Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-7091122-20170617134530/@comment-27769607-20170618173814

Gargantuar Blitzer wrote: Teacup Terry wrote:

Gargantuar Blitzer wrote:

Happy-shroom wrote: Gargantuar Blitzer wrote: Just for a lot of people that say bureaucrats rule the wiki which means it's pointless:

Dictatorship would be of a *single* person. If it are even just 2, it's not a dictatorship anymore. The problem is, it isn't multiple people, most of the time it is one person. I don't think there were any instances where multiple b-crats/admins had planned to veto a rule, most of the time only one of them did it. For example, this current issue was changed by Jack himself, and only himself. It is now that we see some people supporting his idea, but when he first changed it, '''it was a dictatorship. ''' That's not exactly what i mean. What i meant is that a lot of people say "YEAH THE BUREAUCRATS (plural) ALREADY PRETTY MUCH RULE THE WIKI SO THIS RULE IS POINTLESS"

Plural means more than one.

If it's more than one (hell, even if it somehow manages to be 1.01 people) it's already not a dictatorship anymore. Then it's an oligarchy. Definition of oligarchy:

"a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution."

Definition of dictatorship:

"a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force." Exactly. Still, Dictatorship =/= Oligarchy, yet everybody is saying "IT'S POINTLESS SINCE THEY ARE RULING THE WIKI". The thing is, they are ruling the wiki individually, since they aren't really working together. One person changed a rule with noone else knowing or agreeing to it, until now just because Cam made a thread. Jack's decision was a dictatorship, not an oligarchy. I understsand what your saying about other people saying that, but other people saying "they are ruling" is wrong in a way. They aren't ruling together, they are ruling separately.