UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/3rd Crat: Difference between revisions
(→Um) |
(→Um) |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:::::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) | :::::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) | ::::::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: ''[[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/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 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) | :: 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) | 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) |
Revision as of 10:49, 31 July 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)
- 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)