Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-3416945-20160829051027/@comment-679780-20160830185113

Myself 123 wrote: If I have to give a final note, I just don't see this working out. What if the elected three just make a change and the community doesn't like it? Wouldn't a discussion then be made anyway? The only difference being that the voices of the community could fall silent. I see this being discouraging and even deterring to new users.

Furthermore, it seems like two of the three chosen for this authoritative rule are either uncertain about taking the position or the paradigm shift itself. I do not wish to be anyone's shield, but what happens if they decide they do not want the position? What does it say about the proposals or the idea that three users are all that's needed to make all decisions here. (I should note here that this is nothing against the three users desired for this position; I believe all three are capable and committed users of the wiki).

As I've stated before, this seems to be a drastic solution for a small problem, like burning a house down to deal with a moth that snuck into the house. I believe there is a simpler solution to the problem and that would be to reduce the amount of user participation needed to declare consensus. I see no issue with this. All the more reaosn why I aks "Can't we just have both?"

Instead of proposing ideas through Discord (which I don't bother with) Steam or our Message Pages, we propose our ideas openly on Site Discussions and Edit Projects. It will be decided amongst the admins while the community will still get a say in the matter.

If something is decided with little community response beforehand and only afterwards get complaints, well they had their chance on the appropriate thread but we will still listen.