Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-27097330-20170224221935/@comment-26347028-20170321163929

ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: Dragonbiscuit wrote: No. Heart. This isn't a debate. This is a shut up and deal with it. Like it or not. Majority Rules. And last I checked the majority says your rules suck. If you want to prove me wrong don't say i'm wrong I want you to bring people to this post and say it. Because when we voted on rules we won. So. You lose. This isn't a debate. Accept it. This is where freedom gets us, I see. Your reasoning fails, your logic fails, and what have you left? You can always do the old "shut up I'm right but I won't justify myself because I can't", I guess, but that's a little... immature. You're again coming from the standpoint that the majority always rules everything, yet, last I checked, all of the things you say - like "majority banning", are to do with the Staff. This is no democracy, it's an oligarchy, at best. Argumentum ad Populum doesn't make something right, Dragon, I'd have thought that not to be so hard as you make it out. Well it would be a democracy if admins and mods were elected by people and could be impeached per say. Which I would support. But one thing at a time. Yet, as you accept, it isn't, and such a system would be massively complex.

The irony is the only reason the rules I made were created was because Patrick was trying to create his own Wiki, and they were done alongside a load of elective propositions. Massively compels in that we vote on demotions or promotions? Not really.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Patrick's revival had little title to nothing to do with those rules. Sorry, but to what are you referring?

It was Patrick trying to split off onto a separate Wiki, ages before the revival.