Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4832646-20140607004850/@comment-5619531-20140608025549

Princess Callie wrote: It feels more like the community is given an opinion but the end result, it doesn't actually matter. A community would say "SUPPORT" and then someone say "OPPOSE, fuck no. This guy vandalized a page!"

This way, we are keeping track and the community is not subject to some messy system that basically says "You get your opinion, but it doesn't actually matter."

Also, getting the pages more known isn't going to help them actually be used. Well, really, that's how a lot of people, myself included, do the rights system is by having the community decide who should deserve the right. I will agree that if a users opinions are not really well respected on this. It can take one good oppose to make the app automatically close. But, hey, it's like that with the rights on Creepypasta and Trollpasta. I mean, look at OneWithManyNames' mod app on Creepypasta wiki and Habergeon's rollback app on Trollpasta. See how both got supports, but they got rejected due to past issues and inactivity? I was pissed off when I told you why you should propose this over on both wiki's, because I wasn't really full on the facts as to why you should propose for both site's to remove the requests. Now those two are the exact reasons as to why. But, that's off topic. We must continue on the topic.

Another thing is that I hate delays. If I want to promote a good user, badly, I would tell him to make an application, and wait till 10 days and see where the community stands on his point. Either way, people will not agree with both reasons. There will be biased opinions everywhere you go.

Also, I don't really necessary agree on a secured document, since it feels unfair for users to be not known about who'll be promoted to a certain right or not (because a lot of people may not want rights on wikia's, and they just want to be anonymous). What I propose, since I know that the supports will topple over the opposes, is that there should be an admin meeting which will consist of Callie, SG, myself, and Mike (the active and semi-active administration on the site that can add RCaDC and Rollback rights) every month to discuss about certain users and their progress, and who deserves which right or not. If there is no-one, then no-one gets nominated. If there is someone that deserves a right, then the admin that volunteers to do the promotion must create a thread on these things:
 * Introduction
 * Reason's why the user deserves the right
 * Conclusion

Then the administrator that is doing the promotion must highlight it, and allow the users (other than the administration) to discuss if the user deserves it, or not. If, however, an administrator feels as though that they are quite positive that a certain user is a good match, and a good candidate for that right, then they must get contact between the users on the site. To ignore all the issues, there should be a certain amount of supports and opposes allowed on the thread (or app, if we decide to keep them). On the thread, it must take at least 2/3rd's of the administration that partake in this event to agree in a oppose created by a user that is replying. If it's full of opposes, then the user being proposed the right doesn't get the right. If there are mixed views, then there must be at least a majority vote of the votes that were petitioned by users.

I do not want the administration to be behind all the rights. I want at least SOME community decision between this. Removing community decisions, for me, feels like that we are the over-lords of this wiki; we will punish those who do not agree with our opinions. Basically, if we remove community decisions on talking about users wanting right, we look like communists.

That's just me, but I really do not want the administration to decide who gets rights and who doesn't. It seems unfair to the community.