Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-1272757-20131112003859/@comment-477304-20131121200051

SeanWheeler wrote:

As lenient as it can get? Maybe just remove the rule all together. Yep, I'm leaning back to Kagi's side. And when you read the request about Freesmudger's demotion, and see everyone opposing it, and their reasons to oppose, it shows that inactivity isn't a good reason for demotion. And I think Kagi might actually be relaying Shelly's feelings. If he had contact with her, Shelly must be pretty upset about her demotion. And a smart user may check an admin contributions. While this admin lapsing rule may not be intended to punish people for inactivity, it basically does. While Bullet may be nice to give people their admins rights back, a demotion wouldn't look good on your record. This admin inactivity rule can upset people that have been inactive. I think it is better to think of the person's feelings. I mean, if you were away for sometime and came back to the SNN to find that you've been stripped of your authority for inactivity, it can really piss you off. And when you are granted authority for a couple of unimportant edits, it may make you feel a bit relieved, but it also baffles some people because that is not how a promotion usually works on a wiki. I'm changing my vote back to. While I may not agree with the template, I feel that demoting for inactivity would cause a lot of controversy.

Free isn't inactive.