Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27097330-20170101033205/@comment-26347028-20170102015226

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: 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. What other factors

4. Not sure what you mean.

5. So it's not irrelevant.

6. It failed only because Mevans said no, we convinced the majority. And articles are a start. How unbiased they are is the main one, and their ability to not be a bigot.

4. Popular opinion is often, if not usually, wrong.

5. In the way Imrahil has it, it is irrelevant. If respect is not had, it is not a problem with the staff member, it is a problem with the community.

6. Nonetheless, it failed. Everyone has inherent bias, and if you're going only for the most unbiased people hwy not just promote Shade and Indom alone and be done with it?

4. It's almost always the best solution with small groups. Not only do the people have their own good on their mind, ensuring well being, if something goes wrong they can't blame everyone else.

5. I disagree. You have to earn respect, it isn't just given because you're in a position of power.

6. Irrelevant. Because Indom is pretty biased in another way.

4. But that never works. Certainly not in that way.

5. You earn the position of power you earn the respect.

6. So failure is irrelevant now? My point is that Eureka is just as biased as Imrahil.

4. So what would you prefer? A small group of people deciding not the fate of everyone else?

5. And Imrahil has earned his position of power. But a random person being promoted might not.

6. The fact that his efforts were blocked by something completely out of his control is irrelevant yes. So long as the group can, 'tis often the best choice.

And they might have earned it. Your point?

His efforts, nevertheless, were unsatisfactory. That's ridiculous.

You said that a lack of respect was the fault of the community, not the staff member, I was merely stating that a staff member must earn the community's respect, something Imrahil has done.

To you maybe but most people seem to find them pretty satisfactory.

Might I ask what your ideal would be?

Edit: And how are there no dropdown quotes on my comments? Things sound ridiculous when you don't want to believe them. Give it a little thought, and often they don't sound so ridiculous.

Yet, it is better often to be feared than loved.

Because they haven't read them. They didn't read the last ones, they probably haven't read these.

Which doesn't make them satisfactory.

Ideal as to what?