UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/3rd Crat: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
(39 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:::: Nah, and I wouldn't vote against it because of that. I'm just wary about such an enormous period of time passing without crats facing public opinion.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 22:32, 30 July 2011 (BST) | :::: Nah, and I wouldn't vote against it because of that. I'm just wary about such an enormous period of time passing without crats facing public opinion.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 22:32, 30 July 2011 (BST) | ||
::::: Meh. Won't they face a/re before that time ? --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 22:41, 30 July 2011 (BST) | ::::: Meh. Won't they face a/re before that time ? --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 22:41, 30 July 2011 (BST) | ||
::::::Yeah and then there will only be 2 ops able to rule on it! The system works! -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 13:43, 31 July 2011 (BST) | |||
==Um== | |||
Its not a tie situation, either crat can veto a promotion. Unless there is consensus, no one gets promoted. Adding another crat makes that harder. --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]] 22:43, 30 July 2011 (BST) | |||
:^^^^ this--{{User:Sexualharrison/sig}}<small>22:45, 30 July 2011 (bst)</small> | |||
:: Ah shutdup, there is a tie. Dont argue with my dumb and bored logic... herp derp whatever --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 22:47, 30 July 2011 (BST) | |||
:::out of touch huh hagz?--{{User:Sexualharrison/sig}}<small>22:51, 30 July 2011 (bst)</small> | |||
::::I'm going to miss this in two weeks. --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]] 22:53, 30 July 2011 (BST) | |||
:::::Just bored and too lazy to think... whut ya gonna do in two weeks ross ? vacutiun ? --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 22:56, 30 July 2011 (BST) | |||
::::::His crat term ends and he isn't re-running.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 23:00, 30 July 2011 (BST) | |||
::::::: he shouldnt. Ross and boxy are the ones i trust the most for the job of promoting the most retarded of the flock of this wiki --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 23:06, 30 July 2011 (BST) | |||
::::::::AFAIK, Boxy will be running, so you could always vote for him. :P --{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 23:08, 30 July 2011 (BST) | |||
:::Echoing Ross. Tie situations in A/PM mean no promotion, ties in A/RE mean no re-promotion. Simples. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 23:21, 30 July 2011 (BST) | |||
:::: I still think its a good idea having a 3rd crat... discuss --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 23:24, 30 July 2011 (BST) | |||
:::::Crats have one job, to oversee the (re)promotions process. Thats it. The workload is nothing. why do you think its a good idea to expand the workforce? --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]] 23:28, 30 July 2011 (BST) | |||
::::::Just chiming in to agree with everyone else saying it's unnecessary. 'Crats have veto power, not voting power, when it comes to their buttons, so there's no such thing as a tie. Adding a third 'crat would just mean it'd take longer to approve of worthy candidates. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 23:40, 30 July 2011 (BST) | |||
:::::::''Technically'', they have also the job to notify inactive sys-ops: ''[[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Truly_Inactive_Sysops|"A sysop that hasn't made any edit in four months will be warned, on their talk page, '''by a Bureaucrat''', that they face demotion of their sysop powers in one week, if they remain inactive."]]'' Not that the unimaginable workload of this high-turnover high-octane job requires a third set of hands. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 11:49, 31 July 2011 (BST) | |||
:I'd vote for this if the 3rd crat would permanently be boxy :P On a more serious note, I agree with everyone else here. --{{:User:Thanatologist/Sig}} 00:56, 31 July 2011 (BST) | |||
:: I'd vouch for that --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 05:50, 31 July 2011 (BST) | |||
Nooooooooooooooo, we've already had policy discussion like this, I was never there for the original convo but I was never really convinced a third crat would be the way to go. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 02:01, 31 July 2011 (BST) | |||
At first i liked the idea of a 3rd crat to prevent ties but since I learned here that without a unanimous agreement nothing happens lets leave it at two. If it anit broke don't fix it.{{User:Mazu/sig}} 03:01, 1 August 2011 (BST) | |||
: As above. Less bureaucracy please. --[[User:Uroguy|Uroguy]]<sup>[[Zookeepers|TMZ]]</sup> 21:25, 1 August 2011 (BST) | |||
== Why? == | |||
Has there been a problem that the general populous hasn't noticed? [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 23:34, 31 July 2011 (BST) | |||
:yeah, i didnt got promoted --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 01:36, 1 August 2011 (BST) | |||
::Adding a third 'crat would mean adding one more person who could veto your promotion. ;) {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 07:03, 1 August 2011 (BST) | |||
:::Yeah, but if the Third Crat was Boxy, he would have talked the other two around.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 10:11, 1 August 2011 (BST) | |||
== An interesting fact == | |||
There was only ever supposed to be one 'crat and the reason that we ended up with 2 is that I screwed up when writing the guidelines. Just an interesting sidenote...--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:16, 4 August 2011 (BST) | |||
:Probably a good screw up none the less. {{User:Mazu/sig}} 16:26, 4 August 2011 (BST) | |||
::[[wikipedia:Roman consul|The Romans had two consuls needing to agree with each other for a reason.]] Four-eyes principle does usually more good than harm. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 23:16, 7 August 2011 (BST) | |||
==Déjà Vu-Vu?== | |||
[[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Third_Bureaucrat|Third Bureaucrat]] didn't work last time. What's changed? --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 00:17, 9 August 2011 (BST) | |||
:what's changed? hagnat being an idio- oh -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 02:07, 9 August 2011 (BST) | |||
:: three years have passed, that much has changed --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 03:20, 9 August 2011 (BST) | |||
::: Three years has passed and no issue arisen. when it ain't broke, make a policy discussion! -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 03:22, 9 August 2011 (BST) | |||
:::: It *can* be broken, but now its just too late for any potential good for this policy to prevent it --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 03:27, 9 August 2011 (BST) | |||
:::::Poetic. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 03:49, 9 August 2011 (BST) | |||
::::Jed and thad? I mean in theory this could make it harder to promote new users which is never a bad thing. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 20:04, 9 August 2011 (BST) | |||
:::::Hmmm. Personally, I'd argue that we've had more sysops come good from fence-sitting promotion bids than ones that have gone bad. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 23:51, 9 August 2011 (BST) | |||
Heh. That was entertaining to read.[[Image:Meat_Puppets.jpg|100px]]{{User:Mazu/sig}} 20:38, 9 August 2011 (BST) |
Latest revision as of 22:51, 9 August 2011
I've always been strongly in favour of this decision. There's never really been a case when it's been required before, but I see no harm being done by this. (Crats would have longer terms as a result, but that could be solved by making elections every 3 months rather than every 4 if necessary).--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:10, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- i have no problems maintaining it at 4. --hagnat 22:19, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- The only thing I see being a problem with that is that a crat term is then a year long.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:24, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- So ? Dont you trust the promoted users for that long? --hagnat 22:29, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- Nah, and I wouldn't vote against it because of that. I'm just wary about such an enormous period of time passing without crats facing public opinion.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:32, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- Meh. Won't they face a/re before that time ? --hagnat 22:41, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- Yeah and then there will only be 2 ops able to rule on it! The system works! -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 13:43, 31 July 2011 (BST)
- Meh. Won't they face a/re before that time ? --hagnat 22:41, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- Nah, and I wouldn't vote against it because of that. I'm just wary about such an enormous period of time passing without crats facing public opinion.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:32, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- So ? Dont you trust the promoted users for that long? --hagnat 22:29, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- The only thing I see being a problem with that is that a crat term is then a year long.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:24, 30 July 2011 (BST)
Um
Its not a tie situation, either crat can veto a promotion. Unless there is consensus, no one gets promoted. Adding another crat makes that harder. --Rosslessness 22:43, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- ^^^^ this--User:Sexualharrison22:45, 30 July 2011 (bst)
- Ah shutdup, there is a tie. Dont argue with my dumb and bored logic... herp derp whatever --hagnat 22:47, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- out of touch huh hagz?--User:Sexualharrison22:51, 30 July 2011 (bst)
- I'm going to miss this in two weeks. --Rosslessness 22:53, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- Just bored and too lazy to think... whut ya gonna do in two weeks ross ? vacutiun ? --hagnat 22:56, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- His crat term ends and he isn't re-running.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:00, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- he shouldnt. Ross and boxy are the ones i trust the most for the job of promoting the most retarded of the flock of this wiki --hagnat 23:06, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- AFAIK, Boxy will be running, so you could always vote for him. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:08, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- he shouldnt. Ross and boxy are the ones i trust the most for the job of promoting the most retarded of the flock of this wiki --hagnat 23:06, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- His crat term ends and he isn't re-running.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:00, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- Just bored and too lazy to think... whut ya gonna do in two weeks ross ? vacutiun ? --hagnat 22:56, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- I'm going to miss this in two weeks. --Rosslessness 22:53, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- Echoing Ross. Tie situations in A/PM mean no promotion, ties in A/RE mean no re-promotion. Simples. 23:21, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- I still think its a good idea having a 3rd crat... discuss --hagnat 23:24, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- Crats have one job, to oversee the (re)promotions process. Thats it. The workload is nothing. why do you think its a good idea to expand the workforce? --Rosslessness 23:28, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- Just chiming in to agree with everyone else saying it's unnecessary. 'Crats have veto power, not voting power, when it comes to their buttons, so there's no such thing as a tie. Adding a third 'crat would just mean it'd take longer to approve of worthy candidates. —Aichon— 23:40, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- Technically, they have also the job to notify inactive sys-ops: "A sysop that hasn't made any edit in four months will be warned, on their talk page, by a Bureaucrat, that they face demotion of their sysop powers in one week, if they remain inactive." Not that the unimaginable workload of this high-turnover high-octane job requires a third set of hands. -- Spiderzed█ 11:49, 31 July 2011 (BST)
- Just chiming in to agree with everyone else saying it's unnecessary. 'Crats have veto power, not voting power, when it comes to their buttons, so there's no such thing as a tie. Adding a third 'crat would just mean it'd take longer to approve of worthy candidates. —Aichon— 23:40, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- Crats have one job, to oversee the (re)promotions process. Thats it. The workload is nothing. why do you think its a good idea to expand the workforce? --Rosslessness 23:28, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- I still think its a good idea having a 3rd crat... discuss --hagnat 23:24, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- out of touch huh hagz?--User:Sexualharrison22:51, 30 July 2011 (bst)
- Ah shutdup, there is a tie. Dont argue with my dumb and bored logic... herp derp whatever --hagnat 22:47, 30 July 2011 (BST)
- I'd vote for this if the 3rd crat would permanently be boxy :P On a more serious note, I agree with everyone else here. -- † talk ? f.u. 00:56, 31 July 2011 (BST)
- I'd vouch for that --hagnat 05:50, 31 July 2011 (BST)
Nooooooooooooooo, we've already had policy discussion like this, I was never there for the original convo but I was never really convinced a third crat would be the way to go. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 02:01, 31 July 2011 (BST)
At first i liked the idea of a 3rd crat to prevent ties but since I learned here that without a unanimous agreement nothing happens lets leave it at two. If it anit broke don't fix it. 03:01, 1 August 2011 (BST)
Why?
Has there been a problem that the general populous hasn't noticed? Asheets 23:34, 31 July 2011 (BST)
- yeah, i didnt got promoted --hagnat 01:36, 1 August 2011 (BST)
- Adding a third 'crat would mean adding one more person who could veto your promotion. ;) —Aichon— 07:03, 1 August 2011 (BST)
- Yeah, but if the Third Crat was Boxy, he would have talked the other two around.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:11, 1 August 2011 (BST)
- Adding a third 'crat would mean adding one more person who could veto your promotion. ;) —Aichon— 07:03, 1 August 2011 (BST)
An interesting fact
There was only ever supposed to be one 'crat and the reason that we ended up with 2 is that I screwed up when writing the guidelines. Just an interesting sidenote...--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:16, 4 August 2011 (BST)
- Probably a good screw up none the less. 16:26, 4 August 2011 (BST)
- The Romans had two consuls needing to agree with each other for a reason. Four-eyes principle does usually more good than harm. -- Spiderzed█ 23:16, 7 August 2011 (BST)
Déjà Vu-Vu?
Third Bureaucrat didn't work last time. What's changed? --Funt Solo QT 00:17, 9 August 2011 (BST)
- what's changed? hagnat being an idio- oh -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 02:07, 9 August 2011 (BST)
- three years have passed, that much has changed --hagnat 03:20, 9 August 2011 (BST)
- Three years has passed and no issue arisen. when it ain't broke, make a policy discussion! -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 03:22, 9 August 2011 (BST)
- It *can* be broken, but now its just too late for any potential good for this policy to prevent it --hagnat 03:27, 9 August 2011 (BST)
- Poetic. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 03:49, 9 August 2011 (BST)
- Jed and thad? I mean in theory this could make it harder to promote new users which is never a bad thing. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 20:04, 9 August 2011 (BST)
- Hmmm. Personally, I'd argue that we've had more sysops come good from fence-sitting promotion bids than ones that have gone bad. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 23:51, 9 August 2011 (BST)
- It *can* be broken, but now its just too late for any potential good for this policy to prevent it --hagnat 03:27, 9 August 2011 (BST)
- Three years has passed and no issue arisen. when it ain't broke, make a policy discussion! -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 03:22, 9 August 2011 (BST)
- three years have passed, that much has changed --hagnat 03:20, 9 August 2011 (BST)
Heh. That was entertaining to read. 20:38, 9 August 2011 (BST)