.

Now that's something really itching on my brain. I feel nobody is trusted 100% but a lot are trusted by most of the wiki. So, these would be part of the council, or not, if they don't meet then needs. They aren't hosting they own evaluation, the users are. All this thing about user having voice may sound stupid, but it's the thing I'm really trying to propose and upgrade here.

Flutterbutter wrote: Thanks for reading this long ass post.

Thank you for expressing you toughts.