Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-25083348-20151116174935/@comment-27557697-20151116194308

Ballistic Planet wrote: ShroomstagramUser wrote: Ballistic Planet wrote: ShroomstagramUser wrote: Ballistic Planet wrote: BLACK OUT wrote: Ballisitic, before we name names, we should define flashy and inactive first. Haven't we already gotten a bsic outline on it, though? While inactive isn't clearly defined and is basically "haven't contributed for a while", haven't we defined flashy as "someone who gets promoted just for fame"? But it is hard to tell which of these staff members is flashy and which isn't. Well if that's an issue, let's slow down and define inactive first. While generally in the past we've set inactive as like 1-2 months without activity, what should it actually be? The basic definition of inactive is not editing for long periods of time. I'd say 2 weeks or more. But would still demote those who can't access the wiki in some way or another for those two weeks? Sepcifically, I'm talking about those who say they're gonna be inactive due to safety reasons (where I live, we're due for a huge earthquake that's gonna knock out power lines for weeks), or those who's access is maybe parent restricted. Though most of us are 13 or older, (all of us supposedly), some may have their internet access limited (I know I get mine limited) for days or weeks at a time. What should we do about these edge cases? There are odd moments where I go on sudden absences to make sure I do well in school as well as July-August being months where I'm outside actually enjoying my Summer Vacation (No offence:P)