Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-7091122-20170617134530/@comment-27462035-20170620050739

Happy-shroom wrote: VeXJL wrote: I honestly don't get why you guys are comparing this to real life dictatorship.

Take a video game director. Yes, they have power over other people and the game itself, but they never abuse it. Why? Because they have a compassion for it. Our site is built on the very foundations of compassion, and we're lucky to not have been overrun by socks like those that attack small wikis. We, including b-crats, go on this website not to abuse our powers of editing, but to help others in the community.

Now, take a president. Okay, this may be a bad idea because the current president is Trump. All hail democracy and voting. The president has the power to veto bills so that they aren't made into laws. Sounds familiar? That's basically what the removal of the rule was for. It allows b-crats to basically veto the vote. The b-crats are there to help the wiki, and if vetoing the vote is for the greater good, then they'll do it.

"... but power corrupts the mind" - No they don't. You even VOTED for these b-crats to have this kind of power. In real life dictatorships, power corrupts the mind, yes, but them dictatorships don't care whack about their position, in contrast of the b-crats. Besides, the b-crats can't get away with abusing their rights, unlike Kim Jong-Un and other dictators. We have Fandom Wikia Staff who also have MORE power than the b-crats.

If you're still concerned, I would like to say that b-crats have NO motive to abuse their rights to ruin the wiki. Why would they want to waste all of their work by vetoing good rules and then getting demoted? Why would they want to be like Hitler or Stalin? They don't, and do not ever assume that they would.

tl;dr stop talking whack about dictators in real life because they are not, and never will be, similar to the b-crats that would dictate the wiki. Sure I get your point, but what's the harm in adding this one little piece of rule? It's not like the B-crats want to abuse this rule. This rule does not harm the wiki, but can help it slightly. Uh... prohibiting dictatorships... helping slightly? Let's see here...

Dictatorship does not harm the wiki, but can help it slightly.

There. That's reason enough to not readd the rule.

DatDramaPlant wrote: Even if they don't abuse dictatorship, I personally would prefer for the users to have at least SOME say in the matter. This is still a community. They do have some say on the topic. Just that the dictator, who is most likely a b-crat we voted for, can veto the vote and provide an explanation as to why the vote is wrong. They have more experience than us on the topic.

@Pinacoin Please stop going off-topic.