Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-1272757-20131112003859/@comment-3416945-20131122082753

Bionicleboy3000 wrote: If I might make an observation as well as elaborate on Kagimizu's comment, please don't repeat the user/sysop list reason. As far as I can see, that's literally the only reason anyone is opposing this, so aside from "per X", let's have more fleshed out reasoning. I'm sure we get it by now. Let's not have argumentum ad nauseam ruin this debate.

Kagimizu wrote: Okay, I would like everyone who said "per [X]" or "per all" to give me a real reason for their votes. Bionicleboy gives a very legitimate comment in that the user/sysop list is a virtual nonissue. That seems to be the only real problem people seem to have, and that certainly sounds like a very small reason to be against something that grants more credit to our past and current admins and avoids miscommunication and misunderstanding.

The sheer number of atrocious remarks and attacks in your statement are appalling. Not only are you discrediting and insulting users for their reasons, but you are demanding them to give a "real" reason. What more of a "real" (terrible adjective for this context, not sure why you even used it, it's insulting and degrading do you need? They are referencing my arguments and reasoning that I had taken time to type out. I fail to see why they need to repeat what I said already.

The user/sysop list is an issue in my mind. Acknowledge that. The user/sysop list is hardly the primary reason why the lapsing rights rule is there. The rule significantly decreases the amount of administrators on the wiki, thereby erasing the false impression that this wiki is overflowing with administrators. Prior to the lapsing rights rule's addition, the wiki had an insane number of inactive contributors who held user rights. With the lapsing rights rule, we eliminate this statistic and any potential breach of security. Not only does it do this, but it forces the user to acknowledge the wiki and their inactivity. If we receive a response, it signifies their potential return. If we don't, we know they aren't returning. Your only argument seems to be based on presumptions and feelings, which I find laughable. You are presuming that this feels like a punishment, you are presuming that the user's motivation will be damaged, and you are assuming bad faith by doing so. What makes you think that the user will feel as if they have been punished? You reference your own demotion on another wiki, which is completely irrelevant. Those are your feelings. If these inactive administrators actually read through the message I send them, then they will be inclined to respond. If they are upset or confused, we can clear that up. If they promise to be active at least once or twice a month, and make a few contributions to the wiki to prove it, they will receive their rights back.

Finally, if your mightiness will not claim my reasons aren't "real", what harm is the rule causing to you and the inactive administrators? You are basing your reasoning entirely off of the minuscule chance that an inactive administrator happens to respond to my message in an upset manner with their feelings hurt. That can be dealt with. If you desire to know how I would act upon the situation, I would apologize to user, and explain the situation depending on how they misinterpreted the demotion. The fact that it felt like a punishment is COMPLETELY irrelevant. If the administrator would bother to respond to the message I left them, then they would have a chance to ask questions and respond.

You admitted it yourself: the system is more lenient than you thought it was.