Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-5143323-20180113035227/@comment-24024415-20180314193515
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.
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.