Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27097330-20170101033205/@comment-26347028-20170101231348

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.