Subject: That's not my question, though.
Author:
Posted on: 2012-04-09 02:13:00 UTC

July said "something has to change, whether it's the Board or the rules or whatever, because what we've got right now isn't working." Dann and VM automatically went "I disagree because admins are bad!" which a) has nothing to do with July's argument and b) is not founded on evidence I'm aware of.

My question is, why are admins automatically a terrible idea? You point out that we probably don't need them at this point, and that's fine, but it also doesn't address the question of why Dann and VM (and whoever else) hate the very idea of ever having them, ever, perhaps including hypothetical situations in which they'd be useful.

To answer your question, an admin can make quick decisions, whereas group consensus takes time. Also, an admin is specifically obligated to resolve problems as they arise, whereas relying on the honor system can mean belated reactions or none at all if everyone goes about their business figuring someone else will do it.

Also, as Miah points out, those of us who do tend to step up more when situations arise may already be de facto admins. If that's the case, then hating the idea of them makes even less sense to me.

~Neshomeh

Reply Return to messages