Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aichon"

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Regarding 'crats and nominations: I'm really sleepy, so sorry if this is incoherent)
Line 137: Line 137:
:If a crat nominates someone, it's down to the other crat to make the call. Simple, tidy and not-a-brick-of-words. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 05:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:If a crat nominates someone, it's down to the other crat to make the call. Simple, tidy and not-a-brick-of-words. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 05:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::Not a good idea. Sysop nominations work with vetos. By removing me, you're eliminating one of the vetoes, which throws things pretty far in Bob's favor. That's ''definitely'' not a fair way to handle things. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 07:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::Not a good idea. Sysop nominations work with vetos. By removing me, you're eliminating one of the vetoes, which throws things pretty far in Bob's favor. That's ''definitely'' not a fair way to handle things. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 07:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Which is why the wiki needed 3 crats, to break ties and avoid conflicts of interest with one member.  But it doesn't really matter now since only 20 people care about the wiki and half of them are running it.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 08:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:I'm still processing most of that, but I think I'm of the belief that full disclosure occurred when you posted the nomination, because that indicated that you had a biased stance. To take a counterpoint example, in [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Peralta|Peralta's bid]] last year, you revealed after the bid had been withdrawn that you were in favor of Peralta's elevation to sysophood (in the post "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly"). While I don't doubt that your personal opinion in that case had no bearing on how you would have processed it had the nomination not been withdrawn, I think it could be argued that by not revealing your personal preference you were not giving the community full disclosure. So I guess I'm saying that I think you did the right thing in nominating me, because if you hadn't, your strong bias would have gone undiscovered until the end (or not at all). I don't know; it's really late at night.
:I'm still processing most of that, but I think I'm of the belief that full disclosure occurred when you posted the nomination, because that indicated that you had a biased stance. To take a counterpoint example, in [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Peralta|Peralta's bid]] last year, you revealed after the bid had been withdrawn that you were in favor of Peralta's elevation to sysophood (in the post "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly"). While I don't doubt that your personal opinion in that case had no bearing on how you would have processed it had the nomination not been withdrawn, I think it could be argued that by not revealing your personal preference you were not giving the community full disclosure. So I guess I'm saying that I think you did the right thing in nominating me, because if you hadn't, your strong bias would have gone undiscovered until the end (or not at all). I don't know; it's really late at night.
:That aside, I do think I would prefer if SZ processed the bid, to avoid a kerfuffle among the community. I would still expect you to add your input, as I think you can still make a good judgement call about which way the community is pointing, if not necessarily about how you yourself are pointing. I guess that's what I vote for when I vote for a bureaucrat; someone who can be a successful barometer of the community, while minimizing the influences of his own biases. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 06:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:That aside, I do think I would prefer if SZ processed the bid, to avoid a kerfuffle among the community. I would still expect you to add your input, as I think you can still make a good judgement call about which way the community is pointing, if not necessarily about how you yourself are pointing. I guess that's what I vote for when I vote for a bureaucrat; someone who can be a successful barometer of the community, while minimizing the influences of his own biases. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 06:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::Well, disclosure was unnecessary there since there was no reason for there to be a perception of wrongdoing on my part (i.e. no conflicts of interest). Unless you want to make an argument that transparency is ''always'' necessary, disclosure for its own sake is not always desirable. Besides which, even if you do think that disclosure is good for its own sake, I could have done it in a different way that didn't lead to a conflict of interest, such as by letting someone else nominate you and then merely vouch for you afterwards.  That would have meant no conflict of interest while still having full disclosure. Would that have been a better way to handle things? I think so, though I don't (yet) regret having done what I did. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 07:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::Well, disclosure was unnecessary there since there was no reason for there to be a perception of wrongdoing on my part (i.e. no conflicts of interest). Unless you want to make an argument that transparency is ''always'' necessary, disclosure for its own sake is not always desirable. Besides which, even if you do think that disclosure is good for its own sake, I could have done it in a different way that didn't lead to a conflict of interest, such as by letting someone else nominate you and then merely vouch for you afterwards.  That would have meant no conflict of interest while still having full disclosure. Would that have been a better way to handle things? I think so, though I don't (yet) regret having done what I did. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 07:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Mayhaps. I am the kind of person who thinks transparency is pretty much always necessary. That's because I think that everyone is always biased, and it's better if everyone knows everyone's biases to the best extent possible, unless there's a specific reason to conceal them. Maybe creating an atmosphere of impartiality around the bureaucrats is worth that, I don't know. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 07:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Mayhaps. I am the kind of person who thinks transparency is pretty much always necessary. That's because I think that everyone is always biased, and it's better if everyone knows everyone's biases to the best extent possible, unless there's a specific reason to conceal them. Maybe creating an atmosphere of impartiality around the bureaucrats is worth that, I don't know. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 07:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:57, 19 March 2013

Aichon:Talk
Aichon
ˈīˌkän :Talk