Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-5143323-20180113035227/@comment-24024415-20180316115559
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?!