Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,568
- 13,860
Why don't we need 70+ staff members? Sure value of contributions and all that, but there's still busywork that needs to be done that isn't being done. Overstaffing can only be when there's so much staff that there's no work for some of them to do, or if there's generally a bunch of staff that aren't doing anything, neither of which is true. Comparisons to other wikis feel really faulty due to how different this wiki is in operation than other ones.Sera EX said:No, we are overstaffed. We don't need 70+ staff members as I've explained (value of contributions and trust should not be tied to one's position). That's not debatable. I am not however, calling for the demotion or retirement of those who are inactive or are semi-active. Us being overstaffed is not tied to people's activity, just the fact that we don't need that many staff. Wookiepedia has about six times the amount of pages we do, and is about a mainstream topic unlike our niche one, yet they have 14 staff members.
Your argument only works for my understaffed argument, which in that case fine, we might not be paradoxically understaffed but we're undeniably overstaffed.
We are undeniably not overstaffed.