FANDOM


  • IDontCareAboutHistory
    IDontCareAboutHistory closed this thread because:
    a
    14:27, April 15, 2018

    So I had to make decisions after several considerations from a few staff members. We've planned and discussed this for quite a while. We had to remove the voting system (also known as "democratic system). I know this is gonna be REAL controversial, but we're doing this for good. I don't make threads like this for nothing, but instead I do it because either they're badly implemented or a change really has to be made to make the wiki better. If we don't get a move on like this, the whole wiki is just gonna get worse.

    Now, before you complain about this being "totally unfair" and the like, we did this for a reason. It's because the current system is totally broken and it won't solve anything, but instead, it causes too much problem that we, the staff, just can't sort out.

    Let me point out several major issues we have to face by taking the democratic system:


    1. Excess power to regular users makes being a staff member redundant

    With the democratic way, even regular users could vote for any and every changes on the wiki, from minor tweaks all the way to critical stuff such as the change of rules, or staff demotions. This is what makes being a staff member unnecessary; any regular members could just make a thread for a change, let the other users (mostly non-staff too) vote, and voila, things change without even trying to be a staff. Staff demotions in democratic system is also a significant impact in this. Since anyone could vote, they could just try and demote anyone by just making a vote, and if it's supported by the majority of users, the staff member in question is demoted regardless of how good they perform in their job.


    2. Too frequent changes on same single and/or unnecessary things cause a lot of headache

    Democracies also seem to make the userbase unhappy because we're constantly switching voting on something repeatedly (i.e. change X, vote supported, but others are confused/opposed and wanted to change X again, vote supported, repeat and go on an endless loop - e.g. pronoun changes) and it makes change extremely slow. It'd be much better if staff received feedback, and properly responded with a decline to the feedback or to attempt to use it (with staff agreement obviously).

    With the democratic system, we're also facing unnecessary changes such as the case of pronoun change or staff evaluation forms. The former forces us to change pronouns every time they're supported, which causes a lot of mess since people might leave some of the traces of the old pronouns unchanged, making things more inconsistent. The latter is fundamentally flawed and we had to remove it because no one used it anyway and it actually could've pushed anyone within the staff circle to deliberation and possibly demotion by just making an evaluation and rate them negatively. People could also make sockpuppets, "masquerade" them as a "real" user by editing articles and doing normal things on the wiki and further add negative evaluations, and no one would've probably noticed it. Seeing this, I've tried to remove the system and it worked, but it's just stupid of how it could be added in the first place when everyone neglected it.


    3. Some of the users tend to not know why things are added in the first place

    Now this is one of the main culprit of the problem. Nowadays the PvZW community is filled with some members who don't completely get the hang of the wiki's rules and features yet, so when they do vote, they usually do it blindly, not knowing if it's gonna have a poor impact or not. Democratic system doesn't work very well when in conjunction with this. People tend to vote for the wrong thing for the wrong reasons since they don't know exactly what's going on.


    4. People tend to vote subjectively, not objectively

    For example, one sometimes support a demotion thread simply because they feel that they don't see them that often, and completely ignoring the fact that they've, for example, made some frequent changes behind the scenes, such as blocking users or removing unwanted pages (they tend to be unnoticeable on the contributions log, but viewable in their respective logs, e.g. block log to find out how many times they've blocked some abusive users recently). They just don't peruse at the detail thoroughly enough, and this results in a subjective vote (i.e. votes that are purely or mostly opinionated).


    Now it's obvious that we should take a system that allows the staff to have more power. Just take a look at our Discord server. The staff there has done an effort to change from a democratic system to a staff-based one, and it has a good impact on making the userbase less toxic than before. While some people will initially disagree with this change, as time goes on, they'll get used to it. The old system is defective by design when used on wikis, and it's pointless to enforce it. LPVs won't change the fact that it's useless. Instead, it points out the system's fault even more, such as the pronoun changes and anything listed in it.

    This is not the case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The system IS indeed broken in this case. It's a total mess. We can't just keep something like this because "oh, you're trying to change something as critical as this." If something looks broken and feels broken, then you try to fix it. When we didn't have this yet, the whole thing wasn't a disaster like this. Note that this came from a user who has experienced the past days of the wiki, and was active inside it. It's about fixing up something that just can't be implemented correctly here. At least the users can still leave some suggestions to us if they want certain things to be changed, then we'll take some considerations.

    I think it's time to change to a staff-controlled system because it really makes changes on the wiki more efficient and effective. When a user gives us a feedback or suggestion, the staff members (from bureaucrats all the way to rollbacks) will decide whether it's worthy or not, instead of the members voting which tends to be screwy as I've explained before. If it's worth it, then we add or change the respective things they've asked to us, and if not, then we won't do it and state a reason why, so that they can understand that it could be a bad or pointless thing if it was implemented or changed. This helps keeping unnecessary and/or repetitive things such as the former LPVs (e.g. pronoun changes, staff requirements changes, or adding things like "staff evaluation forms") to a minimum.

    If you're asking, "where should the staff members discuss about the suggestions?", simple really. We have a staff-only Discord server, and we could discuss things there. If any staff members decide that they wouldn't like to join the server, then we could just leave messages on their talk page and discuss it that way. It's that simple.

    It's going to be way easier to keep the wiki's quality in check when there's less users complaining about the system. As I've said before, a lot of them will disagree, think that we're abusing our powers and want unjust things, but we're doing this since the userbase quality has significantly deteriorated and less people are applying for staff membership. Trying so hard to be a staff member is redundant when anyone can vote for changes in every single aspects of the wiki.

    Before you think that this is going to be harmful, let me tell you that the democratic system is even more harmful than a staff-controlled one. A while back we had a vote that let users to post completely blank neutral templates as some kind of vote, but really, any staff will think that it's spammy and adds absolutely nothing to discussion, cluttering the thread replies, but the users wanted and agreed to have it anyway without thinking of the consequences.

    Last but not least, the democratic system relies on votes so much that people can get away by voting with thoughts that are completely flawed since it fulfils the requirement of being an opinion, and you can neither discuss nor refute the opinion in question as it's a vote. I don't think that users should have such privileges that they're allowed to have excessive control of the wiki. I think it's better if we had experienced staff ensuring the changes here instead. Once again, having a wiki that's mostly controlled by users and constantly changing makes it difficult to perform quality control since all users, even those who don't know exactly what's happening and why we have things in the first place, have that power.

    Draft composed by Drek, with aid from many of us on the staff.

      Loading editor
    • Oh my god, I cannot imagine how many people are going to be angry.

      Well, even still, I support this, democracies have honestly weakened staff because people don't want strict people with actual talent at their position, people wants friends or just "nice" people, or sensitive people on the job.

      There are some cases where we've gotten good people from democracies, but most of those instances are very obvious good people who actually look like they are willing to contribute, that probably could've gotten their position after a quick review of their staff application and history.

      This an information database, I think we should prioritize more in that part, and I think this is a right step in that direction. We have like quite a few discussions mods and what, 1 or 2 content mods?

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote:
      Oh my god, I cannot imagine how many people are going to be angry.

      Well, even still, I support this, democracies have honestly weakened staff because people don't want strict people with actual talent at their position, people wants friends or just "nice" people, or sensitive people on the job.

      There are some cases where we've gotten good people from democracies, but most of those instances are very obvious good people who actually look like they are willing to contribute, that probably could've gotten their position after a quick review of their staff application and history.

      This an information database, I think we should prioritize more in that part, and I think this is a right step in that direction. We have like quite a few discussions mods and what, 1 or 2 content mods?

      And god knows how many admins don't do anything. I'm the one left to update all info regarding Discord staff here.

        Loading editor
    • Surprisingly... I'm not as upset as I expected to be.

      I don't mind this. I definitely agree that sometimes far more often than "sometimes" if I'm being totally honest the normal users aren't the best people to ask in terms of technicalities or picking staff. Subjective voting is also definitely more widespread than it should be, and not just in the Wiki either.

      I foresee a lot of hate on this, but I'll stand by it until I see things start to go downhill.

        Loading editor
    • Well, about time this happened.

      I never really was a huge fan of that system where regular users would vote, where as mentioned from that post above, some really don't know how to vote, and this probably ended up letting certain people who aren't ready to be staff members into staff members. And then, all that kinds of stuff happens, and makes you think, "Is this person really deserving of this role?", all because the users who didn't exactly know what was going on voted support on them.

        Loading editor
    • Nitromian Poptropica wrote:
      Well, about time this happened.

      I never really was a huge fan of that system where regular users would vote, where as mentioned from that post above, some really don't know how to vote, and this probably ended up letting certain people who aren't ready to be staff members into staff members. And then, all that kinds of stuff happens, and makes you think, "Is this person really deserving of this role?", all because the users who didn't exactly know what was going on voted support on them.

      Oh I remember

      The admin who abused the victim card (He actually got worse, btw)

      Content mod sexually harassing a forum mod.

      Chat and Forum mods who legit never used their power and left like babies because their thread got removed.

      The bureaucrat who left after acting like a baby over copyright.

      To think all this time, all of this was preventable.

        Loading editor
    • Hmmm. I don't know about this. One one hand, a lot of the things that have been said here are indeed valid, but I feel that there's room for compromise here; I'm not sure if we should completely remove the voting system. I feel like we could make staff votes count more than regular user's votes towards supporting or opposing or choosing a choice (maybe a ratio of two to one, or higher), or we could make the requirements higher and make sure that (in some way, which I'm sure there is) that they know all of the rules, or that perhaps we could vote staff members in, but only the staff could vote them out, and vote on other things (somewhat like election and legislative bodies in the United States), or something... but completely removing every normal user's ability to vote, even those who are actually qualified to vote and do so fairly and constructively, doesn't feel like the right solution.

        Loading editor
    • I've only seen like, 2 threads that involve voting, and I agree that it's in high need of improvement. I think this will have a positive effect, although who knows? Might as well grab the popcorn and watch.

        Loading editor
    • OK. Regular user here. I think the point above really makes sense. Sometimes this democracy system in the wiki is what's weakening the site. I remembered seeing people voting support with a lackluster reason. Also,.some staff never gonna get to do their job right because stuff.

      But I have a question. If we remove the voting system, how are we getting new staff if someone gets out/get demoted/gets banned?

        Loading editor
    • Vergel Nikolai wrote:
      OK. Regular user here. I think the point above really makes sense. Sometimes this democracy system in the wiki is what's weakening the site. I remembered seeing people voting support with a lackluster reason. Also,.some staff never gonna get to do their job right because stuff.

      But I have a question. If we remove the voting system, how are we getting new staff if someone gets out/get demoted/gets banned?

      I believe you can nominate and the staff will vote?

      I'm still very, very iffy about this. I don't see this working out at all, since this labours under the assumption that staff are perfect beings. The whole point on people voting subjectively still kinda applies to staff as well.

      But if it's happening... at least I can influence the results, give a different opinion. Sometimes it feels like the staff are so... standardized. Everything is the same. At least... I have that.

      This is not meant to be offensive to staff or anything btw.

      I agree with Zombiecrab here. Is there no compromise? With the way we're doing it, it feels like staff are trying to seize power, despite everyone saying the contrary. It's just a gut feeling, so I have no reasoning or anything, but sometimes, I trust my inituition. It can be right despite having no reasoning.

        Loading editor
    • DatDramaPlant wrote:

      Vergel Nikolai wrote:
      OK. Regular user here. I think the point above really makes sense. Sometimes this democracy system in the wiki is what's weakening the site. I remembered seeing people voting support with a lackluster reason. Also,.some staff never gonna get to do their job right because stuff.

      But I have a question. If we remove the voting system, how are we getting new staff if someone gets out/get demoted/gets banned?

      I believe you can nominate and the staff will vote?

      I'm still very, very iffy about this. I don't see this working out at all, since this labours under the assumption that staff are perfect beings. The whole point on people voting subjectively still kinda applies to staff as well.

      But if it's happening... at least I can influence the results, give a different opinion. Sometimes it feels like the staff are so... standardized. Everything is the same. At least... I have that.

      This is not meant to be offensive to staff or anything btw.

      I agree with Zombiecrab here. Is there no compromise? With the way we're doing it, it feels like staff are trying to seize power, despite everyone saying the contrary. It's just a gut feeling, so I have no reasoning or anything, but sometimes, I trust my inituition. It can be right despite having no reasoning.

      Wow. The way you say that sounds like the Wiki's going full Communism, except there's no Communism, because you said staffs are trying to be superior, which is not Communism, and is not the case.

      No offense. I'm always neutral. I'm not sure how the other users are gonna see a semi-communist wiki. Never knew the outcome, but nothing bad at trying, right?

        Loading editor
    • Vergel Nikolai wrote:

      DatDramaPlant wrote:

      Vergel Nikolai wrote:
      OK. Regular user here. I think the point above really makes sense. Sometimes this democracy system in the wiki is what's weakening the site. I remembered seeing people voting support with a lackluster reason. Also,.some staff never gonna get to do their job right because stuff.

      But I have a question. If we remove the voting system, how are we getting new staff if someone gets out/get demoted/gets banned?

      I believe you can nominate and the staff will vote?

      I'm still very, very iffy about this. I don't see this working out at all, since this labours under the assumption that staff are perfect beings. The whole point on people voting subjectively still kinda applies to staff as well.

      But if it's happening... at least I can influence the results, give a different opinion. Sometimes it feels like the staff are so... standardized. Everything is the same. At least... I have that.

      This is not meant to be offensive to staff or anything btw.

      I agree with Zombiecrab here. Is there no compromise? With the way we're doing it, it feels like staff are trying to seize power, despite everyone saying the contrary. It's just a gut feeling, so I have no reasoning or anything, but sometimes, I trust my inituition. It can be right despite having no reasoning.

      Wow. The way you say that sounds like the Wiki's going full Communism, except there's no Communism, because you said staffs are trying to be superior, which is not Communism, and is not the case.

      No offense. I'm always neutral. I'm not sure how the other users are gonna see a semi-communist wiki. Never knew the outcome, but nothing bad at trying, right?

      Did I sound too harsh? I didn't mean to, I just wanted to state that this probably isn't as perfect of an idea as it is made out to be.

        Loading editor
    • DatDramaPlant wrote:

      Vergel Nikolai wrote:

      DatDramaPlant wrote:

      Vergel Nikolai wrote:
      OK. Regular user here. I think the point above really makes sense. Sometimes this democracy system in the wiki is what's weakening the site. I remembered seeing people voting support with a lackluster reason. Also,.some staff never gonna get to do their job right because stuff.

      But I have a question. If we remove the voting system, how are we getting new staff if someone gets out/get demoted/gets banned?

      I believe you can nominate and the staff will vote?

      I'm still very, very iffy about this. I don't see this working out at all, since this labours under the assumption that staff are perfect beings. The whole point on people voting subjectively still kinda applies to staff as well.

      But if it's happening... at least I can influence the results, give a different opinion. Sometimes it feels like the staff are so... standardized. Everything is the same. At least... I have that.

      This is not meant to be offensive to staff or anything btw.

      I agree with Zombiecrab here. Is there no compromise? With the way we're doing it, it feels like staff are trying to seize power, despite everyone saying the contrary. It's just a gut feeling, so I have no reasoning or anything, but sometimes, I trust my inituition. It can be right despite having no reasoning.

      Wow. The way you say that sounds like the Wiki's going full Communism, except there's no Communism, because you said staffs are trying to be superior, which is not Communism, and is not the case.

      No offense. I'm always neutral. I'm not sure how the other users are gonna see a semi-communist wiki. Never knew the outcome, but nothing bad at trying, right?

      Did I sound too harsh? I didn't mean to, I just wanted to state that this probably isn't as perfect of an idea as it is made out to be.

      No. It's not harsh. It sounds fine. My reaction was just a bit sarcastic. And I do agree with some of your points.

        Loading editor
    • You guys do realize that online forums almost never use democracies right? It's just so weird seeing people's reaction to something so...ordinary.

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote:
      You guys do realize that online forums almost never use democracies right? It's just so weird seeing people's reaction to something so...ordinary.

      And something that is commonly used is inherently the best way because...

        Loading editor
    • Because there are more successful online forums that don't use democracies than there are with democracies...?

      This whole democracy debacle just kind of shows the amount of entitlement people have had for quite a while, even looking at your blog calling the staff "power-seizing" and "looking for business", as if they're cold-stoned robots because you don't get to have your way.

      And you want to know the real question? What does making every change to the wiki possible have anything to do with being a fun community?

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote:
      Because there are more successful online forums that don't use democracies than there are with democracies...?

      This whole democracy debacle just kind of shows the amount of entitlement people have had for quite a while, even looking at your blog calling the staff "power-seizing" and "looking for business", as if they're cold-stoned robots because you don't get to have your way.

      And you want to know the real question? What does making every change to the wiki possible have anything to do with being a fun community?

      Sorry if I sounded a little immature. My blogs aren't usually serious, they just conctain whatever I think at the time, so if my thoughts there aren't very well-thought out, that's the reason.

      But my point was that the way people want control now gives me the impression they just want power. Whether that is true isn't important here, the point is that the way people act gives people that impression. Or that may be just me.

      I'm sorry, I don't get your last question. Is it about what I said previously? I never intended to say that making changes removed fun. 

        Loading editor
    • You're missing the point.

      Yeah, they want power, you're right.

      But you forgot the rest; They want power and control for the better of you all, the staff still care very much about your own well being and experience here, and they aren't asking for power for no reason, they want more power to have more room to actually do things, than wait 3 days for something to happen.

      And you went on a long tyrade about how we want to turn the community into a ""business"", instead of the fun-loving community we all knew, that's where I get the point from.

      And considering you brought it up in there, I assume this had something to do with it.

        Loading editor
    • This seems to have escalated a bit. There never really seems to be a mean where everyone can mind their own business, without having to worry about controversy.

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote:
      You're missing the point.

      Yeah, they want power, you're right.

      But you forgot the rest; They want power and control for the better of you all, the staff still care very much about your own well being and experience here, and they aren't asking for power for no reason, they want more power to have more room to actually do things, than wait 3 days for something to happen.

      And you went on a long tyrade about how we want to turn the community into a ""business"", instead of the fun-loving community we all knew, that's where I get the point from.

      And considering you brought it up in there, I assume this had something to do with it.

      Oh, so that's what you meant.

      On paper, that's all true, but I worry. We want an enjoyable experience for everyone possible, and sometimes I just worry that staff can still be clouded by their biases and make snap decisions. Especially since there have been quite some cases where our choice in staff was misjudged.

      I wasn't aware that I had gone on a long tyrade, as you put it. Silly me gets caught up in the moment and goes crazy. Sorry.

      Back to the point, I wasn't referring to this in particular, but rather other questionable decisions made throughout last year as a whole.

      ...that was a poorly used metaphor. Just treat that as my useless rambling.

        Loading editor
    • Uh...I don't really know how to put it in words but the staff exists to watch over the regular users and actually make sure the voted stuff gets done. Not do whatever they want without others approval.

      I'm sure this has good reasoning, but this just seems like a power-hungry thing, and now people will not run for staff for their proper purpose, but just to get some sort of power in decisions. People shouldn't want to be staff for power.

        Loading editor
    • Lily8763cp wrote:
      Uh...I don't really know how to put it in words but the staff exists to watch over the regular users and actually make sure the voted stuff gets done. Not do whatever they want without others approval.

      I'm sure this has good reasoning, but this just seems like a power-hungry thing, and now people will not run for staff for their proper purpose, but just to get some sort of power in decisions. People shouldn't want to be staff for power.

      Precisely my point. Boy I am terrible at expressing arguments.

        Loading editor
    • Although this change favours me, there's something about it that just repels me. The problem with this is that it assumes staff always make decisions for the best. But that's far from the case. Take Camwood777, a former ADMINISTRATOR, who told me to shove a cheese grater up somewhere I won't even mention. Zambiealex, a former CONTENT MODERATOR, who threatened to make my girlfriend hate me just so he could date me after seeing my face reveal. And that's just what's happened to me. Sure, these are sparse cases, but the thought of these people getting more of their voice heard than some amazing regular users like AWB and Whatevz is kind of sad. We worked fine for a long time as a democracy. The vote threads about one single apostrophe were only caused by a few users. This is not to say that the whole idea is flawed. I have two suggestions:

      • Let staff decide everything but promotion threads. (This would make users not spam inane voting threads but still not let staff gain absolute power.)

      OR

      • Let staff instantly decide promotions and only let staff create voting threads but let everyone vote on them. (This would make users not spam voting threads and allow staff to choose good candidates but not let staff unanimously make bad decisions.)

      These are just a few suggestions. Let me know if they need tweaking. Hopefully we'll all come to a reasonable understanding.

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra
      Phantom of Ra removed this reply because:
      Off-topic.
      04:58, January 14, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Teacup Terry wrote:
      Although this change favours me, there's something about it that just repels me. The problem with this is that it assumes staff always make decisions for the best. But that's far from the case. Take Camwood777, a former ADMINISTRATOR, who told me to shove a cheese grater up somewhere I won't even mention. Zambiealex, a former CONTENT MODERATOR, who threatened to make my girlfriend hate me just so he could date me after seeing my face reveal. And that's just what's happened to me. Sure, these are sparse cases, but the thought of these people getting more of their voice heard than some amazing regular users like AWB and Whatevz is kind of sad. We worked fine for a long time as a democracy. The vote threads about one single apostrophe were only caused by a few users. This is not to say that the whole idea is flawed. I have two suggestions:
      • Let staff decide everything but promotion threads. (This would make users not spam inane voting threads but still not let staff gain absolute power.)

      OR

      • Let staff instantly decide promotions and only let staff create voting threads but let everyone vote on them. (This would make users not spam voting threads and allow staff to choose good candidates but not let staff unanimously make bad decisions.)

      These are just a few suggestions. Let me know if they need tweaking. Hopefully we'll all come to a reasonable understanding.

      I think we should let the ablity to vote for so-called verified users (this should become a role or something). They aren't staff, but they are veterans of the wiki that have been there long enough to understand what this wiki really needs. It doesn't mean that the vote will matter the most either, but it will be taken into consideration as a collection of verified points of view.

        Loading editor
    • Teacup Terry wrote: Although this change favours me, there's something about it that just repels me. The problem with this is that it assumes staff always make decisions for the best. But that's far from the case. Take Camwood777, a former ADMINISTRATOR, who told me to shove a cheese grater up somewhere I won't even mention. Zambiealex, a former CONTENT MODERATOR, who threatened to make my girlfriend hate me just so he could date me after seeing my face reveal. And that's just what's happened to me. Sure, these are sparse cases, but the thought of these people getting more of their voice heard than some amazing regular users like AWB and Whatevz is kind of sad. We worked fine for a long time as a democracy. The vote threads about one single apostrophe were only caused by a few users. This is not to say that the whole idea is flawed. I have two suggestions:

      • Let staff decide everything but promotion threads. (This would make users not spam inane voting threads but still not let staff gain absolute power.)

      OR

      • Let staff instantly decide promotions and only let staff create voting threads but let everyone vote on them. (This would make users not spam voting threads and allow staff to choose good candidates but not let staff unanimously make bad decisions.)

      These are just a few suggestions. Let me know if they need tweaking. Hopefully we'll all come to a reasonable understanding.

      Some of staff recognized they had problems for a while, but at the time, everyone was too enthralled by Camp's stories and Zambie didn't show his true colors.

        Loading editor
    • I'm okay with this, democracies aren't that common in other online websites anyways. Besides, wikis are mostly informative, not who gets the best power in it. At least the staff will not be weakened due to this change anymore.

        Loading editor
    • ShroomstagramUser wrote:

      Teacup Terry wrote: Although this change favours me, there's something about it that just repels me. The problem with this is that it assumes staff always make decisions for the best. But that's far from the case. Take Camwood777, a former ADMINISTRATOR, who told me to shove a cheese grater up somewhere I won't even mention. Zambiealex, a former CONTENT MODERATOR, who threatened to make my girlfriend hate me just so he could date me after seeing my face reveal. And that's just what's happened to me. Sure, these are sparse cases, but the thought of these people getting more of their voice heard than some amazing regular users like AWB and Whatevz is kind of sad. We worked fine for a long time as a democracy. The vote threads about one single apostrophe were only caused by a few users. This is not to say that the whole idea is flawed. I have two suggestions:

      • Let staff decide everything but promotion threads. (This would make users not spam inane voting threads but still not let staff gain absolute power.)

      OR

      • Let staff instantly decide promotions and only let staff create voting threads but let everyone vote on them. (This would make users not spam voting threads and allow staff to choose good candidates but not let staff unanimously make bad decisions.)

      These are just a few suggestions. Let me know if they need tweaking. Hopefully we'll all come to a reasonable understanding.

      Some of staff recognized they had problems for a while, but at the time, everyone was too enthralled by Camp's stories and Zambie didn't show his true colors.

      Camp? FC did nothing wrong. :c

        Loading editor
    • Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      ShroomstagramUser wrote:

      Teacup Terry wrote: Although this change favours me, there's something about it that just repels me. The problem with this is that it assumes staff always make decisions for the best. But that's far from the case. Take Camwood777, a former ADMINISTRATOR, who told me to shove a cheese grater up somewhere I won't even mention. Zambiealex, a former CONTENT MODERATOR, who threatened to make my girlfriend hate me just so he could date me after seeing my face reveal. And that's just what's happened to me. Sure, these are sparse cases, but the thought of these people getting more of their voice heard than some amazing regular users like AWB and Whatevz is kind of sad. We worked fine for a long time as a democracy. The vote threads about one single apostrophe were only caused by a few users. This is not to say that the whole idea is flawed. I have two suggestions:

      • Let staff decide everything but promotion threads. (This would make users not spam inane voting threads but still not let staff gain absolute power.)

      OR

      • Let staff instantly decide promotions and only let staff create voting threads but let everyone vote on them. (This would make users not spam voting threads and allow staff to choose good candidates but not let staff unanimously make bad decisions.)

      These are just a few suggestions. Let me know if they need tweaking. Hopefully we'll all come to a reasonable understanding.

      Some of staff recognized they had problems for a while, but at the time, everyone was too enthralled by Camp's stories and Zambie didn't show his true colors.
      Camp? FC did nothing wrong. :c

      Camwood.

        Loading editor
    • I fail to see what's fully unfair about this.


      I guess people like having power with no real cost (25 MS Edits are a bit of suffering to some people, like me, but still.) but eh.


      Good work Jack boy.

        Loading editor
    • Light Bomber wrote: I fail to see what's fully unfair about this.


      I guess people like having power with no real cost (25 MS Edits are a bit of suffering to some people, like me, but still.) but eh.


      Good work Jack boy.

      Jack boy? Thx. :3

        Loading editor
    • Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      Light Bomber wrote: I fail to see what's fully unfair about this.


      I guess people like having power with no real cost (25 MS Edits are a bit of suffering to some people, like me, but still.) but eh.


      Good work Jack boy.

      Jack boy? Thx. :3

      Yes that's your official nickname for me now.

      You're welcome, just pointing out the... Potentially obvious, with a lot of hard work, good things tend to come by.

        Loading editor
    • Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      ShroomstagramUser wrote:

      Teacup Terry wrote: Although this change favours me, there's something about it that just repels me. The problem with this is that it assumes staff always make decisions for the best. But that's far from the case. Take Camwood777, a former ADMINISTRATOR, who told me to shove a cheese grater up somewhere I won't even mention. Zambiealex, a former CONTENT MODERATOR, who threatened to make my girlfriend hate me just so he could date me after seeing my face reveal. And that's just what's happened to me. Sure, these are sparse cases, but the thought of these people getting more of their voice heard than some amazing regular users like AWB and Whatevz is kind of sad. We worked fine for a long time as a democracy. The vote threads about one single apostrophe were only caused by a few users. This is not to say that the whole idea is flawed. I have two suggestions:

      • Let staff decide everything but promotion threads. (This would make users not spam inane voting threads but still not let staff gain absolute power.)

      OR

      • Let staff instantly decide promotions and only let staff create voting threads but let everyone vote on them. (This would make users not spam voting threads and allow staff to choose good candidates but not let staff unanimously make bad decisions.)

      These are just a few suggestions. Let me know if they need tweaking. Hopefully we'll all come to a reasonable understanding.

      Some of staff recognized they had problems for a while, but at the time, everyone was too enthralled by Camp's stories and Zambie didn't show his true colors.
      Camp? FC did nothing wrong. :c

      I did mean Cam.  My phone autocorrects stuff.

        Loading editor
    • First off all, I'm a staff member and I was not notified that this was happening. Would it kill you all to leave a message on my talk page saying "hey, we're gonna talk about fixing the wiki, ya mind joining us?"

      So this means I'm given the ability to run the wiki as if I'm Big Brother or something. Cool for me... but really, no.

      I want to address the four main points individually, which should make my reply long enough that you should abbreviate it should you display my message.

      1. "Excess power to regular users makes being a staff member redundant" Not really. At the end of the day, we are still bound to the same rules, expected behaviors, we participate with other users as if we're not staff members... we just get a few extra buttons that allow us to moderate uneven content. In that sense, I do not see myself as a member of the government, I see myself as more of a police officer. That's why I've pushed to reflect this further. This opens the floodgates for staff members to make rogue decisions (see the bottom of the post for more on rogue staff) while throwing actually smart people like AWikiBoy521 and Cavia porcellus under the bus all because they don't want rights. Don't give me the whole "they can demote good members!" talk because I feel like we've implemented safeguards against biased or blind votes ("(s)he's my friend", "per X") as well as votes without any explanation. I'm pretty sure a staff member who does behind the scenes work can say they're doing that and prove it should a thread come up.
      2. "Some of the users tend to not know why things are added in the first place" - I'm not sure how exactly this is a problem with democracies. If you really want everyone to know that certain policies are in effect, tell people about it, via bulletin, talk page, whatever. Please do not create excuses to avoid communications with other users.
      3. "Too frequent changes on same single and/or unnecessary things cause a lot of headache" and "People tend to vote subjectively, not objectively" (I list them together because the same argument applies to both) - In the case of the second sentence, that includes you all. I mean, a good amount of these votes are built around subjective criteria i.e. what is right for the wiki is subjective in and of itself. That is why there is no consensus even among staff members as to whether certain topics should share an article or whether we should use gender-specific pronouns, for example. And by allowing the staff to dictate the vote while also allowing people to criticize them, wouldn't it occur to you all that the whole business of "it'll be easier to maintain the wiki's quality when we have fewer complaining members" won't work by giving them reason to complain?

      Jack, I've been around here roughly as long as you have, and I know you're aware of all the instances of staff members causing controversy during their activity: Wintermelon43, WinterMagnet, Zambiealex, Camwood777, Hoanganhminh, and MeVsZombiesMeWin (aka Meyguhmein)... the last two being the most poignant in my case, seeing as how half a decade ago or so, I was going off about how I disliked their "dictatorship" as I called it. Of course, that was when I was a small fry; now, I actually have those same powers while those two are off the radar (and much better). Even still, for as much as you want to turn this into the People's Democratic Republic of Socialist Plants vs. Zombies Wiki Union, I do not want this wiki to return to the battlefield that was the wiki of back then.

        Loading editor
    • Brainulator9 wrote: First off all, I'm a staff member and I was not notified that this was happening. Would it kill you all to leave a message on my talk page saying "hey, we're gonna talk about fixing the wiki, ya mind joining us?"

      So this means I'm given the ability to run the wiki as if I'm Big Brother or something. Cool for me... but really, no.

      I want to address the four main points individually, which should make my reply long enough that you should abbreviate it should you display my message.

      1. "Excess power to regular users makes being a staff member redundant" Not really. At the end of the day, we are still bound to the same rules, expected behaviors, we participate with other users as if we're not staff members... we just get a few extra buttons that allow us to moderate uneven content. In that sense, I do not see myself as a member of the government, I see myself as more of a police officer. That's why I've pushed to reflect this further. This opens the floodgates for staff members to make rogue decisions (see the bottom of the post for more on rogue staff) while throwing actually smart people like AWikiBoy521 and Cavia porcellus under the bus all because they don't want rights. Don't give me the whole "they can demote good members!" talk because I feel like we've implemented safeguards against biased or blind votes ("(s)he's my friend", "per X") as well as votes without any explanation. I'm pretty sure a staff member who does behind the scenes work can say they're doing that and prove it should a thread come up.
      2. "Some of the users tend to not know why things are added in the first place" - I'm not sure how exactly this is a problem with democracies. If you really want everyone to know that certain policies are in effect, tell people about it, via bulletin, talk page, whatever. Please do not create excuses to avoid communications with other users.
      3. "Too frequent changes on same single and/or unnecessary things cause a lot of headache" and "People tend to vote subjectively, not objectively" (I list them together because the same argument applies to both) - In the case of the second sentence, that includes you all. I mean, a good amount of these votes are built around subjective criteria i.e. what is right for the wiki is subjective in and of itself. That is why there is no consensus even among staff members as to whether certain topics should share an article or whether we should use gender-specific pronouns, for example. And by allowing the staff to dictate the vote while also allowing people to criticize them, wouldn't it occur to you all that the whole business of "it'll be easier to maintain the wiki's quality when we have fewer complaining members" won't work by giving them reason to complain?

      Jack, I've been around here roughly as long as you have, and I know you're aware of all the instances of staff members causing controversy during their activity: Wintermelon43, WinterMagnet, Zambiealex, Camwood777, Hoanganhminh, and MeVsZombiesMeWin (aka Meyguhmein)... the last two being the most poignant in my case, seeing as how half a decade ago or so, I was going off about how I disliked their "dictatorship" as I called it. Of course, that was when I was a small fry; now, I actually have those same powers while those two are off the radar (and much better). Even still, for as much as you want to turn this into the People's Democratic Republic of Socialist Plants vs. Zombies Wiki Union, I do not want this wiki to return to the battlefield that was the wiki of back then.

      We referred to it many times in the staff Discord, which you are in. Also, no I don't want it to be the "People's Democratic Republic of Socialist Plants vs. Zombies Wiki Union". In fact, I wanted to return it to democracy after a while with a better voting system personally. Also, people have found loopholes in the rules to get away with abusing voting privileges. We also do talk to users about it but it's ignored too often. The third point you made I can kinda get around though which is why I want there to be some moderation about it and that people's opinions should be taken into account when deciding things. I also notice a lot of staff voting subjectively as well, which is caused by regular users voting them in subjectively allowing them to do so. Sometimes, users don't know what exactly is best for them. I'm not claiming I do but I want to at least try to see how it ends up in the long-term.

        Loading editor
    • Seriously dude, I think some people are overly exaggerating this, and they think this might be more "harmful" and we might screw up the wiki more. This is basically fearmongering at its finest.

      The thing is, there's a good chance that we can improve the wiki's quality by this. If you're saying this is gonna be harmful then you're not even trying.

      We've tried REAL HARD in improving the vote systems and stuff, and it keeps failing. What's the point of trying to continue and use the votes when there's a lot of things wrong about it? Are we gonna keep the drama flowing endlessly just because of some stupid damn votes that aren't really that much useful? This is why the wiki has to "grow up" and be more mature in policies and stuff. One might think this thing is bad, but they're not looking at all the potentials. This is the result of "acting before thinking". Keep doing this and this wiki's never gonna improve at all.

      Mind you, we've done a lot of effort for this, for we need to perform lots of critical thinking due to the sensitive nature of this change. I can GUARANTEE that should this be made in only a few days, it would've been catastrophic. But no, we've got a lot of plans for this since 6 months ago. We initally wanted to publish this last month but it was delayed again and again due to drama caused by the RP branch removal, and publishing this when the drama was still sparking up would've caused a much more intense backlash from the community, so we waited until it cools down. Again, we had to do some critical thinking, even for deciding when we should publish this.

        Loading editor
    • THANK. I was hoping someone would address this issue. Happy to see it implemented, although there might be need for a "panem and circensus" bc people are mad. Hail Lenin?

        Loading editor
    • A well deserved change! I kept seeing the pronoun issues frequently a while back. With this one, the users will provide the feedback and let the entire staff decide the final output.

        Loading editor
    • I completely agree with this change. I think this will make the wiki better, and help make the changes less controversial.

        Loading editor
    • Drek'TharSuperSword wrote:
      Seriously dude, I think some people are overly exaggerating this, and they think this might be more "harmful" and we might screw up the wiki more. This is basically fearmongering at its finest.

      The thing is, there's a good chance that we can improve the wiki's quality by this. If you're saying this is gonna be harmful then you're not even trying.

      We've tried REAL HARD in improving the vote systems and stuff, and it keeps failing. What's the point of trying to continue and use the votes when there's a lot of things wrong about it? Are we gonna keep the drama flowing endlessly just because of some stupid damn votes that aren't really that much useful? This is why the wiki has to "grow up" and be more mature in policies and stuff. One might think this thing is bad, but they're not looking at all the potentials. This is the result of "acting before thinking". Keep doing this and this wiki's never gonna improve at all.

      Mind you, we've done a lot of effort for this, for we need to perform lots of critical thinking due to the sensitive nature of this change. I can GUARANTEE that should this be made in only a few days, it would've been catastrophic. But no, we've got a lot of plans for this since 6 months ago. We initally wanted to publish this last month but it was delayed again and again due to drama caused by the RP branch removal, and publishing this when the drama was still sparking up would've caused a much more intense backlash from the community, so we waited until it cools down. Again, we had to do some critical thinking, even for deciding when we should publish this.

      You're missing the point here. At least, you're missing my point.

      If this fails, it will have very, very severe backlash. Unless you're absolutely sure this will work, I'd rather not chance it.

      I also like how you're categorizing all votes by a few bad apples. Not every vote is completely pointless, and even if some of them are, it doesn't warrant a drastic change like that. So much for thinking before acting, eh?

      And your point about potential isn't very stable. Yes, this has good potential, but its hindered by the potential to fail terribly as well. Take things like communism (not drawing any connections here, thats too much of a stretch), while they have good potential, they also have potential to go haywire. TL;DR While there is a good chance this will help, there is also an equally high chance it will end up hurting the wiki instead.

      I get that drastic measures must be taken at this kind of time, but I'd rather not have the wiki suddenly die due to one choice.

        Loading editor
    • I feel like this is a good change to the system. I feel like sometimes some people were voting for things that didn't apply them to them at all, which can sometimes mess up the results. I'm assuming that the staff on this wiki are good at their job, so I trust them to make the desicions around here. 

        Loading editor
    • So all my years of dedication, of constantly improving articles for literal years and debating on a many voting threads with other users, does all of that mean nothing now? What about users that have far longer and even greater aptitude than I, yet are still not in a position of power, or worse, don't want power prior to this change? Are they just duped too?

      The greatest social asset of Wikia for me is it's collaborative efforts to supporting and creating both articles and changes for even the most minor of cases. Debate is something I genuinely love to do, even as someone who is so introverted that I have better time continuing a conversation than I do starting one. This wikia basically nurtured and evolved that interest singlehandedly. That's what kept me on to this wikia, even after massive burnout of PvZ2 and H after their content dried up and updates ceased in speed and quality. To discuss on changes granted me the ability to grow as a person, something I can only attribute to few other things in the whole of my current lifetime. So to see that gone in voting is really sad to see.

      There is an argument to be made for users that are unaware of the issue and vote "wrongly", I understand. But to imply every normal user does this is a gruesome falsehood, stereotype and logically inept, further exacerbated by further implications that staff will always vote correctly. But to attempt to nullify such a falsehood with a blanket statement that inhibits other users that may legitimately have some good insight to a vote is reprehensible. It helps to make me go completely against such a change becuase of such a terrible and biased foundation. The reasoning behind that crud it is strong and reasonable. The strawmaning is one step for making the whole change completely fall apart.

      I don't feel mad or particularly sad. Just a whole lotta disappointment. Still being able to suggest votes is kinda cool. However, having the issue that "what's best for the wikia" be subjective at it's core and completely makes any vote up to the mercy of a person either likeminded to look over potentail flaws or closeminded to not see the benefit is a large concern for me from here on out. Seriously, Brain smashed that arguement like a Pumpkin.

      So overall, this sounds very unappealing.  A lot of large generalizations and hinderance to users who don't deserve it, even for a "greater good" that could also end up passing bad changes. If these bad changes are more or less frequent from teh current system depends on how much "critical thinking" you can smuther onto the issue in the future I guess. Hope it works out for better.

        Loading editor
    • So here's my opinion on this change:

      1. So what you're essentially implying is that there's a Magna Carta* around here that says that staff members and normal users have the amount of power in this wiki, which is completely incorrect. And normal users are allowed to vote because if not, and the staff members make a decision themselves, there could be an outrage among normal users and you probably don't want that. And for the demoting threads, if you want your vote to count, you actually have to give a rational reason why you want that staff member demoted, you can't just go saying "oh I want IronCitron21 to be demoted because he's a tw*t" because otherwise, said vote will be disqualified. so most staff members are fairly demoted. In other words, I think normal users having the ability to vote on several changes (which includes demoting staff) is a good thing because it allows people to review that change, and state whether it's a good idea or not. 

      2. This kind of loop rarely happens, mostly because it's pointless, if they try, then that vote will likely get opposed. Now I know there is a really vapid and futile debate on what gender a specific plant is, which is honestly dumb because it's either mentioned in that plant's almanac entry or can be very easily be called "it", which should be universal in my opinion. 

      3. Well, for users to actually vote on changes, they needed 25 MAINSPACE edits (not comments/replies, not stuff on Fun & Games and the roleplaying branch) which is honestly enough for users to get the hang of things in the wiki. And if I don't think users vote for stuff they don't see or use very often, because as you mentioned, they don't know what that is and therefore don't know what the change is.

      4. To me, this is just 3. worded differently (no rhyme intended). But like 1., you need a valid reason on why you agree or disagree with this change, you can't really use fanboyism.

      P.S: I'm not p*ssed off at this, I just think it's a bit of a bad move, and it wasn't necessary. Also, to all the staff users that now have control of change in this wiki, please, for the love of god, before you make a change, just make a discussion about it so there won't be a coup d'etat, which will make the wiki much worst than right now. And I have two questions, one (which is completely irrelevant) why was the wiki supporting those god awful, atrocious Frozen Upgrades (while not realizing that you're making the problem worse by encouraging little kiddies to buy the damn thing) and two, will this apply to the Requests for User Rights (or elections, as like to call them)?

      • For all those Curious Georges out there wanting to know what a "Magna Carta" is, essentially it comes from a kind of contract made between the barons and King John I in 1215, which stated that "everyone, including the king, have the same amount of power and rights"; there you are...
      AAA
        Loading editor
    • Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote: We referred to it many times in the staff Discord, which you are in. Also, no I don't want it to be the "People's Democratic Republic of Socialist Plants vs. Zombies Wiki Union". In fact, I wanted to return it to democracy after a while with a better voting system personally. Also, people have found loopholes in the rules to get away with abusing voting privileges. We also do talk to users about it but it's ignored too often. The third point you made I can kinda get around though which is why I want there to be some moderation about it and that people's opinions should be taken into account when deciding things. I also notice a lot of staff voting subjectively as well, which is caused by regular users voting them in subjectively allowing them to do so. Sometimes, users don't know what exactly is best for them. I'm not claiming I do but I want to at least try to see how it ends up in the long-term.
      • Which means nothing since I haven't been there in some time.
      • If you really want things to return to democracy, I hope you can peacefully give up certain powers. Obviously not all power, but still, I do not need this backfiring.
      • You mean the loopholes we patched, such as a bunch of people voting for a "per" vote that the original voter changed? I'm pretty sure you take issue with people not being fully informed on current events and policies. Oh.gif
      • If you don't know whether this is the best approach... perhaps other options are being swept under the rug?
        Loading editor
    • Hmm

      So is this implemented already? Will all future votes go to staff members?

      Also, is the staff discord the Ninja5 empire one?

        Loading editor
    • Happy-shroom wrote:
      Hmm

      So is this implemented already? Will all future votes go to staff members?

      It's in discussion mode at the moment.

        Loading editor
    • Happy-shroom wrote: Hmm

      So is this implemented already? Will all future votes go to staff members?

      Also, is the staff discord the Ninja5 empire one?

      LOL No. It's my server and it has nothing to do with the wiki. There are several users there who aren't even on the PvZ Wiki.

        Loading editor
    • I would like to announce that I have plans to at least give some power to the common user. Two new forum branches:

      1. A feedback branch for users to give ideas of how we can improve the wiki.
      2. A user rights review branch to investigate abuses of power.
        Loading editor
    • ShroomstagramUser wrote:

      Happy-shroom wrote:
      Hmm

      So is this implemented already? Will all future votes go to staff members?

      It's in discussion mode at the moment.

      Then why does the first message in this thread imply that it has already been decided? "So I had to make decisions after several considerations from a few staff members. [...] We had to remove the voting system (also known as "democratic system). I know this is gonna be REAL controversial, but we're doing this for good."

      Also, look at the way this last "discussion" turned out; implemented without a vote by the staff members.

        Loading editor
    • Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      Happy-shroom wrote: Hmm

      So is this implemented already? Will all future votes go to staff members?

      Also, is the staff discord the Ninja5 empire one?

      LOL No. It's my server and it has nothing to do with the wiki. There are several users there who aren't even on the PvZ Wiki.

      Wait, which one is the staff discord then? Should I be on it?

        Loading editor
    • Happy-shroom wrote:

      Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      Happy-shroom wrote: Hmm

      So is this implemented already? Will all future votes go to staff members?

      Also, is the staff discord the Ninja5 empire one?

      LOL No. It's my server and it has nothing to do with the wiki. There are several users there who aren't even on the PvZ Wiki.

      Wait, which one is the staff discord then? Should I be on it?

      Invite is in your Discord DM.

        Loading editor

      1. "A feedback branch for users to give ideas of how we can improve the wiki. "

      Screen Shot 2018-01-15 at 9.45.42 AM
      You're scarin me, Jack. This is sounding more and more eerily similar to certain communist countries' governments. 

        Loading editor
    • Teacup Terry wrote:


      1. "A feedback branch for users to give ideas of how we can improve the wiki. "

      Screen Shot 2018-01-15 at 9.45.42 AM
      You're scarin me, Jack. This is sounding more and more eerily similar to certain communist countries' governments. 

      Plz.

        Loading editor
    • >Comparing an internet forum to a real communist government... Seriously, what comparison is there?

        Loading editor
    • Legofan9o5 wrote: So all my years of dedication, of constantly improving articles for literal years and debating on a many voting threads with other users, does all of that mean nothing now? What about users that have far longer and even greater aptitude than I, yet are still not in a position of power, or worse, don't want power prior to this change? Are they just duped too?

      Oh no, of course not! All of the helpful things you did and contributed to this wiki are not useless. The same applies to all users who are non-staff members who made good contributions to this wiki. None of you guys are duped. None of you guys are useless. None of the good contributions you guys made are thrown down the drain.

      We're not saying that all new users are unhelpful. We're not saying that all staff members are always right or perfect either. We, staff members, have made made mistakes as well. We're in no way flawless. But what do we do with those mistakes?


      We fix them and make up for them.


      I understand the feeling that something bad may come out of this but we are trying our best to make sure this wiki is in a good state. As a lot of users have been saying, this wiki has been suffering from the amount of toxicity within the community for the last few years, which definitely is a sign that it's time we do something about it. If anyone has any feedback to submit or suggestions to give as to how we can make this wiki better, then anyone is free to provide feedback or suggestions. We are welcome and open for them.

        Loading editor
    • Teacup Terry wrote:
      1. "A feedback branch for users to give ideas of how we can improve the wiki. "

      Screen Shot 2018-01-15 at 9.45.42 AM
      You're scarin me, Jack. This is sounding more and more eerily similar to certain communist countries' governments. 

      Cuba's governement was a dictatorship, not a communist party.

        Loading editor
    • Pinkgirl234 wrote:

      Legofan9o5 wrote: So all my years of dedication, of constantly improving articles for literal years and debating on a many voting threads with other users, does all of that mean nothing now? What about users that have far longer and even greater aptitude than I, yet are still not in a position of power, or worse, don't want power prior to this change? Are they just duped too?

      Oh no, of course not! All of the helpful things you did and contributed to this wiki are not useless. The same applies to all users who are non-staff members who made good contributions to this wiki. None of you guys are duped. None of you guys are useless. None of the good contributions you guys made are thrown down the drain.

      We're not saying that all new users are unhelpful. We're not saying that all staff members are always right or perfect either. We, staff members, have made made mistakes as well. We're in no way flawless. But what do we do with those mistakes?


      We fix them and make up for them.


      I understand the feeling that something bad may come out of this but we are trying our best to make sure this wiki is in a good state. As a lot of users have been saying, this wiki has been suffering from the amount of toxicity within the community for the last few years, which definitely is a sign that it's time we do something about it. If anyone has any feedback to submit or suggestions to give as to how we can make this wiki better, then anyone is free to provide feedback or suggestions. We are welcome and open for them.

      One theory I have on why the PvZ community is toxic is because of the franchise. At this point we all know that pretty much all three supported PvZ games Though I don't know if I should call Gw2 supported are basically pay to win with serious doubts about a new game; back in December 2016 a triple-A PvZ game was cancelled, Garden Warfare 2 at this point was abandoned by PopCap, and new players in Heroes are gonna struggle because pretty much every card (regardless of whether it deserves it), is becoming either a Rare or Super Rare. I feel like this has p*ssed the community off and therefore want to express their anger in irrational ways. I noticed that the community was calm and friendly before the downfall of Gw2 and Heroes (for Heroes, in terms of reputation, and for Gw2, in terms of content, as that was when we had the ability drought) and then after that, I started seeing all this "Discord makes people toxic" sh*t and many staff members started to leave. I really don't think we can fix this at this point and it's really the devs that will determine the fate of the PvZ community. I might be completely wrong and I might be a bit right but regardless, PvZ, as a franchise, is in serious jeopardy.

        Loading editor
    • Stop talking about comunism. Many people died because of it, and my cousin too in a war in 1991. in Croatia. He was tortured. So lets discuss this with some regret to victims. 

        Loading editor
    • TheSmartyHero1 wrote:
      Stop talking about comunism. Many people died because of it, and my cousin too in a war in 1991. in Croatia. He was tortured. So lets discuss this with some regret to victims. 

      Well, wasn't that the year communsim ended, and sorry about your loss.

        Loading editor
    • TheSmartyHero1 wrote:
      Stop talking about comunism. Many people died because of it, and my cousin too in a war in 1991. in Croatia. He was tortured. So lets discuss this with some regret to victims. 

      I agree. Also, the comparison between a wiki on the internet and communism is... a bit too much.

        Loading editor
    • IronCitron21 wrote:
      TheSmartyHero1 wrote:
      Stop talking about comunism. Many people died because of it, and my cousin too in a war in 1991. in Croatia. He was tortured. So lets discuss this with some regret to victims. 
      Well, wasn't that the year communsim ended, and sorry about your loss.

      Sure. It ended well in 1989. And thank you, a lot.

        Loading editor
    • TheSmartyHero1 wrote:
      IronCitron21 wrote:
      TheSmartyHero1 wrote:
      Stop talking about comunism. Many people died because of it, and my cousin too in a war in 1991. in Croatia. He was tortured. So lets discuss this with some regret to victims. 
      Well, wasn't that the year communsim ended, and sorry about your loss.
      Sure. It ended well in 1989. And thank you, a lot.

      But the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, but I'm not gonna cause a historical debate. 

        Loading editor
    • TheSmartyHero1 wrote: Stop talking about comunism. Many people died because of it, and my cousin too in a war in 1991. in Croatia. He was tortured. So lets discuss this with some regret to victims. 

      Okay, moving on. One thing I'm slightly concerned about is voting for user rights. How exactly will that work? Same rules just a staff-only vote?

        Loading editor
    • Pinkgirl234 wrote:
      Oh no, of course not! All of the helpful things you did and contributed to this wiki are not useless. The same applies to all users who are non-staff members who made good contributions to this wiki. None of you guys are duped. None of you guys are useless. None of the good contributions you guys made are thrown down the drain.

      We're not saying that all new users are unhelpful. We're not saying that all staff members are always right or perfect either. We, staff members, have made made mistakes as well. We're in no way flawless.

      I'm sorry, my cynicism and melancholy got ahead of me for that blurb.

      The more I think about the privilege of voting, the more it becomes less mandatory and more peripheral. Heck, even this discussion led to a compromise of sorts in the induction of the thread for change suggestion, so it isn't all terrible as a whole as I once thought. So still able to debate, just not explicitly voting.

      Still however, the clear segregation of "common users" and staff is there in all it's miscolored and gritty implication, but I'd peg that criticism on the writing rather than the subject matter itself at this point. Besides that, the sentiment is starting to shine through to me now.

        Loading editor
    • Let's not demonize staff, thanks.

      They're all people and want the better for you all.

        Loading editor
    • i was too lazy to read post #1 


      what are we talking about

        Loading editor
    • Meap123 wrote: i was too lazy to read post #1 


      what are we talking about

      Basically the wiki's system is being planned to change into a more staff controlled system.

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote: Let's not demonize staff, thanks.

      They're all people and want the better for you all.

      As well as that, I also urge people not to demonise anyone. While I do feel this is important to implement, I can understand why people may have problems with this and instead of fighting them, we should really just have a civilised debate about it. Being pro-reform doesn't make you pro-dictator and being anti-reform doesn't make you pro-anarchy. Even though this does grant me more powers, I will try to remain the same in most ways in terms of power usage. Dissent should remain tolerated and the voice of the people should still be a factor in staff decisions.

        Loading editor
    • B-doom13 wrote:

      TheSmartyHero1 wrote: Stop talking about comunism. Many people died because of it, and my cousin too in a war in 1991. in Croatia. He was tortured. So lets discuss this with some regret to victims. 

      Okay, moving on. One thing I'm slightly concerned about is voting for user rights. How exactly will that work? Same rules just a staff-only vote?

      That's what I was thinking.

        Loading editor
    • Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      Mental Skillness wrote: Let's not demonize staff, thanks.

      They're all people and want the better for you all.

      As well as that, I also urge people not to demonise anyone. While I do feel this is important to implement, I can understand why people may have problems with this and instead of fighting them, we should really just have a civilised debate about it. Being pro-reform doesn't make you pro-dictator and being anti-reform doesn't make you pro-anarchy. Even though this does grant me more powers, I will try to remain the same in most ways in terms of power usage. Dissent should remain tolerated and the voice of the people should still be a factor in staff decisions.

      This is why I suggested a discussion about a major change being made, to avoid an outrage when the announcement that said change was implemented.

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote:
      Let's not demonize staff, thanks.

      They're all people and want the better for you all.

      I'm not saying that they don't want to improve this place as a whole, but the fact that they want to help this place doesn't necessarily mean that the idea is going to work. As you said, they're people. They can make mistakes.

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote:
      Let's not demonize staff, thanks.

      Let's not idolize them either. They're still people, as you said. Their decisions aren't always perfect.

        Loading editor
    • DatDramaPlant wrote:
      Mental Skillness wrote:
      Let's not demonize staff, thanks.

      They're all people and want the better for you all.

      I'm not saying that they don't want to improve this place as a whole, but the fact that they want to help this place doesn't necessarily mean that the idea is going to work. As you said, they're people. They can make mistakes.

      Yes, you're all people too.

      Let's see if this works, if it doesn't, it'll probably change.

      Drek said that depending on how the system works, some changes will be applied.

      Again, a bit off-topic, but it's a bit surreal so many people surprised that we're switching to a more modern way of running a forum, that's been proven to be a lot more successful than a democracy. 

        Loading editor
    • Teacup Terry wrote:
      Mental Skillness wrote:
      Let's not demonize staff, thanks.
      Let's not idolize them either. They're still people, as you said. Their decisions aren't always perfect.

      Then let's not bring up communism and dictatorships into a discussion over a forum? Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • What is the way to become staff member? 

        Loading editor
    • TheSmartyHero1 wrote:
      What is the way to become staff member? 

      Check Plants vs. Zombies Wiki:Requests for user rights. Aaaand because it also contains voting so this affects that too.

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra wrote:
      TheSmartyHero1 wrote:
      What is the way to become staff member? 
      Check Plants vs. Zombies Wiki:Requests for user rights. Aaaand because it also contains voting so this affects that too.

      ok thnx

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra wrote:
      TheSmartyHero1 wrote:
      What is the way to become staff member? 
      Check Plants vs. Zombies Wiki:Requests for user rights. Aaaand because it also contains voting so this affects that too.

      So how is "Request for user rights" gonna work now? Are the staff members gonna determine whether you get promoted or not?

        Loading editor
    • I guess.

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote:

      Teacup Terry wrote:
      Mental Skillness wrote:
      Let's not demonize staff, thanks.
      Let's not idolize them either. They're still people, as you said. Their decisions aren't always perfect.

      Then let's not bring up communism and dictatorships into a discussion over a forum? Thanks.

      So all power being taken by staff is not essentially oligarchy? Sure, it's not people being killed, but it's still people having complete power.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with a lot of this. Some staff never use their powers - my former self included, and I can see why you would want this removed. The voting I mean. The blind voting was always a problem, and this is the only way to stop it.

        Loading editor
    • Teacup Terry wrote:

      Mental Skillness wrote:

      Teacup Terry wrote:
      Mental Skillness wrote:
      Let's not demonize staff, thanks.
      Let's not idolize them either. They're still people, as you said. Their decisions aren't always perfect.
      Then let's not bring up communism and dictatorships into a discussion over a forum? Thanks.
      So all power being taken by staff is not essentially oligarchy? Sure, it's not people being killed, but it's still people having complete power.

      Which is one of the most successful and common practice of power on many internet forums...?

      I really cannot take youseriously when you try to overexaggerate something that's been considered normal for more than a decade now.

        Loading editor
    • IloveLuigi wrote:
      I agree with a lot of this. Some staff never use their powers - my former self included, and I can see why you would want this removed. The voting I mean. The blind voting was always a problem, and this is the only way to stop it.

      That's an overexaggeration. Don't act like "it's the only way", disqualification exists for a reason.

        Loading editor
    • I think a Republic-esque staff would be better.

        Loading editor
    • DatDramaPlant wrote:
      IloveLuigi wrote:
      I agree with a lot of this. Some staff never use their powers - my former self included, and I can see why you would want this removed. The voting I mean. The blind voting was always a problem, and this is the only way to stop it.
      That's an overexaggeration. Don't act like "it's the only way", disqualification exists for a reason.

      oood point. I hadn't thought of that.

        Loading editor
    • Teacup Terry wrote:

      Mental Skillness wrote:

      Teacup Terry wrote:
      Mental Skillness wrote:
      Let's not demonize staff, thanks.
      Let's not idolize them either. They're still people, as you said. Their decisions aren't always perfect.
      Then let's not bring up communism and dictatorships into a discussion over a forum? Thanks.
      So all power being taken by staff is not essentially oligarchy? Sure, it's not people being killed, but it's still people having complete power.

      And normal users just being there to edit articles and reply on forums. And yes, this is essentially oligarchy.

        Loading editor
    • So, just a question, when a change is implemented and agreed between the staff members, how will it be announced?

      I mean, it's kinda bad to leave a user not updated on a change of the rules...

      Also, will former staff members be treated as regular users? (i'm talking about the rule in which former staff members can get their rights back after x amount of days being active-ish aka the most easily abused one)

        Loading editor
    • VeXJL wrote: So, just a question, when a change is implemented and agreed between the staff members, how will it be announced?

      I mean, it's kinda bad to leave a user not updated on a change of the rules...

      Also, will former staff members be treated as regular users? (i'm talking about the rule in which former staff members can get their rights back after x amount of days being active-ish aka the most easily abused one)

      That rule needs a rewrite and I think we should announce it as soon as it is implemented to keep users up to date and get feedback on it. After all, staff are definitely not perfect as some on the opposing side have said and they are correct in that regard.

        Loading editor
    • Voting rules has been removed.

        Loading editor
    • ShroomstagramUser wrote:

      Happy-shroom wrote:
      Hmm

      So is this implemented already? Will all future votes go to staff members?

      It's in discussion mode at the moment.

      Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote: Voting rules has been removed.

      I see.

        Loading editor
    • Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      VeXJL wrote: So, just a question, when a change is implemented and agreed between the staff members, how will it be announced?

      I mean, it's kinda bad to leave a user not updated on a change of the rules...

      Also, will former staff members be treated as regular users? (i'm talking about the rule in which former staff members can get their rights back after x amount of days being active-ish aka the most easily abused one)

      That rule needs a rewrite and I think we should announce it as soon as it is implemented to keep users up to date and get feedback on it. After all, staff are definitely not perfect as some on the opposing side have said and they are correct in that regard.

      Oooorrrrrr.... Have a discussion on a major change BEFORE the change is implemented. Sure, the voting system's removed, but non-staff members can still give they're opinion on that change. Remeber, regardless of their power, regular users outnumber staff members by a sh*tload; at least 1 to 5. 

        Loading editor
    • IronCitron21 wrote:
      Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      VeXJL wrote: So, just a question, when a change is implemented and agreed between the staff members, how will it be announced?

      I mean, it's kinda bad to leave a user not updated on a change of the rules...

      Also, will former staff members be treated as regular users? (i'm talking about the rule in which former staff members can get their rights back after x amount of days being active-ish aka the most easily abused one)

      That rule needs a rewrite and I think we should announce it as soon as it is implemented to keep users up to date and get feedback on it. After all, staff are definitely not perfect as some on the opposing side have said and they are correct in that regard.
      Oooorrrrrr.... Have a discussion on a major change BEFORE the change is implemented. Sure, the voting system's removed, but non-staff members can still give they're opinion on that change. Remeber, regardless of their power, regular users outnumber staff members by a sh*tload; at least 1 to 5. 

      5 to 1, get your math right.

      I agree, that way even if the regular users don't "decide" the change the feedback they give can help let the staff improve and revise the change they are going to make.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, don't worry. Feedback and suggestions are always welcome to staff members.

        Loading editor
    • Pinkgirl234 wrote: Yeah, don't worry. Feedback is always welcome to staff members.

      No sh*t. You’ll listen when we make blogs and threads and spam your talk pages.

      Question is, are you gonna go out of your way to discuss changes that we might have a lot of questions about by making discussion threads? We might not be the best as an absolute democracy, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t consult us before doing things

        Loading editor
    • YammaYamer21 wrote:

      Pinkgirl234 wrote: Yeah, don't worry. Feedback is always welcome to staff members.

      No sh*t. You’ll listen when we make blogs and threads and spam your talk pages.

      -snip-

      Might not be a good idea to go on with that one.

        Loading editor
    • IronCitron21 wrote:
      Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      VeXJL wrote: So, just a question, when a change is implemented and agreed between the staff members, how will it be announced?

      I mean, it's kinda bad to leave a user not updated on a change of the rules...

      Also, will former staff members be treated as regular users? (i'm talking about the rule in which former staff members can get their rights back after x amount of days being active-ish aka the most easily abused one)

      That rule needs a rewrite and I think we should announce it as soon as it is implemented to keep users up to date and get feedback on it. After all, staff are definitely not perfect as some on the opposing side have said and they are correct in that regard.
      Oooorrrrrr.... Have a discussion on a major change BEFORE the change is implemented. Sure, the voting system's removed, but non-staff members can still give they're opinion on that change. Remeber, regardless of their power, regular users outnumber staff members by a sh*tload; at least 1 to 5. 

      Indeed, but not every user is 100% to the point on votes, not every user pays full attention to what votes are about, and not every user should be trusted with the power of voting.

      Otherwise, imagine the kind of things you'd see running around... The 25 MS edit cost actually blocks a chunk of users that, most likely, wouldn't contribute at all.


      Staff ""taking over"" is merely so they aren't at the mercy of depending on large numbers just to do a few changes, specially ones that, while not ideal in the mind of an user, may be the most optimal way of handling certain things for Staff themselves.

        Loading editor
    • Light Bomber wrote:
      IronCitron21 wrote:
      Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      VeXJL wrote: So, just a question, when a change is implemented and agreed between the staff members, how will it be announced?

      I mean, it's kinda bad to leave a user not updated on a change of the rules...

      Also, will former staff members be treated as regular users? (i'm talking about the rule in which former staff members can get their rights back after x amount of days being active-ish aka the most easily abused one)

      That rule needs a rewrite and I think we should announce it as soon as it is implemented to keep users up to date and get feedback on it. After all, staff are definitely not perfect as some on the opposing side have said and they are correct in that regard.
      Oooorrrrrr.... Have a discussion on a major change BEFORE the change is implemented. Sure, the voting system's removed, but non-staff members can still give they're opinion on that change. Remeber, regardless of their power, regular users outnumber staff members by a sh*tload; at least 1 to 5. 
      Indeed, but not every user is 100% to the point on votes, not every user pays full attention to what votes are about, and not every user should be trusted with the power of voting.

      Otherwise, imagine the kind of things you'd see running around... The 25 MS edit cost actually blocks a chunk of users that, most likely, wouldn't contribute at all.


      Staff ""taking over"" is merely so they aren't at the mercy of depending on large numbers just to do a few changes, specially ones that, while not ideal in the mind of an user, may be the most optimal way of handling certain things for Staff themselves.

      Key words: not every​.

      Just because there are some of us that aren't good policy makers doesn't mean those of us that are but aren't staff should be ignored. They still won't be dependent on us, but they can use ideas or feedback from the community that actually have some value and make good changes that wouldn't be possible either in the old system or this system if it doesn't give us discussion threads.

        Loading editor
    • Tell you what, I'll let this go through if after a designated period of time, I'll see about submitting my proposal that I've neglected since July 2017 and propose (of course) to have things my way.

      Now that I think about it, what if the staff themselves cannot reach a consensus on certain issues?

        Loading editor
    • I'll agree for that, BUL9.

      That is one thing we need to bring up though and maybe if we can't bring a consensus, we ask for user opinion on the matter. After all, that should still be a factor to consider.

        Loading editor
    • Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote: I'll agree for that, BUL9.

      That is one thing we need to bring up though and maybe if we can't bring a consensus, we ask for user opinion on the matter. After all, that should still be a factor to consider.

      Pretty much keep them on hold for now until a consensus has finally been reached.

        Loading editor
    • YammaYamer21 wrote:

      Question is, are you gonna go out of your way to discuss changes that we might have a lot of questions about by making discussion threads? We might not be the best as an absolute democracy, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t consult us before doing things

      Well, we can't exactly ask every single user in this wiki, can we? In fact, we still often consult those who are not staff members as well.

        Loading editor
    • Roblox543
      Roblox543 removed this reply because:
      Idk why
      05:46, January 20, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Great. So the voting rules were removed. The staff now have absolute power, even though a decent number of them didn't really want it. Okay. For some reason, we can't compromise, or even have an obtainable rank that allows non-staff users to vote. No, you just want to consult us from time to time. Got it. And why, to get things done in a quicker and more efficient fashion. I understand that most online forums have a staff system more like this. So maybe someone will remove the "no wiki dictatorship" rule again. I bet that it would be even easier and quicker to get things done around here if that was removed. After all, NSDAP was definitely able to make Germany work a lot more efficiently. Maybe a Ninja5 Empire could whip the wiki into shape.

        Loading editor
    • To be honest, I think I agree with what was said about staff being the police of the wiki, not the government of the wiki. Just think about it. How could they be the government?

        Loading editor
    • Pinkgirl234 wrote:

      YammaYamer21 wrote:

      Question is, are you gonna go out of your way to discuss changes that we might have a lot of questions about by making discussion threads? We might not be the best as an absolute democracy, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t consult us before doing things

      Well, we can't exactly ask every single user in this wiki, can we?

      Have you heard of highlighted threads? We’re kinda talking through one right now...

        Loading editor
    • Zombiecrab wrote:
      Great. So the voting rules were removed. The staff now have absolute power, even though a decent number of them didn't really want it. Okay. For some reason, we can't compromise, or even have an obtainable rank that allows non-staff users to vote. No, you just want to consult us from time to time. Got it. And why, to get things done in a quicker and more efficient fashion. I understand that most online forums have a staff system more like this. So maybe someone will remove the "no wiki dictatorship" rule again. I bet that it would be even easier and quicker to get things done around here if that was removed. After all, NSDAP was definitely able to make Germany work a lot more efficiently. Maybe a Ninja5 Empire could whip the wiki into shape.

      The NSDAP also caused a giant sh*tstorm called World War II, killed a bunch of jews, and had a leader (who didn't found the party, the one who did went by the name of Anton Drexler, there, you might have learned something from my stupid a**) that was so evil that in the 21st century he became a meme. We really don't need a civil war. I'd rather have communism.

        Loading editor
    • How about we stop drawing such hyperbolic correlations and discuss what's actually presented in the discussion former. It only works in the superficial and leads to nothing productive to this discussion other than random factoids and demonizing the opposing side. Now, can we move on?

        Loading editor
    • THANK YOU

        Loading editor
    • Zombiecrab wrote:
      -snip-

      You know, this is quite clearly an example of overreaction. Why do you want the power of votting so much? It won't change anything, really, it's not like the Staff will do anything 100% contradictory.

      Just deal with the fact you're losing the so-called "POWER OF VOTTING", you still ahve the power to suggest, and the power to express your opinion, huh, just you won't be going "support" or "oppose".

        Loading editor
    • YammaYamer21 wrote:

      Have you heard of highlighted threads? We’re kinda talking through one right now...

      Depending on the topics the highlighted threads touch on, not everyone will participate in the discussion or the voting of the thread. Out of all the thousands of users who have joined this wiki (not counting the alt accounts, the sockpuppets and the bots), the number of users who partake in highlighted threads or important discussions barely reach the half or probably even the fourth of this wiki's user population.

        Loading editor
    • Zombiecrab wrote: Great. So the voting rules were removed. The staff now have absolute power, even though a decent number of them didn't really want it.

      Well, it seems that the voting rules page won't exactly be deleted forever. HxvgwqX.png

        Loading editor
    • Y'know this only lasts temporarily, right?

        Loading editor
    • Legofan9o5 wrote:
      How about we stop drawing such hyperbolic correlations and discuss what's actually presented in the discussion former. It only works in the superficial and leads to nothing productive to this discussion other than random factoids and demonizing the opposing side. Now, can we move on?


      Yeah sure

        Loading editor
    • Pinkgirl234 wrote:

      YammaYamer21 wrote:

      Have you heard of highlighted threads? We’re kinda talking through one right now...

      Depending on the topics the highlighted threads touch on, not everyone will participate in the discussion or the voting of the thread. Out of all the thousands of users who have joined this wiki (not counting the alt accounts, the sockpuppets and the bots), the number of users who partake in highlighted threads or important discussions barely reach the half or probably even the fourth of this wiki's user population.

      They had the option to, though, which is all that matters. If everyone sees it (which they do) but only so many people come to comment, then it's safe to assume only those people have opinions they want heard. It's like saying US office representatives aren't chosen fairly because the amount of people who voted over the amount of people who are eligible to vote is very small.

        Loading editor
    • Pinkgirl234 wrote:

      Zombiecrab wrote: Great. So the voting rules were removed. The staff now have absolute power, even though a decent number of them didn't really want it.

      Well, it seems that the voting rules page won't exactly be deleted forever.

      HxvgwqX.png

      You could've told us earlier, but hey that means we can stop b*tching about this.

        Loading editor
    • Pinkgirl234 wrote:

      YammaYamer21 wrote:

      Have you heard of highlighted threads? We’re kinda talking through one right now...

      Depending on the topics the highlighted threads touch on, not everyone will participate in the discussion or the voting of the thread. Out of all the thousands of users who have joined this wiki (not counting the alt accounts, the sockpuppets and the bots), the number of users who partake in highlighted threads or important discussions barely reach the half or probably even the fourth of this wiki's user population.

      Well, that's because most users go inactive after signing up.

        Loading editor
    • At least this isn't permanent... or so I hope. Hey, if facist and communist dictatorships can be brought up for a wiki, then I say that people who have power tend to want to keep it. Even if it means telling people you're not a crook.

        Loading editor
    • Then any Fascism or communism will be disallowed. Crooks will also not be allowed. So in short, no Nixons.

        Loading editor
    • Legofan9o5 wrote:
      How about we stop drawing such hyperbolic correlations and discuss what's actually presented in the discussion former. It only works in the superficial and leads to nothing productive to this discussion other than random factoids and demonizing the opposing side. Now, can we move on?
        Loading editor
    • I actually find it ironic that the users that are complaining about Staff being "powerful" now, are only complaining because they can't stack votes to go against something that they may not like, but would be better for the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Light Bomber wrote:
      I actually find it ironic that the users that are complaining about Staff being "powerful" now, are only complaining because they can't stack votes to go against something that they may not like, but would be better for the wiki.

      I don't really see any irony there...

        Loading editor
    • I'm ready for people heckling me, but I'm back, baby.

      You know what? I think this might do it- make me come back to this place. Even with my staff position stripped away from me, I kinda dig this idea. Sure, any empire can fall, but I think this will finally make votes more fair around here. And with my rights gone, I really don't have to worry about my stupid decisions anymore. I don't know why, but this seems good.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, makes you feel safer when people who are trusted handle your rights and safety than random people.

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote:
      Honestly, makes you feel safer when people who are trusted handle your rights and safety than random people.

      I 100% agree on that front.

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote: Honestly, makes you feel safer when people who are trusted handle your rights and safety than random people.

      But staff are still random people. Once again, Zambies and Cams aren't one in a lifetime occurences. That could happen with any staff, and it's possible that it could happen in this system. I knoe the chances are low, but they're there and they shouldn't really be.

        Loading editor
    • Voting is now removed from promotion rules so users currently cannot vote for staff members. I am calling for a proposal in the staff Discord of what should be done with it.

        Loading editor
    • Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:
      Voting is now removed from promotion rules so users currently cannot vote for staff members. I am calling for a proposal in the staff Discord of what should be done with it.

      Isn't it temporary? Or it was temporary and now you suddenly make it permanant. 

        Loading editor
    • IronCitron21 wrote:
      Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:
      Voting is now removed from promotion rules so users currently cannot vote for staff members. I am calling for a proposal in the staff Discord of what should be done with it.
      Isn't it temporary? Or it was temporary and now you suddenly make it permanant. 

      Temporary. The thread also affects the promotion threads, so we also have to temporarily remove them.

        Loading editor
    • You could lit'rally fix all of this by just weighting the staff votes and increasing the requirements to vote, whilst also increasing the requirements for a thread to pass, plus you could even add an admin veto if you wanted. Removing voting completely is a rather extreme approach to an issue which can ve fixed in a much more gentle way that keeps more people happy.

        Loading editor
    • Birdpool wrote:
      You could lit'rally fix all of this by just weighting the staff votes and increasing the requirements to vote, whilst also increasing the requirements for a thread to pass, plus you could even add an admin veto if you wanted. Removing voting completely is a rather extreme approach to an issue which can ve fixed in a much more gentle way that keeps more people happy.

      This is just a reorginaztion period of time rn. It's not like they'd keep it like this forever.

        Loading editor
    • VeXJL wrote:

      Birdpool wrote:
      You could lit'rally fix all of this by just weighting the staff votes and increasing the requirements to vote, whilst also increasing the requirements for a thread to pass, plus you could even add an admin veto if you wanted. Removing voting completely is a rather extreme approach to an issue which can ve fixed in a much more gentle way that keeps more people happy.

      This is just a reorginaztion period of time rn. It's not like they'd keep it like this forever.

      Why would they not keep it like this forever? I’d think that kinda needs an answer.

        Loading editor
    • YammaYamer21 wrote:

      VeXJL wrote:


      Birdpool wrote:
      You could lit'rally fix all of this by just weighting the staff votes and increasing the requirements to vote, whilst also increasing the requirements for a thread to pass, plus you could even add an admin veto if you wanted. Removing voting completely is a rather extreme approach to an issue which can ve fixed in a much more gentle way that keeps more people happy.

      This is just a reorginaztion period of time rn. It's not like they'd keep it like this forever.

      Why would they not keep it like this forever? I’d think that kinda needs an answer.


      ​​​​ We will get to decide if we should keep this forever or not once the trial is done.

        Loading editor
    • So when is this temporary thing gonna be lifted? 

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra wrote:
      YammaYamer21 wrote:

      VeXJL wrote:



      Birdpool wrote:
      You could lit'rally fix all of this by just weighting the staff votes and increasing the requirements to vote, whilst also increasing the requirements for a thread to pass, plus you could even add an admin veto if you wanted. Removing voting completely is a rather extreme approach to an issue which can ve fixed in a much more gentle way that keeps more people happy.

      This is just a reorginaztion period of time rn. It's not like they'd keep it like this forever.

      Why would they not keep it like this forever? I’d think that kinda needs an answer.


      ​​​​ We will get to decide if we should keep this forever or not once the trial is done.

      Am I the only one that thinks that's kind of stupid? Like I saw it as a possibility, but I didn't think that it would actually be like "it's just temporary!", then when staff got control they would suddenly go like "it's now permanent, and there's nothing you can do about it!".

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra wrote: We will get to decide if we should keep this forever or not once the trial is done.
      DatDramaPlant wrote: Am I the only one that thinks that's kind of stupid? Like I saw it as a possibility, but I didn't think that it would actually be like "it's just temporary!", then when staff got control they would suddenly go like "it's now permanent, and there's nothing you can do about it!".
      This is exactly what I feared would happen. As soon as you gain power, you want to keep it. Now what was that about how this isn't a Richard Nixon or Communist Revolution-esque system again? Oh.gif
        Loading editor
    • Legofan9o5 wrote:
      How about we stop drawing such hyperbolic correlations and discuss what's actually presented in the discussion former. It only works in the superficial and leads to nothing productive to this discussion other than random factoids and demonizing the opposing side. Now, can we move on?


        Loading editor
    • No, actually, because this is what I feared would happen too. In fact, I am starting to feel like "it's just temporary" might have just been a way to calm the opposing side when you actually intended to make it permanent.

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote:


      I'm flattered you like to use my quote so much, but Brain had a very valid point before the hyperbole was reached. Hence, discuss what's actually presented in the discussion former is more than fufilled and the quote literally falls apart.

      All I can ask is that you make sure to at least identify the hyperbole, otherwise it truly cheapens the quote as a whole. Namely because the quote was to make sure that external politics brought by hyperbole would not self-perpetuate, not that hyperbole was present at all even when it is relevant with the discussion, but to keep things relevant to the discussion at hand when they were spiraling to unrelated areas. It takes it out of context and makes it seem much more of a "shut up and accept" to someone's issue because they made a reach of logic or joke.

      Now, can we not move on? This topic of "it's temporary" not temporary debackle is a legitimate concern worthy of discussion.

        Loading editor
    • Hey, um...Jack, perhaps give the folks an answer...or something....ANYTHING?

        Loading editor
    • I don't think people understood that temporary didn't mean we were going back. 

      I used the quote because I'm pretty tired of communist and richard nixon being thrown at us in the middle of these discussions.

      And yeah, it kind of is just an accept it, you can't really do anything about this thing that really wouldn't hurt anyone's ability to speak, I'm just addressing the fact that people are still overreacting by using the quote.

      Listen, people can call us communists, and all that, but you guys act like we are power-hungry staff that have gone corrupt.

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote:

      Listen, people can call us communists, and all that, but you guys act like we are power-hungry staff that have gone corrupt.

      Aren't the two associated so commonly they're practically the same though

        Loading editor
    • Mental Skillness wrote:
      I don't think people understood that temporary didn't mean we were going back. 

      I used the quote because I'm pretty tired of communist and richard nixon being thrown at us in the middle of these discussions.

      And yeah, it kind of is just an accept it, you can't really do anything about this thing that really wouldn't hurt anyone's ability to speak, I'm just addressing the fact that people are still overreacting by using the quote.


      ​​​​​​...excuse me? Don't mind if I play symantics, as "temporary" is EXACTLY the opposite of what you're trying to tie it to: to be lasting for a limited time; not permanent. Sure you may be refering to never returning to the original system but to a different system afterwards, but holy heck does that first sentence fold in on itself.

      Furthermore, how do you know that this system is no longer temporary? Did Pink and Ra's claims of temporary status fall through over time? Were they wrong to extrapolate from the temp deletion of voting rules to begin with? Sheesh, that's now two directly contradicting claims from several staff, it seriously calls into question whom is right and how effective communications are. I can understand why people are confused, now we have two different claims from different people to go off of.

      Even Shroom is seemingly unaware of the answer here, presenting a third group of people that just doesn't know what's going on behind the scenes. Not to degrade them in any way, but since they are a staff member as high as a flippin' Admin, how in the bluest of Hells is communication so poor that someone of such a high power is also simultaneously as naive to the situatuon as the common user? Unless they are waiting on Jack's cue to answer the people and waiting on info to make sure it alligns with the OP's when the time comes, but then that'd be far too degrading and antagonizing to look into further and paint far too many bad implications for my liking.



      In that case, remove "Now, can we move on?". Out of context it makes me sound excessively condosending as well as the crux of the issue of "moving on" even when a valid topic is being discussed. Otherwise, stop misquoting me. thx :p

        Loading editor
    • This wiki is here for learning useful strategies. This is not a country so that it needs 'democratic system'. That's all what i have to say. 

      P.S. Please, stop talking about communism. Everyone talks about it again.

        Loading editor
    • TheSmartyHero1 wrote:
      This wiki is here for learning useful strategies. This is not a country so that it needs 'democratic system'. That's all what i have to say. 

      P.S. Please, stop talking about communism. Everyone talks about it again.


      ​​​​​Actually, this wiki is used to inform people about PvZ stuff (that includes those two Frozen Upgrades). This is like the wikipedia of PvZ; people come here for information. Little do they know that there's presently a sh*tstorm going on behind the scenes.

        Loading editor
    • TheSmartyHero1 wrote: This wiki is here for learning useful strategies. This is not a country so that it needs 'democratic system'. That's all what i have to say. 

      P.S. Please, stop talking about communism. Everyone talks about it again.

      Really? How exactly do you think that anything gets done around here without users deciding on things? Or did you think?

        Loading editor
    • To everyone concerned about the temporary system being permanent in spite of previous promises: you have every right to take issue with contradicting previous stances. I remember Cavia porcellus bringing this up in a blog comment against AWPXML (then known as ZombieNinja723) to say that he wasn't a man of his word by changing his stance from being retired to maybe wanting his rights back. (I had to dig to find that comment, since it was deleted. The relevant political comparison in this case would be George H. W. Bush saying "read my lips: no new taxes" while campaigning for the US presidency... and then imposing new taxes. Oh.gif Then again, Legofan9o5 does suggest that maybe this is a case of "we're not going back to the old system" perhaps with my system in mind? and if that's true, wow, that was terrible wording.

      I understand that you all haven't abused your powers yet, but who knows?

        Loading editor
    • Brainulator9 wrote:

      I understand that you all haven't abused your powers yet, but who knows?

      If any staff member is confirmed to be abusing their powers, then we'll make sure that their staff user rights are removed from them. Just like how it happened to other power-abusing staff members.

        Loading editor
    • Brainulator9 wrote:
      Then again, Legofan9o5 does suggest that maybe this is a case of "we're not going back to the old system" perhaps with my system in mind? and if that's true, wow, that was terrible wording.


      Honestly I was being generous in that assertion. It was the only rational explaination I could come up with given the wording, as well as completely unfounded speculation to boot. I am as much in the dark as anyone else, which is to say not a lick of what's actually going on outside this discussion, so treat that forecast with a grain of salt.

      Still, it's as good as any I could come up with to explain MS's paradoxical statement; until (or if) we get a revision to that statement, know that I will not claim to know anything concrete beyond what is presented to interpretation here.

      Also: YO JACK, WHERE YA AT?

        Loading editor
    • I guess I need to answer although I'm mostly not taking part in it anymore but I did plan for it to be about a 6 month period personally and no, voting is not going to be removed indefinitely.

      And can we stop with the political comparisons? It's really getting annoying and it's really unnecessary.

        Loading editor
    • Zombiecrab wrote:

      TheSmartyHero1 wrote: This wiki is here for learning useful strategies. This is not a country so that it needs 'democratic system'. That's all what i have to say. 

      P.S. Please, stop talking about communism. Everyone talks about it again.

      Really? How exactly do you think that anything gets done around here without users deciding on things? Or did you think?

      I haven't said anything against users. Though, we need better rights.

        Loading editor
    • VeXJL wrote:
      Birdpool wrote:
      You could lit'rally fix all of this by just weighting the staff votes and increasing the requirements to vote, whilst also increasing the requirements for a thread to pass, plus you could even add an admin veto if you wanted. Removing voting completely is a rather extreme approach to an issue which can ve fixed in a much more gentle way that keeps more people happy.

      This is just a reorginaztion period of time rn. It's not like they'd keep it like this forever.

      • Mega tactical facepalm*

      Well Jack did NOTHING to make that clear. I read the ENTIRE thread, and saw nothing about this being temporary. I still think my idea stands for balancing our voting system. Now, I need to leave this laggy thread before my laptop sets itself on fire.

        Loading editor
    • Birdpool wrote: Well Jack did NOTHING to make that clear. I read the ENTIRE thread, and saw nothing about this being temporary. I still think my idea stands for balancing our voting system. Now, I need to leave this laggy thread before my laptop sets itself on fire.
      #113
        Loading editor
    • Brainulator9 wrote:
      Birdpool wrote: Well Jack did NOTHING to make that clear. I read the ENTIRE thread, and saw nothing about this being temporary. I still think my idea stands for balancing our voting system. Now, I need to leave this laggy thread before my laptop sets itself on fire.
      #113

      I'm pretty certain by now that this was changed to permanent.

        Loading editor
    • IronCitron21 wrote:
      Brainulator9 wrote:
      Birdpool wrote: Well Jack did NOTHING to make that clear. I read the ENTIRE thread, and saw nothing about this being temporary. I still think my idea stands for balancing our voting system. Now, I need to leave this laggy thread before my laptop sets itself on fire.
      #113

      I'm pretty certain by now that this was changed to permanent.

      ASSUMPTIONS

        Loading editor
    • VeXJL wrote:
      IronCitron21 wrote:
      Brainulator9 wrote:
      Birdpool wrote: Well Jack did NOTHING to make that clear. I read the ENTIRE thread, and saw nothing about this being temporary. I still think my idea stands for balancing our voting system. Now, I need to leave this laggy thread before my laptop sets itself on fire.
      #113

      I'm pretty certain by now that this was changed to permanent.

      ASSUMPTIONS

      ​I'm not assuming, I'm certain. So if the voting's gone then how are promotions gonna work? Do the staff determine that now?

        Loading editor
    • Staff are in charge...just like any other forum...

        Loading editor
    • I hope when this is in full swing that communications are better than they are here, both in detail and immediacy. I also hope that staff are more suseptable to the information behind the scenes so they can coordinate, work together and not end up oblivious to the issue like seen in this thread. Most importantly, I hope to see more participation by staff to help correct eachother and provide feedback so that cropping up of the likes of "temp" not temp doesn't happen again.

      Because ho boy, if this thread is a microcosm for what's to come with these changes, I'd be counting down until this system's demolish.

        Loading editor
    • Pinkgirl234
      Pinkgirl234 removed this reply because:
      Nonsensical
      02:58, February 17, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • ANNOUNCEMENT


      In order to keep this damn thread alive as something to be awared of, and as the opposers have made pointless arguments yet did not respond in a full month, we have decided to rush this crap out. If no further arguments are made within one day, this feature will become permanent. Mainly, only staffs can decide such major changes for the wiki. There'll be a place where non-staff members can post their ideas of new features, though, then staffs will discuss about it before making it live.

      OK, good. Don't let this die again or it'll be an instant-close 'cuz we all know it's not gonna be revived anyway. (Believe me, it's NOT)

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra wrote:
      ANNOUNCEMENT
      In order to keep this damn thread alive as something to be awared of, and as the opposers have made pointless arguments yet did not respond in a full month, we have decided to rush this crap out. If no further arguments are made within one day, this feature will become permanent. Mainly, only staffs can decide such major changes for the wiki. There'll be a place where non-staff members can post their ideas of new features, though, then staffs will discuss about it before making it live.

      Oh, so it isn't temporary like Jack planned...

      How about someone actually defines the stats of this change and sticks with them. This is the fourth time the temporary/not has been flip-flopping, with it being temp at launch, then rumored perm, then confirmed temp by Jack when it was in development, then ret-conned to be permanent right now. Please, to re-iterate, stick with either permanent or temporary, say it loud and proud to make sure that it won't falter again, and keep it that way.

      It may not be a new issue, but it is arguably the most important, since this is not only the first time you specifically posted that the permanence was different from what it was proposed to be prior, but the bloody second time now! And if this is seriously a poorly placed word and not what you intended, then that seriously needs a revision in order to prevent more "temp/perm" commotion.

      If if this is not a new development in the "temp/perm" cycle and this is what Jack meant by skirting the issue and claiming it was originally going to be temp in development rather than saying if it was currently temporary, then hot dang does this have to confirm my deepest fear to the sheer lack of clarity Jack has in so much of his messages on this topic.

      I'm not going to touch on that "pointless arguments" quip in great detail. Especially with the first of the messages that contradicted the status of the project was yours. I don't want to come off as attacking anyone, but this is an issue of the opinions and statements of those people rather than the people themselves at this point.

        Loading editor
    • I wonder if rushing this is even worth the risk....I mean, sure, it could be permanent, but one day isn't really enough for some users who are busy with IRL stuffs (e.g. Weekend Homeworks).

      I would suggest that if that does go wrong, some further discussion would be take place to take care of that.

        Loading editor
    • My opinion about the Announcement:

      It shouldn't be permanent since if ever that's "permanent" and that revolution goes wrong, users would make a ton of "it's permanent" agruements that is pointless....which already happened in this very thread.

      It also can make some potential abuse of power when making "permanent decisions", which in my opinion, making some implementations permanent would cause some chaos into this wiki should there be some "permanent change" that some users unapproved.

        Loading editor
    • Legofan9o5 wrote:
      Phantom of Ra wrote:
      ANNOUNCEMENT
      In order to keep this damn thread alive as something to be awared of, and as the opposers have made pointless arguments yet did not respond in a full month, we have decided to rush this crap out. If no further arguments are made within one day, this feature will become permanent. Mainly, only staffs can decide such major changes for the wiki. There'll be a place where non-staff members can post their ideas of new features, though, then staffs will discuss about it before making it live.
      Oh, so it isn't temporary like Jack planned...

      How about someone actually defines the stats of this change and sticks with them. This is the fourth time the temporary/not has been flip-flopping, with it being temp at launch, then rumored perm, then confirmed temp by Jack when it was in development, then ret-conned to be permanent right now. Please, to re-iterate, stick with either permanent or temporary, say it loud and proud to make sure that it won't falter again, and keep it that way.

      It may not be a new issue, but it is arguably the most important, since this is not only the first time you specifically posted that the permanence was different from what it was proposed to be prior, but the bloody second time now! And if this is seriously a poorly placed word and not what you intended, then that seriously needs a revision in order to prevent more "temp/perm" commotion.

      If if this is not a new development in the "temp/perm" cycle and this is what Jack meant by skirting the issue and claiming it was originally going to be temp in development rather than saying if it was currently temporary, then hot dang does this have to confirm my deepest fear to the sheer lack of clarity Jack has in so much of his messages on this topic.

      I'm not going to touch on that "pointless arguments" quip in great detail. Especially with the first of the messages that contradicted the status of the project was yours. I don't want to come off as attacking anyone, but this is an issue of the opinions and statements of those people rather than the people themselves at this point.

      And now you're back, great, this will keep being temporary, despite the whole thing. Lemme explain the whole thing.

      The "trial" we have here will last 6 months. what will we do during those 6 months here, we discuss about how the features here are gonna turn out. This so-called discussion started off fine until the whole "temporary/permanent" thing ruined everything. And guess what, everything stopped of course, with many features have yet to be asked how it's actually done, like how the hell are normal users gonna give ideas to this crap that some users who actually missed this whole freakin discussion suddenly freaked out and asked about it on Discord. NOW they discuss about it, and still, Jack is not even here.

      I can't just let this hanging, cuz if it does it's gonna last for the whole 6-month period with absolutely nothing happened except for the effects of the trial. After the period, the trial will just end and either nothing is affected, or the revolution is made permanent. But whether it's even POSSIBLE to make this permanent or not has part of it based on this damn thread. If you're not fighting back anymore means the result is too clear that it's gonna be permanent, I mean you're the only one left on the opposing side right now that's still active, and with tons of people who already agree or just ignore the new effects of the trial (which is also basically support already), which means for now either this being ended early or not, it still results the same thing, unless you stand against it NOW. How this seemed to be already permanent at first is just because the death of this thread. I only announce that to note that if this thread dies for a long while, I'm not gonna wait til the end of the SIX-MONTH PERIOD becuz we all know the thread is gonna continue dying, like right now (What do you expect from a FULL MONTH without a single user even care about it anymore). Also, no discussions are supposed to stay dead that long without being closed.

      In the end, the trial will now be temporary and will continue last for 6 months, if thread dies then instant-close. Got it?

        Loading editor
    • AWikiBoy521 wrote:
      I wonder if rushing this is even worth the risk....I mean, sure, it could be permanent, but one day isn't really enough for some users who are busy with IRL stuffs (e.g. Weekend Homeworks).

      I would suggest that if that does go wrong, some further discussion would be take place to take care of that.

      Thing is, almost no one even gives any complaints about this anymore for A WHOLE MONTH, and will continue to have nothing being posted here if this keeps going.

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra wrote:
      Legofan9o5 wrote:
      Phantom of Ra wrote:
      ANNOUNCEMENT
      In order to keep this damn thread alive as something to be awared of, and as the opposers have made pointless arguments yet did not respond in a full month, we have decided to rush this crap out. If no further arguments are made within one day, this feature will become permanent. Mainly, only staffs can decide such major changes for the wiki. There'll be a place where non-staff members can post their ideas of new features, though, then staffs will discuss about it before making it live.
      Oh, so it isn't temporary like Jack planned...

      How about someone actually defines the stats of this change and sticks with them. This is the fourth time the temporary/not has been flip-flopping, with it being temp at launch, then rumored perm, then confirmed temp by Jack when it was in development, then ret-conned to be permanent right now. Please, to re-iterate, stick with either permanent or temporary, say it loud and proud to make sure that it won't falter again, and keep it that way.

      It may not be a new issue, but it is arguably the most important, since this is not only the first time you specifically posted that the permanence was different from what it was proposed to be prior, but the bloody second time now! And if this is seriously a poorly placed word and not what you intended, then that seriously needs a revision in order to prevent more "temp/perm" commotion.

      If if this is not a new development in the "temp/perm" cycle and this is what Jack meant by skirting the issue and claiming it was originally going to be temp in development rather than saying if it was currently temporary, then hot dang does this have to confirm my deepest fear to the sheer lack of clarity Jack has in so much of his messages on this topic.

      I'm not going to touch on that "pointless arguments" quip in great detail. Especially with the first of the messages that contradicted the status of the project was yours. I don't want to come off as attacking anyone, but this is an issue of the opinions and statements of those people rather than the people themselves at this point.

      ...

      The main reason I slowed down was because literally no posts or material was provided for me to analize or rebuttle towards. That's one of the largest gripes I mentioned in my final message before the announcement, that the dialogue here is not effective in addressing issues quickly nor as in-depth as it needed to be. Jack's explination of how it was planned to be temporary gave nothing to the discussion, as "planning to" versus "it being in the moment" are two completely different things. What really makes me hopeful however is that your message did answer that question as a whole, though it would have been nice to have that known that earlier.

      This is an issue that also applies to this thread; people from both sides have stopped. Not that I nor any opposer simply gave up, but that there was literally no dialoge from the supporting side to sustain the conversation as a whole. This? You actually taking the time to type out messages? It enables me to discuss, which enables others to discuss, and it cycles. In loo of Jack elaborating on certain aspects or changes to the new system on the fly and due to the silenced nature of the system as a whole, it fizzles up. That may also be due to how the Forums have also seen a dryspell of activity (or at least visible activity) that makes critique of the system working difficult, as the lack of change could be an issue with the system or just by a low tide of interest in the wikia.

      Honestly, the biggest take-away from this exchange is that due to the in-group that the system creates, that those members need to be more active and open with performance or potential alterations under the new system so that the opposition can help to compromize and potentially point out inconsistancies of said changes so the new system works in a fair manor for everybody.

      Thanks for the explination again, after all that conflicting banter it all makes at least some form of sense.

        Loading editor
    • Oof spelling errors

      Opposers simply have nothing more to say, really, since no points have been made by the supporters that the opposers could discuss. Which means, the only option is reiterating points, which never helps your case.

        Loading editor
    • Flip... flop... flip flop...

      Seriously, guys, get your act together. You guys keep changing from "permanent" to "temporary" and back again... Jack's last reply on this thread was stating how voting was not going to be removed indefinitely, and yet here comes an admin, threatening to close this thread and make this change permanent if we don't make any further arguments in one day, despite not really having much to argue for or against now, considering that the Discord channel where the staff are making the decisions is closed to most users on this wiki. Speaking of the staff channel, communication between our staff seems remarkably poor, especially considering that GalacticFNAFRunner, a friend of mine and Rollback on this wiki, says that he can't even access it. And when someone does reply in protest (thanks Legofan9o5, I was busy and missed the one day deadline), the admin threatening to permanently remove voting, says "And now you're back, great, this will keep being temporary, despite the whole thing" like his (and the rest of the opposing side's) perfectly good arguments are, well, in his words, "pointless". The one day deadline felt like a half-baked attempt to seize power, as even the issuer of it seemed sure that no one would meet it and he would succeed in permanently taking away our voting privileges, despite the fact that it was previously decreed that this trial would be temporary, making it even easier for the ridiculously short timeframe of this ultimatum to catch us off guard. And even still he is threatening us, saying that if this thread "dies" at all it will be closed instantly and never reopened, an absurd expectation considering the massive lapse in activity that has been plaguing this wiki. I'm sorry, but this just feels like trying to seize power through trickery to me.

        Loading editor
    • oof I didn't even realise not all staff were in on the discord

      Honestly I feel the same way that PoRa is being a little too impatient and desperate, which seems like a confirmation of my fear that staff are doing this because they're desperate for more control.

      Like when PoRa announced to "revive" this thing on discord, he made ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. He was like "let's make it official and implement it" and my first reaction was: You mean it wasn't implemented yet? Given the zero voting threads between then and now, I'd automatically assumed that this was now the system and... people just no longer cared or left since activity has decreased dramatically.

      You know, looking back, I asked whether it would be permanent about thrice and since there was no saying it would be I assumed we were sticking to the plan of temporary, and we actually DISCUSSED WHEN THIS THING WOULD END. But nope apparently we can't make up our damn minds or are just desperate, because suddenly oh look it's permanent.

      To all staff (particularly admins), please, no arbitary deadlines, short timeframes for opposers to react and if you can't keep to that, at least don't contradict each other or yourself. I mean, look at this thread. How many times are you going to flip between temporary and permanent?

      There's a reason why we repealed the whole remove the dictatorship rule thing. Apparently a staff-controlled system isn't much better because let's be honest, you may deny it, but staff can have their own agenda surprisingly more often that you would think.

        Loading editor
    • DatDramaPlant wrote:
      oof I didn't even realise not all staff were in on the discord

      Honestly I feel the same way that PoRa is being a little too impatient and desperate, which seems like a confirmation of my fear that staff are doing this because they're desperate for more control.

      Like when PoRa announced to "revive" this thing on discord, he made ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. He was like "let's make it official and implement it" and my first reaction was: You mean it wasn't implemented yet? Given the zero voting threads between then and now, I'd automatically assumed that this was now the system and... people just no longer cared or left since activity has decreased dramatically.

      You know, looking back, I asked whether it would be permanent about thrice and since there was no saying it would be I assumed we were sticking to the plan of temporary, and we actually DISCUSSED WHEN THIS THING WOULD END. But nope apparently we can't make up our damn minds or are just desperate, because suddenly oh look it's permanent.

      To all staff (particularly admins), please, no arbitary deadlines, short timeframes for opposers to react and if you can't keep to that, at least don't contradict each other or yourself. I mean, look at this thread. How many times are you going to flip between temporary and permanent?

      There's a reason why we repealed the whole remove the dictatorship rule thing. Apparently a staff-controlled system isn't much better because let's be honest, you may deny it, but staff can have their own agenda surprisingly more often that you would think.

      I have a Discord and I'm not in it. Even if it does happen, I wouldn't care enough just because I'm already "busy" elsewhere and I don't want to be a part of something that seems to be cheating itself to give certain people power.

        Loading editor
    • Man, I wanted to run for Discussion Mod, but I'm starting to think twice about it. In hindsight, I think this seems kinda rushed, and it's worse with the fact the some staff can't even get in it.

      I think Lily really hit the nail on the head, though.

        Loading editor
    • CITRONtanker wrote:
      Man, I wanted to run for Discussion Mod, but I'm starting to think twice about it. In hindsight, I think this seems kinda rushed, and it's worse with the fact the some staff can't even get in it.

      I think Lily really hit the nail on the head, though.

      Well you can't run anyway

      This plan actually started in mid-December, but really wasn't discussed very completely since most staff were basically "yeah it's happening" and didn't really provide any counter-counter arguments. Oh the joy of being on the staff discord

      It's also because this kind of topic isn't that easy to discuss tbh. you either agree with it, or you don't based on the fundamentals of this idea: Give the power to less individuals, but those who are supposedly more responsible. And if two people disagree on that, there's not much either side can do to convince the other.

      I mean, let's take an example. "With less individuals with power the staff are more likely to corrupt". How would you counter that? Considering the whole server was staff you can't just say "we won't be corrupt" because put simply, are we supposed to believe that? You could also say that new staff would be chosen by the old trustworthy staff, but... it's not solving the problem either.

      TL;DR This thing is really "you like it or you don't" and heavily opinion-based, so discussing it can be tricky at times if you're talking about things that alter the main idea.

        Loading editor
    • OK, lemme just say this short. If this thread dies for a month, it WILL die for the rest of the period before its closure, and what will happen then is unknown. Then, confusions will occur. Though, by default, not even caring about the changes means support because the changes are actually happening now, even though it's just a trial. But of course that'd be kinda unfair at some point, and on the other hand it is also absolutely unfair if the whole thread was useless. Try to keep this as something to be aware of before the changes made live, as we're still LACK of actual votes of anyone who even cares about this, as well as there may still be some holes in the new features. There are still tons of stuff to discuss about rather than just this "temporary" stuff or "OK or not OK" voting thingy itself. This topic isn't something to be abandoned.

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra wrote:
      If this thread dies for a month, it WILL die for the rest of the period before its closure, and what will happen then is unknown. Then, confusions will occur.
      There are still tons of stuff to discuss about rather than just this "temporary" stuff or "OK or not OK" voting thingy itself. This topic isn't something to be abandoned.

      Well that's completely contradictory, either stand by you not knowing what will happen or guess what will happen in the future, not both! Anecdote is a thing you know.

      But that shouldn't devalue those issues in the slightest, as they did hold a lot of merit as flaws in the system. Plus, yet again, low atendence rate for supporting side to help resolve those issues fully. But if you want new points to discuss, that's all fine by me.



      This system is so secretive that it is genuinely difficult to see the wikia changing in any significant way. This is supported by the sheer lack of posts and threads noting changes that are occuring, if any, alongside the covert nature of the system and the lack of communication those in-members continue to perpetuate, OR The system has shown no progress to actually improving the standards of the wikia, serving only to cause dissonanace to those out of the know. This is supported by the sheer lack of visible changes in the Forums, as having only a handful of wikia-relavent discussions across all the branches since the startup of this system smells of ineffectivity in promoting changes of any type or completely covert.

      There. Eitehr way you slice it, inactivity among all the branches and the lack of notifications for changes as a whole area truly unhealthy traits to merit. So increasing in-group notifications for out-group members to help any changes be both discussed healthily and integrated into the system more explicitely by having the common dude know that the changes are present in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • I think if done well enough, the changes this thread proposes would work. But the problem is that miscommunication in the discord led to misunderstanding and rushing, which led to a somewhat sloppy and unclear, which led to confusing flip-flops and arbitrary deadlines. I'd almost enjoy seeing this thread be done well, but for the time being the changes this thread advocates are simply too muddled to go through with.

        Loading editor
    • Speaking as a long-standing bureaucrat, I don't like the idea of permanent dictatorship and clearly, all of my fears are being realized. Thanks for proving me and the other opponents correct!

        Loading editor
    • Brainulator9 wrote: Speaking as a long-standing bureaucrat, I don't like the idea of permanent dictatorship and clearly, all of my fears are being realized. Thanks for proving me and the other opponents correct!

      lol ^^^

        Loading editor
    • Brainulator9 wrote:
      Speaking as a long-standing bureaucrat, I don't like the idea of permanent dictatorship and clearly, all of my fears are being realized. Thanks for proving me and the other opponents correct!
      You opposed the original re-add dictatorship rule thread though

      You know, I'm scrolling through the original dictatorship rule thread and it's... well most staff supported it and some regular users did. Bet it's because they never expect it would actually happen

        Loading editor
    • You mentioned a staff Discord... it's locked for my account. Could someone please let me in?

        Loading editor
    • There we go, actual people caring about this crap. I just hate it when this whole big thing exists and no one seems to even care about it, and like when you say you don't wanna accept the changes it's too late. Keep this thread going, and it's going to be easier for the results.

      Anyway, for me, I'll just go straight to this problem only to the Staff rights management branch. Others I will think about it later. Basically, remember the main reason of the horrible "Staff evaluation" idea and one of the reasons that led to the dictatorship rule? The voting system can be made great, but not in a community like this obviously. Think about it, in those having tough decisions between Support and Oppose, just while those people are having conversations all you need is some blind votes from stupid people and done. Some may need some more time for us to reconsiderate before making them a staff, because from what I've seen, this community has tons of people that are not what they seem. But you can't do that with a voting system. In the end, tons of crappy staffs, and guess what, to take them down you'd need an ANOTHER freakin vote, or maybe even a full staff reboot. And heck, the cycle returns with those blind voters blocking the way. So god, I can't take this anymore. With a wiki THIS toxic we definitely need to reconsider stuff more seriously before making anyone a staff. Simple discussions might do the trick, but if we leave everything open to the non-staffs and the requester themselves, drama will happen.

      In the end, the end of this *blind* voting system for staff rights definitely is gonna happen for me, but will have to reconsider the details.

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra wrote:

      Anyway, for me, I'll just go straight to this problem only to the Staff rights management branch. Others I will think about it later...

      In the end, the end of this *blind* voting system for staff rights definitely is gonna happen for me, but will have to reconsider the details.

      I, me... there's no "I" in team.

      Sorry to start with metaphor, but seriously, isn't there any other person to consider these issues of the wasteland of a Forums? The issue of communication is staggering, whom is still active in hiring and monitoring changes to the wikia? From this thread, only you have been active and supporting of the change ever since the re-invigoration. Furthermore, the Forums has been dead quiet as of late, an issue as it fails to illustrate whom has power to decide those votes, with those that do crop up are either unrecognized and message-less or addressed by you.

      That's a new concern for me personally, as I have stated earlier in this post, that the variety of people able to decide on changes (if and when they crop up) has been a whole single person. It may be only a day or two since the respark for varied response from the supporting side to this thread, but the supporting inactivity here and the general inactivity in the whole of the forums is disheartening.

      Back on topic of the OP, would you rather have partially blind change (which has had several changes attempted to prevent low-thought or "blind" voting) or having literally no change whatsoever that the new system is properly illustrating to us now?

      Another thing, what did this message do but discredit the old system? The old system actually churned out staff members, good or bad, and since the new one has gone up, the Request for User Rights branch has had a 3-month hiatus. THREE months. Now that's results to show well this system is doing. Or should I say: how little it's doing.

      And in having the OP be very much nothing but bile to the prior system, my inquiries still stand: the current system is too secretive and/or too inactive to be viable, documentation of new changes or elections in their proper threads will go a long mile. I don't care that this isn't the old system to be frank, but that it is clearly inferior in performance or in articulation of progress.

      Or both. Seriously, I have to recognize that the errors of the system are both potentially simultaneous and potentially one with the other being purly symtomatic. Why must I have to put an "or" in order to properly tackle the issue? What kind of system is both well-founded and forces that kind of mental gymnatiscs?!

        Loading editor
    • Apologies for not having every staff in the Discord. Going to take care of it right now!

        Loading editor
    • Why is PoRa suddenly the only one actually being vocal about this anyway?

        Loading editor
    • DatDramaPlant wrote:
      Why is PoRa suddenly the only one actually being vocal about this anyway?

      I'm just tired of the staff reboots and how similar stuff just ruins everything. This might be a nice idea for that, but who knows.

        Loading editor
    • Legofan9o5 wrote:

      Phantom of Ra wrote:

      Anyway, for me, I'll just go straight to this problem only to the Staff rights management branch. Others I will think about it later...

      In the end, the end of this *blind* voting system for staff rights definitely is gonna happen for me, but will have to reconsider the details.

      I, me... there's no "I" in team.

      Sorry to start with metaphor, but seriously, isn't there any other person to consider these issues of the wasteland of a Forums? The issue of communication is staggering, whom is still active in hiring and monitoring changes to the wikia? From this thread, only you have been active and supporting of the change ever since the re-invigoration. Furthermore, the Forums has been dead quiet as of late, an issue as it fails to illustrate whom has power to decide those votes, with those that do crop up are either unrecognized and message-less or addressed by you.

      That's a new concern for me personally, as I have stated earlier in this post, that the variety of people able to decide on changes (if and when they crop up) has been a whole single person. It may be only a day or two since the respark for varied response from the supporting side to this thread, but the supporting inactivity here and the general inactivity in the whole of the forums is disheartening.

      Back on topic of the OP, would you rather have partially blind change (which has had several changes attempted to prevent low-thought or "blind" voting) or having literally no change whatsoever that the new system is properly illustrating to us now?

      Another thing, what did this message do but discredit the old system? The old system actually churned out staff members, good or bad, and since the new one has gone up, the Request for User Rights branch has had a 3-month hiatus. THREE months. Now that's results to show well this system is doing. Or should I say: how little it's doing.

      And in having the OP be very much nothing but bile to the prior system, my inquiries still stand: the current system is too secretive and/or too inactive to be viable, documentation of new changes or elections in their proper threads will go a long mile. I don't care that this isn't the old system to be frank, but that it is clearly inferior in performance or in articulation of progress.

      Or both. Seriously, I have to recognize that the errors of the system are both potentially simultaneous and potentially one with the other being purly symtomatic. Why must I have to put an "or" in order to properly tackle the issue? What kind of system is both well-founded and forces that kind of mental gymnatiscs?!

      The first thing is my own opinion about the thing, not like I'm gonna do ANYTHING to even control this freakin revolution only by myself.

      OK, for that, I addressed the issue before. Thing is, we'll need to create a thread for general requests on all three: wiki management, internal management and the staff rights requests, or something like that where non-staffs can give ideas for the least. Problem here is how this thing will be created, or whether if others agree with it. For me, I think this should just be put in the Request branch (This branch should be put on top when that happens) and make it like the other request threads. By just like other request threads, I mean you can give your opinions about them too, like in CotD and FotW, (which would be helpful in judging stuff) but real decisions can only be made by the staffs through their discussions.

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra wrote:

      ...For me, I think this should just be put in the Request branch (This branch should be put on top when that happens) and make it like the other request threads. By just like other request threads, I mean you can give your opinions about them too, like in CotD and FotW, (which would be helpful in judging stuff) but real decisions can only be made by the staffs through their discussions.

      Assuming that those threads that are already existing would naturally be removed out of redundancy, why not just use the old thread instead of making these new ones just for the system? Wouldn't it be a simple re-appropriation of those threads, given they were very much reliant on the old voting-type system in order to optimally function and would have to be removed as a result?

      That would be far better than having every suggestion dumped en mass into a single thread, helping to sort the suggestion out by functionality from the get-go. Plus it would help to have prior votes stored in the back if they were needed to be called upon that deletion would only serve to hinder or outright usurp for no reason.

        Loading editor
    • Hmm, good point. (But btw, old voting threads won't be deleted. They'll be archived.) But on the other hand the main votes aren't happening on the forum so usually if multiple threads are made for each idea, each thread would only have some short discussions which wouldn't be that good either, so may have to reconsiderate. Also, as Drek mentioned in Discord, each idea suggestion should have their own format similar to how the old voting threads were made, so will need to make a draft.

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra
      Phantom of Ra removed this reply because:
      Irrelevant.
      16:34, March 17, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • ThisUserLikesOreo
      ThisUserLikesOreo removed this reply because:
      irrelevant
      13:48, March 20, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Dunno if this is still a trial or not but whatever it is, it's going well, right? :)

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra wrote:
      Dunno if this is still a trial or not but whatever it is, it's going well, right? :)

      great job posting on a thread that has been dead for almost a month

      Anyways, yeah. TCLP contributed a bunch to the wiki, as well as the discord staff server.

      Although, Phan you really should've kept your admin rights for editing mediawiki pages xd.

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra
      Phantom of Ra removed this reply because:
      Below.
      14:23, April 15, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • OK, just for whoever didn't know, the effects of the revolution is now official. As in result from the trial, the effects only include the removal of the voting system with the replacement of discussion. So basically, you can still give your opinions as usual, but only staffs can decide the results. I don't think anyone will disagree with this simple change so this is just gonna be closed.

        Loading editor
    • Phantom of Ra wrote: OK, just for whoever didn't know, the effects of the revolution is now official. As in result from the trial, the effects only include the removal of the voting system with the replacement of discussion. So basically, you can still give your opinions as usual, but only staffs can decide the results. I don't think anyone will disagree with this simple change so this is just gonna be closed.

      That's not the only change but okay.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.