Also, Fandom very much does care about that we behave ourselves here according to their community rules. We wouldn't be able to turn into a regular badly behaving independent forum even if we wanted to, and we also don't want to, given that it would create a very unpleasant and uncooperative environment.
That is not what Hop meant to imply, and of course this wiki's popularity does consist of a portion of revenue they rather not lose or take flak over, clearly, correct, yes. Once again, you lack a counter-argument to the idea presented. That, or Hop does not see it. Identify a deal-breaking drawback to the implementation of this concept, please. You or anyone.
Hop's going crazy, surely. In an effort to clarify one crucial point Hop either failed to bring up, or someone deflected earlier... Being here for more than half a decade has given Hop enough insight to show you that we have already we're imperfect, maybe impatient, but why does that mean we have to make no efforts in avoiding that?
What we want for this wiki, and what we are willing to do to get to where we want are vastly different things, and its best we address that before its an issue. No one is outright claiming a staff member or even a group of us is trying to weasel critical threads in a certain direction for their own desires in spite of the way we operate. There's no sabotage at play here. Do we really need to see the day we have to go back to undo/fix something major we staff disagreed on, just to spend more time doing that than leaving the thread open longer could have avoided all together? Call it an insane slippery slope argument, Hop can see that it is. But with the limited time some of us have on this wiki, we all probably would like to wake up to get work done that we enjoy, rather than missing out. And yes, today, no one is missing out.
Again, why wait for another like incident SeraEX to wander into our wiki and take advantage of the fact we don't regulate our vital Staff Only threads, again? We banned Fllflourine, and despite the reason for it, he (like many others such as AMM and Grudgeman) saw the danger in any "sole entity" taking advantage of our staff's weaknesses when it comes to Staff Only Threads, many major ones in fact were voted on multiple times by one person.
Only recently are we fixing that. Let's not make mistakes and ignore things like this. We've already lost much respect in the greater community for what we've gone through, and it might be rude to say, but yes, it's our fault, and we could work harder at preventing it. While, that situation had more to do with sockpuppet accounts, and Matthew S or whomever it was, promoting Sera well before "she" earned our trust and her role... collectively, we should have handled that far better. We can't go back in time, but this proposal of Hop's buys the rest of us time. And of course, nowadays we hold staff elections in a very effective way, it only became the way we did it
after an incident happened.
This was much to write, so there's likely a typo or complete thought left unfinished, but Hop will correct it or elaborate if any of you ask. This is tiring.
