Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-3416945-20160829051027/@comment-24014422-20160903151202

Myself 123 wrote:

Luma.dash wrote:

Myself 123 wrote:

Luma.dash wrote:

Myself 123 wrote: The issue with considering this as a temporary solution is that there is no certainty that it will remain temporary. For one, the team may change members over time and those members may no longer deem it necessary. The issue with all decisions being made by three individuals is that they have all the power, even if community input is entertained, it would ultimately be their decision, meaning they could go over the community's wishes if they deem it fit.

Also, as this is paradigm shift I cannot stand behind, I do not wish to be a candidate. Actually, nothing can happen without our permission, if a majiority wants to do otherwise. In such case, they can contact Wikia Staff for abusing powers and then they remove the crats rights.

But your point still stands and I've thought about it before. However, we still have trustworthy users such as Bluespeeder and others, so why not give them a chance? We are not country after all. I may have to review Wikia's Terms of Use and rules, but if what you aay is true, then wouldn't that make the proposed change unfeasible or at the very least impractical? I think this is a good example for Wikia laws. But still, what do you mean by it being "impractical"? Because then surely the team would only be able to act on their own when no one's contributed to a discussion or nomination. Which rarely happens, otherwise they'd be going against the community The problem is that we do not reach even one user to vote on whether our ideas can work or not, which forces us to take that as the idea is acceptable. Take this for example; back in 2013, I did my first discussion and talk page to research if the Chaos Boost should be separated from what appeared in M&S, and Generations, but what happened?, no one answered in the discussion nor do they cared for the discussion I made, forcing me to drop the idea of creating discussions permanently. The problem lies that we are actually using the idea of "removing consensus" back from that time that no one actually touched the subject until now, because no one cared for the mainspace.

If I have other companions to have a say in subjects, then why I had always asked Ultrasonic9000 for what should and what should not at that time and why I have to discuss every project with him? Actually, about 99% of my problems with Ultra could have been fixed if others cared to discuss things with us, not leaving me or any other user fix ourselves, like we are right all the time.

What I want to say, that "consensus" only existed on "Request of User Rights" page back then, other than that, no one cared, that's why I begin recently involving in discussions often to not make ideas fool and unsupported, otherwise, no one would involve. Now, even rights cannot be given to users if we don't downgrade the number of users to vote, or otherwise, no user will be promoted to adminships or even moderators. We even don't have a discussion moderator in our wiki, which is odd on comparing us to other wikis. That's the lack of users made.

In short, we are on this age a long ago before this discussion was set up, but we simply ignored it until we reached a state of few users working normally. Though, as I said before, there is a third option if one wants to make things more universally.