RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Campaigning
|Archives for this page (edit)|
You people know there are antonyms for the word "endorse" and "anti-endorse" isn't one of them? Right?
To name a few:
Some constructive criticism regarding some of these candidates
Vandalfighting at Rational-Wiki is like asset protection in a retail store, in a way. There's sensible people like FCP, Owlman, and Gerard who know how to effectively curtail nonsense. There's people like Reverend Black Percy who are okay at it. There's macho-men who are just looking for a fight, like JorisEnter or DiamondDisc, who WANT to aggressively run out and tackle people, occasionally making a bad stop. Then there's idiots like Pbfreespace3, who are abusive and have had their mop taken away, and they're kind of like has-been cops who were fired for excessive force but continue to try and play lawman, and at the same time, they're like the fat mall cop who yells idle threats like "I'm gonna find where you live and beat your ass," which could get him in trouble, at teenage shoplifters. How is this constructive? Hopefully, voters will realize there needs to be more mods like FCP, Owlman, and Gerard and less like Pbfreespace3 and JorisEnter. Of course, it's no skin off my nose if you guys elect idiots to the position. It would be entertaining for me, actually, to see the site melt down. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't intentionally look for fights.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 03:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- That criticism was not entirely constructive. Bongolian (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- And then there are people who take the time to post, then claim they'd enjoy seeing their feedback wasted as the site dies.
- "Hey, have some 'constructive' criticism. Oh, well, actually I'd prefer you ignore it, I don't care anyway." Thank you so much. B) talk 04:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Minimal protection of the campaign page?
I'm a bit in two minds about whether the lowest protection level of the campaign page (autoconfirmed users only) might be a good idea or not. The upside is that it would cut the BoNs who can't vote anyway from trying to derail discussions of candidate suitability with their trolling. The downside is that it will limit the input and could possibly prevent posts from editors under temporary censure. My view is that this minimal protection would probably be a good idea and if not used this time around, I submit it for consideration in next year's contest. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Funny, most of the stuff I've been posting from the Embarq IPs are not trolling, but just saying it as it is. There's been an influx of people with high testosterone and low penis size trying to make Rational-Wiki into something it's not. That's why most of the old guard is gone. Some people say "progress" but I say B.S., because it's like if Saks Fifth Avenue tried to buy out Dollar Tree and make it into a high-class store. It doesn't work that way, people would always see it as a cheap store, and people will always see Rational-Wiki as the snarky website it has always been. And it will always be a doxxy site, since "documenting" is part of the official mission statement, regardless of how many angry midgets try and say R-W doesn't welcome such behavior. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The past visits the future
Reverting anti-endorsements as rockford has been doing just because they got an anti-endorsement, is evidence this voting is a sham
- Read. And stop whining like a baby due to not everyone here being a shoe stan. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)