Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-7091122-20170302205828

There's a rule that's always bugged me: Apparently, there is no way to vote someone else for the title of a founder; it will be instantly disqualified.

This rule has three flaws, and I shall list them in the least important to most important:
 * 1) Arbitrary for the present state of the wiki: In the current state of the wiki, there is only one person you could potentially view as a founder that is unaccounted for. I'll get to that later. To act as though this should be a rule for several users to fall under is absurd, and if LPVs taught us anything, if a rule only applies to one topic, it's either bad, or in desperate need of a massive reform.
 * 2) Doesn't account for the future: Say this wiki dies out. Like, all of the staff just vanishes. Somehow. Now, this is not realistic, granted. But let's pretend it happens. So, someone adopts the wiki. But, by the rules we've set up, they can't call themselves a founder of the wiki as it is under their moderation. If they wish to call anyone else a founder of the wiki under their moderation, they can't do that either, which segways into my most important point...
 * 3) Doesn't account for the past: As in, it doesn't account for the uncredited users who are, debatably, founders. Hard as it is to believe, this wiki was adopted. Specifically, adopted by . Without him, none of us would even be here, or at the very least, it'd be very different. He is, effectively, a founder of the wiki. Yet, this rule exists, and he cannot be credited as such. Because... Because? I've never heard a good reason, to be quite honest. Heck, I don't remember ever hearing a reason.

So it's useless for the present, and it actively harms the people looking both forward for the wiki, and backward into the wiki's past. Why do we keep this rule? To prevent random newbies from calling themselves "founders?" Then just make it a role one can vote for, just like other positions of power, though only have it be for pure aesthetic.

Note that this is not voting for Swampert to be credited as a founder. This is credited to simply make that plausible and remove this unnecessary rule.

 