Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-4533965-20141229233245/@comment-25165258-20150101012741

SonicTheHedgehogDude wrote: PKMNthehedgehog2.5 wrote: SonicTheHedgehogDude wrote: Genesjs wrote:

Again, if there's Admins who're acting on their own in this manner, just reprimand them or punish them outright and move on. lol. It's been done several times, such as the updating of policy pages, backgrounds and whatnot. So are you saying we should punish all six admins provided below?

I would like to point out Drones demoted herself, and yes, you rly should get concensus before going and doing something big and wiki-changing. It's hardly a laughing matter, mind you. Do take into consideration what others have to say, you have responsibility for your actions as admin, act like it. It'll cause far less headache for you and everyone in the community. (Remember that emoticon headache? That was a bit much for everyone and should've been handled better.) Alright, I admit. The emoticons would've been handled better. But the chat policy honestly doesn't need community consensus, because it was changed several times by administrators and even by a bureaucrat before. And now the chat policy was re-worded by me and all of a sudden it needs community consensus?
 * Slug-Drones
 * Bullet Francisco
 * Eycestar
 * Mystic Monkey
 * Supermorff
 * SonicTheHedgehogDude

What we need is a clear description on what and what not can be updated without consensus, because all of this is confusing. It is pretty confusing dealing with this, you're absolutely right. But please don't see this as a personal thing against you, it's just that this new reinforcement thing is hardly something the community needs, and that's what we're discussing here. I mean seriously, banning of discussion of religion, sex, politics, drugs? We may as well ban discussion of Smash Bros. DLC, we've gotten in about 1000 fights about that, but I hardly recall a fight concerning the other topics. Everything of those types is handled very maturely here, and it's simply bizarre that it's banned after years of us showing this fact. The "Censor the whole word" thing is something I've kind of grown accustomed to by now, and if any of these has to stay, it's this one. But the "Give a description to everything you link" thing is absolutely pointless, and it's borderline bizarre it's even still a thing considering it's only purpose was fulfilled by a different rule entirely recently. Please try and see the reasoning the community has on this, it's nearly unanimous.