Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-24325144-20150106201659/@comment-11345660-20150123060046

The general argument, as I understand it, is

Supersajuuk, should he become Admin: Plans on eliminating the old system of doing things where policies are no longer enforced, but merely used as guidelines, making voting obsolete and instead use general discussion to decide things and promote people to high positions on "good faith, as is the "real" wikia way, and only taking away privlages after someone messes up with them. The wikia is not a democracy."

Madman97, Cheatcodechamp, and Atvelonis: Voting is an integral part of the supporting structure of the wikia. Without it, general consensus is more maleable and less easy to interpret, and people lack the insurance needed when appointing someone to a higher position that has certain privlages another user doesn't have, meaning that they have no way of knowing this user won't abuse his or her power. Policies should be enforced, as anarchy would result without at least some rules in place, and finally, a user should not be appointed to a position on good faith alone but rather subjected to standards to make absolutely sure they can do the job. To be able to vote on policies and users is a basic right, and though good faith is good to have, it shouldn't be the only system in place.

This is the general outline of the argument. The finer details on both sides can be seen in the conversation. I invite you to comment on either side here or on the blog comment section.