Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-8846246-20160419193334/@comment-9026519-20160419213711

Oppose. Let's break this down a bit.

''"Recently I did a vote to tighten more of our ranks, while it did have more support than oppose, it didn't pass." ''

Weren't people complaining about others rerunning for mods, which is partly why we set up rules forcing them to wait before rerunning/being promoted? How is this any different other than the fact it's about aforementioned problem?

"adds more to it, and explains it better."

I already know you'll say something about this line, so let me beat you to the punch. The accounts and qualifications of people running change. They're opposed for reasons and aren't allowed to rerun or try to rise up the ranks (which I agree with), even if said issues are fixed. Again, how is this any different?

"Helper (The new rank)"

Why. Do I even need to mention how crappy this rank seems?

Regarding how every position has to wait to be promoted now. Look, as it stands, there are quite a few things that are not getting done around here. Those monitoring forums only seem to look at ones that are highlighted because nothing of importance actually gets highlighted w/o being asked. What's the point in having people even monitor said forums when '''they have to be asked to do your job? '''There are actually plenty of forums that don't pass or don't get the attention the deserve because they're not highlighted. I shift that blame partly onto the staff as well as them being understaffed. The chat, also, has periods of time when no moderator is present or, when mods need to go do something but leave their account on. Again, I primarily blame this issue on positions meant to help w/ said areas being understaffed. '''Tell me how making it harder and longer for someone to be promoted, is going to help with the issue of positions being understaffed? '''Now, if you say positions aren't understaffed, then it must be the staff who are lazy and aren't on chat and/or don't highlight forums. If that's the case, I feel we should revamp the entire staff instead. :^)

"A total of 33 people would be staff with this."

This is hilarious considering as of now, we don't even have all our positions filled. Even though you sit there with the promise of "more postions" you really have to ask yourselves the questions:

How long will it take to get said positions filled?

What happens if lower positions get clogged and no one in them wants to move up?

How long will we be understaffed?

What if someone in a position leaves or is demoted? How long will it take to replace them?

To put this into simpler terms, if we can't fill our current staff positions, what's the point in adding more as well as making them harder to get into?

"The current requirements are enough.
''The current system doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Rollbacks and Chat Mods have less rights than Discussion Mods and Content Mods, yet you don't have to be Rollbacks or Chat Mods to apply for them. Even Wikia itself suggests using a system more like what I'm suggesting, minus the helpers and mini-admins."''

I found this comment even funnier considering wikia also tells you to enforce not only the global rules, but your own wiki's rules. We all know how well we've done that.

"This will turn away people from applying.
''Not really, if it turns away anyone, then they probably weren't fit for staff in the first place. ''

There are/will be too many empty spots.
''Then people should apply. How many spots are empty doesn't really matter."''

These two go hand in hand. People should apply but aren't even though they're qualified. Weird. Maybe they're being scared away? Said counts of applications dropped even lower after the rule about mini-admin to admin wait period was passed. '''If people aren't scared or turned away from applying, then why are they not applying? '''

"We need more Chat Mod spots, not this.
''I've never seen chat without a mod, unless there was a glitch or only one person on. Also, we have 17 spots that can moderate chat. Discussion Mods, Chat Mods, Mini-Admins, and Admins can all do that. Seems like enough mods to me, people just need to apply for them."''

Actually, it's impossible for you to see chat w/o a mod because you are one. :^) Also, you keep preaching this "we have 17 spots" stuff, but in reality, how many of those spots are actually filled? Just like this whole fourm where you say "We'll have 33 spots". Again, you refuse to talk about the actual number of spots filled and focus on the total. I don't want to hear the max number, I want to hear the current number.

Here are some overall issues with this idea:

1) It does turn people away from applying. Not only that, but it prevents them as well.

2) We have people who like their current position and don't want to move up. What if a position gets clogged w/ people like that?

3) Why are we so focused on adding more positions before all the current ones are filled?

4) Why are we so focused on adding more positions when most of those in charge don't do their jobs and we don't enforce wiki policies? (No offense to staff. I just feel we as a whole need to step up and act more mature).

I'll probably sit on this and think up of more stuff, which I will write in a second comment.

Thank you for reading.