Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-7091122-20170617134530/@comment-4024597-20170617172603

Ok so what I'm getting here is that Jack broke a rule and removed another rule without making any votes or asking other b-crats/admins (according to Camwood there's a Discord chat for staffs but if you mean #staff-chat in the PvZW Discord server then not all admins/b-crats are there, including Jack). Obviously he did wrong in this case.

But I think I can get behind why Jack is trying to do this. It has to do with TULO's recent decision to veto the "Reference to Beta" vote completely. I'm not implying anything, but many users here vote when they have not gain a fair amount of information regarding that subject, thus only vote based on their own vague information as well as others' opinions, and can sometimes result in harmful decisions. For example, the Beta vote. PvZH is an In-App Purchase game, so hacking and digging into the files can be considered illegal (the reason why we have PvZ Hacking Guide but not PvZ2). Sure, these information are unimportant and has nothing to do with money (Popcap seems to be fine - not really though - with users digging into PvZH files and posting spoilers on Reddit), but what if one day someone decides to make a vote about adding something to articles that can help players gain access to premium content (Example: Getting money-exclusive event cards via a bunch of exploits - this is not true by the way, I'm just making an example) and then the thread is filled with "Why not? It is information so we should add it" by people who does not realize that those information can get our wiki in trouble for making EA lose their money.

Bureaucrats and Admins are the people who have worked hard to gain their positions and gain the trust of others, and from that they gained a lot of experience and know what's best for the wiki. If we take away their power to veto votes, harmful decisions might be made by the "blind votes" - something almost impossible to get rid of. And this is what Jack is afraid of - what's the point of being a high-experience b-crat if your opinion gets swallowed by those who do not understand the situation carefully.

With that being said, I agree that the dictatorship rule is important to avoid situations like Cam said. I don't completely understand all the politics and stuffs behind this (why I'm not voting, I'm just stating my opinions), but I think the rule should be loosen a bit to allow b-crats to alter vote outcomes only when they're really necessary (and nothing beyond that, no one would like a Hitler here). And if possible, there should be a vote among the staffs as well to decide whether the veto is completely necessary to avoid the issue of someone vetoing a vote without others' consent (the vote's outcome should be shown public as well)