Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27097330-20170101033205/@comment-26347028-20170101232657

ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Eureka Enderborn wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote:

Eureka Enderborn wrote:

ChazmanianDevil wrote:

Eureka Enderborn wrote: Being liberal or conservative should have NOTHING to do with this! No, but considering how often this wiki has been divided, it's important to have two people on different sides of the personal control vs administrator control divide, and it helps to have diversity of opinions in staff in general. No, I quite disagree. Polotics should not come into play here, at all.

Liberal v Conservative isn't just about politics it's about way of life. And what about wiki politics? Because I'd say that's pretty important. Like it or not the admins hold a lot of influence and when one side of the divide controls the staff, especially the minority part, it turns into a bit of a shitshow. Oh, yeah, so we should definitely put someone like Aramir in charge just because he's conservative.

Except that he's got major attitude issues and has been banned before! We have to actually pick someone who's good for the wiki, not pick them because they're conservative and I'm liberal! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! I didn't suggest Aramir, I suggested Imrahil. Imrahil is a poor candidate, but the others are utter gobshite. Many people, including me, disagree. Then disagree, and be like a spear - not a club. You're subtle and no doubt inrecidbly clever comparison is lot on me. Spears have a point. My point is that he should remain an admin. I thought that was obvious. That's not a point, that's an argument. The argument requires points which themselves include evidence to back them up. I already gave points. He's active, friendly, engaged, has a relatively good record, well respected, and has taken a big part in initiating wiki reform. Which have all been countered.

Active - basically irrelevant.

Friendly - basically irrelevant.

Engaged - see active

"Good record" - debatable, fairly irrelevant besides

Respected - irrelevant.

Wiki reform - no reform has been done. 1. How exactly is it irrelevant? Admins have to be around to d their job otherwise what's the point in appointing them?

2. If you want people to respect the admins they have to be well liked. Admins are also sometimes important in showing new users around. So I wood say being friendly is pretty important.

3. See my response to active.

4. He almost always stayed cool headed until Dixie, and even then he didn't attack back against Aramir's highly personal post. And again, what exactly do yo consider relevant? How is having a good record not important?

5. Again, respect is necessary for order. And I'm interested to hear what you're criteria for admins is.

6. Call it whatever you want but he's started organization of factions and the initiative for a link on the mod wiki. Irrelevant in the face of other factors.

4. You place too much faith in people's reaction being unbiased in general.

5. Respect is necessary, but can be achieved through many ways.

6. Which failed. Articles are hardly much.