- Like Topic Forums be merged - Bluerfn - Mastered!
- Midgar Press News Format - Bluerfn - Mastered!
- Improved mediums for people to submit fanstuff - Crazyswordsman
- More defined rules about WikiDumping and how we aren't Wikipedia - Diablocon
There are still six users apposing this, including the almighty god of this wiki, Crazyswordsman. And now you have game help, fan stuff, and off topic. How about ON topic. Four forums would be better than three when it comes to that. That's six against six. Not mastered.
Too late, two Fora are already gone. Sorry Drake 1, but I have a funny feeling that your Waystone is next. Since I know you'll oppose that move (and I really want to avoid an edit war), I'll let an Admin take care of that ugly job.
Wow! *swoon* Drake^2, what a great idea, an ON-topic forum. Just out of curiousity, before I say too much, what kind of stuff would go in the On-topic forum that isn't already:
You know more CSM doesn't want any forums merged, he just said it very clearly on BH's talk page.
Then he should have entered the discussion and stated why he didn't want them to be merged so that we could have a mature discussion about it, instead of doing absolutely nothing and then whining when other people take the initiative. You snooze, you lose, as the saying goes. While not having very pursuasive arguments, I at least credit you for trying, which, win or lose, is a big thumbs up in my book.(EDIT) I additionally want to give you credit for very talentfully avoiding my question. What would go in the On-topic forum that isn't already in one of the pages mentioned above?
This is my problem. It's rude to the people like Drake and Ren, who went to the trouble of setting up the forums (oh, and Fora isn't a word. It's forums. Nobody calls them fora). And you merged the FIRST one into the SECOND one. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Also, merging forums bumps dead topics to the top of the forums and the active ones get thrown away. Also, there was NO CONSENSUS to merge the forums and Hecko basically abused his power as an admin to override consensus. And you all expect me to play along with Hecko's little game, well I'm STAYING OUT OF THIS ONE. Hecko, you are responsible for ALL complaints about this.
I would've fought against this through the whole discussion but it happened when I was asleep. I would start putting the forums back but it would take a long time becasue I don't have rollback and I would probaly be banned.
I'll take them bit by bit:
(Edit Conflict) Does it matter what our reasons are? The fact of the matter is the proposal was voted down 6-5. I think that a major change requires a supermajority and a real consensus; this one didn't even have a simple majority. And you didn't solicit questions from us or ask us why we think that way (people like me, Drake, Diablo, and others), you just went ahead and did it, thought you counted more than the rest of us, and so on.
Oh don't worry Crazyswords, we all know that you count more than the rest of us. I'd say that Hecko is either second or third on the importance ladder. Anyway, who gives a damn about majorities and consensuses? These are nothing more than inefficient stumbling blocks to real change. Just because its popular doesn't make it right - see Napolean Dynamite. This is why democracy doesn't work in the real world, or in this wiki.
For the record, I don't have a real problem with the change. I don't really care all that much one way or the other though. I do understand some of CSM's points here. On the bright side, nothing here has been done that can't be undone. On that subject, and specifically on the subject of autocracy or oligarchy, I have included descriptions on the forum page beneath each forum so people can tell what they're about (mostly).
And BHW's opinion no longer counts for voting purposes, as he is not a part of the oligarchy, nor does he support the inclusion of laymen's opinions in everyday decision making.Thanks BHW. I will feign injury to my ego.
I'd like to point out that most of the oppistion wasn't on when you had the final part of the discussion, and they were probaly sleeping.
@Blue: 20:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC): "So, looking forward to some good arguments from the nay-sayers as to why they didn't want the merge 'n' organize-suggestion to go through. Feel free to post the comments on my talk page instead of here, in case this goes in to a lengthy discussion."
It's just that no one did it.
@CSM: "And you didn't solicit questions from us or ask us why we think that way (people like me, Drake, Diablo, and others) "
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't what now? So once again, please stop blaming me for your own short-commings. It's not my fault if you can't read. But, sure, I can ask all the people, not part of this discussion on their respective talk pages, if you want.@Drake: In that case, I would like to point out that the discussion started a couple of days ago and that everyone who voted no have been active on this site (except Renmiri) during that timeframe and all had a perfect oppertunity to speak their minds, but they didn't, at any time, from the discussion began and up to this point.
You've forgotten to write up my opposings to everythings, tzienkuie.
So, I've been asking around, and here are my results:
People, who did not take part in the forum merging discussion, could choose between the following options on what they thought of the forum merges:
So the current standing on this issue is:
And in case you're wonder where Henryacores is on this list, well, he deleted the questionare from his talk page, so screw his oppinion, he's had way too many chance to be heard and he purposely blew them all.I'll update this, should more people choose to answer by midnight CET, if not, too bad, so sad, but won't care then.
BHW: You'll have to be an Admin before I care. =P...though for the life of me I can't think of what an admin does that a moderator doesn't do, except perhaps lord his greater position over moderators when it is comedically convenient to do so (RE: above).
Don't admins have the power to ban people, though?
Banning, page protection and page deletion/recovery are the main differences. And Tactics, was that last part a misguided poke at me?
Here's what it looks like now. What should be changed and why? Go go Gadget great discussion.
Hecko: No. That comment was neither directed towards you nor was it misguided. The whole post was a farse. I was poking fun at myself.
We need to keep the affiliates up there. It makes us look better as an FF fan site.
For the record, I agree with what Blue suggests here. I don't really know what kind of weight the placement carries. I imagine it is precious little.
I would agree too, if it wasn't because the affiliates were already linked to in the links section (at least two of them). But other than that, yeah, they should be removed. If the "affiliates" status is so important, make a section in the Links page simply called "affiliates", and rename Links; "Affiliates and Links".
Are we really that lazy that we can't swipe our finger down on the mouse just one extra time to get to the search bar?
Well, all I know is that I am too lazy to scroll down once more. I side with Blue! *gasp*