Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-9062114-20140111214003

The voting system for staff on this wiki is corrupt. It seems as if it's treated by most as a reward for being popular as opposed to a job that you give to someone if they have the merit to do it. I have experienced rejection from both Chat Moderator or Forum Moderator positions, simply because I debate  too often or something along the lines of that. Just recently, I got in an incident where a user was instagating arguments with me, to which I said how they deserved to be blocked if they kept it up. I recieved four extra opposes on my Forum Moderator application because of that.

When someone who is getting harassed is also getting punished for said deed, you know there's a flaw in the system. When injustice like this can happen so easily, simply because I may be unpopular on the wiki.

After talking with some users about this, I learned that most people only choose those with similar personalities to the current Administrators and Bureaucrats. This is problematic for many reasons. One in preticular is that if only the same types of people are going to be choosen to lead the wiki, we'll never have any new though, or differences in opinion, a completely one-sided staff to be blunt. I believe that everything has it's pros & cons, so if the same type of people are elected to be part of the staff, the cons of that personality type may never been fixed, and the pros of opposite personality types will never help better the Wiki.

I feel that I was rejected simply for being too different from some of the current Administrators & Bureaucrats. I've seen others be rejected for the same thing, and I feel that it is wrong, and that we should try and change this.

I have numerous ideas on how to do this, but I wanted to have an open discussion about it first with the community. So do you think we should re-make the voting system for staff on this wiki.

 