41,303
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by MsD
0
<p>My lone vote goes in favour of ToaMatau, as he has always shown a great level of maturity from the point he stepped foot onto Brickipedia.
</p><p>LEGOCyborg12 has shown a good level of improvement lately, but I don't think he's ready for any sort of staff position anytime soon.
</p><p>Saburo has always been a good editor, but a few instances I've had in the past with him leave me to believe otherwise.
</p><p>Lastly, I've never heard of Lego-dark-night, so my vote remains neutral.
</p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Dragonknight86 wrote:
What are you talking about?
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Look at the topics at the bottom of the thread. </p>
<p>Look at the topics at the bottom of the thread. </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>BobaFett2 wrote:
Well said. I think I predicted it after Lego lord came.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>I miss Lego lord. :c </p>
<p>I miss Lego lord. :c </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>CJC95 wrote:
Also, we need to change our decision making process I think. We have long discussions, but decisions rarely get made.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Well, the old style of forums allows for voting and stuff, so maybe an administrator can open voting/idea sharing and in two weeks or so they can tally up the results and make the decision. That's the best way to do it in my opinion. </p><p>Another decision is polls, but polls are a bit too anonymous. </p>
<p>Well, the old style of forums allows for voting and stuff, so maybe an administrator can open voting/idea sharing and in two weeks or so they can tally up the results and make the decision. That's the best way to do it in my opinion. </p><p>Another decision is polls, but polls are a bit too anonymous. </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>CJC95 wrote:
I thing this is a hilariously silly attempt to solve the issue that about 5 people have, by inflicting a punishment on the whole community. If you want to stop those people who are ruining chat for everyone, just ban them for a week.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Per this post. </p>
<p>Per this post. </p>
(Edited by MsD)
2
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Berrybrick wrote:
</p>
<p>lol </p>
- 41055 Cinderella’s Castle Romance
<p>lol </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>ToaMeiko wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>MsD wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>ToaMeiko wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>MsD wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>CzechMate wrote:
So, are we implementing this rule or not?
</p>
</i></div>
<p>I vote no. </p> </div> <p>Why? </p> </div> <p>Because it doesn't make sense. </p> </div> <p>How does it not make sense? </p> </div> <p>Because the user shouldn't be able to nominate their own stuff for featured-ness. If a user finds the review helpful, then they can nominate it, but the writer itself shouldn't be able to make that decision. </p>
<p>I vote no. </p> </div> <p>Why? </p> </div> <p>Because it doesn't make sense. </p> </div> <p>How does it not make sense? </p> </div> <p>Because the user shouldn't be able to nominate their own stuff for featured-ness. If a user finds the review helpful, then they can nominate it, but the writer itself shouldn't be able to make that decision. </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>ToaMeiko wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>MsD wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>CzechMate wrote:
So, are we implementing this rule or not?
</p>
</i></div>
<p>I vote no. </p> </div> <p>Why? </p> </div> <p>Because it doesn't make sense. </p>
<p>I vote no. </p> </div> <p>Why? </p> </div> <p>Because it doesn't make sense. </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>CzechMate wrote:
So, are we implementing this rule or not?
</p>
</i></div>
<p>I vote no. </p>
<p>I vote no. </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>ToaMeiko wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>MsD wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Jeyo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>MsD wrote:
no
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Why not? </p> </div> <p>If a user reads a review and finds it helpful, they can nominate it. The creator shouldn't be able to determine that, to prevent bias. </p> </div> <p>There's voting for a reason... </p><p>Jeyo already stated my opinion on this. It's basically the same thing as a self-nomination for say, Chat Moderator, where even if the user makes the nomination when it's completely unreasonable, there's the community to do the voting. </p> </div> <p>Might as well allow self-BOTM nominations as well then. </p><p>(if you can't read my sarcasm, what I'm saying is this isn't the best idea in the world) </p>
<p>Why not? </p> </div> <p>If a user reads a review and finds it helpful, they can nominate it. The creator shouldn't be able to determine that, to prevent bias. </p> </div> <p>There's voting for a reason... </p><p>Jeyo already stated my opinion on this. It's basically the same thing as a self-nomination for say, Chat Moderator, where even if the user makes the nomination when it's completely unreasonable, there's the community to do the voting. </p> </div> <p>Might as well allow self-BOTM nominations as well then. </p><p>(if you can't read my sarcasm, what I'm saying is this isn't the best idea in the world) </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Jeyo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>MsD wrote:
no
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Why not? </p> </div> <p>If a user reads a review and finds it helpful, they can nominate it. The creator shouldn't be able to determine that, to prevent bias. </p>
<p>Why not? </p> </div> <p>If a user reads a review and finds it helpful, they can nominate it. The creator shouldn't be able to determine that, to prevent bias. </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<p>As long as the emotes above are 19x19 and won't be stretched like the last ones, a Support from me.
</p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<p>I don't think we should even consider taking their stuff without contacting Tu-Sais-Qui.
</p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Ajraddatz wrote:
Definitely keep the 100ms edit requirement for voting for admins - they are content-controllers, so people voting for them should have some experience with what content actually is here.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Kudos. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>I also do like 80%, though I would be willing to put it down to 75%. Definitely not a simple majority - 50% is not a strong enough mandate from the community for promotion. </p> </i></div>
<p>Fine with me :P </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>I don't mind self nominations or not, but candidates definitely need to accept the nomination before the voting starts. </p> </i></div>
<p><small>Sidenote: Before I filed the nomination for LCF119, he said he was perfectly fine with it.</small> </p>
<p>Kudos. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>I also do like 80%, though I would be willing to put it down to 75%. Definitely not a simple majority - 50% is not a strong enough mandate from the community for promotion. </p> </i></div>
<p>Fine with me :P </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>I don't mind self nominations or not, but candidates definitely need to accept the nomination before the voting starts. </p> </i></div>
<p><small>Sidenote: Before I filed the nomination for LCF119, he said he was perfectly fine with it.</small> </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Berrybrick wrote:
The only one I have any serious problems with is "NE6" because of the eyes.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>The eyes are supposed to be like that, it's a wide-eyed surprise (I think :P ) </p>
<p>The eyes are supposed to be like that, it's a wide-eyed surprise (I think :P ) </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>ToaMeiko wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>CM4Sci wrote:
100 MS - I think maybe 150-200 would be ok. I see members I've never heard of before supporting people I doubt they even know.
</p><p>80% - 85%-90% for admins, maybe 70-60% for CM lol
</p><p>N2SN - I don't think it's needed for either. It'd be nice to be nominated by someone else than doing it yourself :P
</p>
</i></div>
<p>I don't think #1 should be increased. IMO it's good where it is, and for admin, at 1000 is good. </p><p>For #2, I think 85% is way too high. Again, it would be most reasonable to simple by majority (above 50%) with BP:UCS to make a final decision. </p><p>For #3, I agree with you that it should be an option, but maybe not in RfA or RfB nominations. </p> </div> <p>Kudos. </p>
<p>I don't think #1 should be increased. IMO it's good where it is, and for admin, at 1000 is good. </p><p>For #2, I think 85% is way too high. Again, it would be most reasonable to simple by majority (above 50%) with BP:UCS to make a final decision. </p><p>For #3, I agree with you that it should be an option, but maybe not in RfA or RfB nominations. </p> </div> <p>Kudos. </p>
(Edited by MsD)
0
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>ToaMeiko wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>ErkelonJay wrote:
I agree with Meiko, the support percentage should go down (although he's obviously biased.)
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Yeah, it is partially biased, but even before I posted my RfA, I found it kind of silly. I've never seen a voting process where it wasn't simply majority rules. In this case, I think it should be majority rules, and that there aren't too many various issues in the oppose section. </p> </div> <p>Well, if it <i>was</i> changed to that, then that would suck for me, because that would mean I would've won if you wouldn't've changed to oppose after I posted the inactivity stuff. :c </p>
<p>Yeah, it is partially biased, but even before I posted my RfA, I found it kind of silly. I've never seen a voting process where it wasn't simply majority rules. In this case, I think it should be majority rules, and that there aren't too many various issues in the oppose section. </p> </div> <p>Well, if it <i>was</i> changed to that, then that would suck for me, because that would mean I would've won if you wouldn't've changed to oppose after I posted the inactivity stuff. :c </p>
(Edited by MsD)
1
- 100 MS - Keep it for admin, move down to 25 or 50 for CM
- 80% - Remove
- Need to self nominate - Keep it for admin, remove for CM
(Edited by MsD)