Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-25714826-20170318115820/@comment-30652306-20170321201942

III rspn wrote: It doesn't seem like there is much interest in these elite groups.

First of all, one of the reasons why (in my opinion) is that these groups are more or less unneccessary. The first three groups (editing, monitoring edits, and monitoring threads) can all be done by anyone. The average wikian doesnt need a special "tag" or "group name" in order to do those functions you laid out. The only group worth making is probably the last one, a security council since we dont have one, but in my tenure here i haven't seen much vandalism/banning. Of course it could be happening without me knowing, but even then, that is still an indication that it is going well. In sum, most of these groups are unneccessary, and dont really seem to have a purpose.

The lack of debates stems from the lack of participation. since there are few people who want to join a group, there isn't much to say. its like being first place in a competition with only yourself. So far it seems like the only real pre-requisite is to put a reason as to why you want to be included in that group. (except in Willy B's case, cus he likes writing lots, which raises another question of whether or not these will be decided by popularity, rank, or how much you write). In addition, Us peoples on the wiki (active ones) don't know each other well enough to pass judgement, especially judgement that may be contradictory to what they want. Overall a lack of participation and a lack of real experience with each other leads to a lack of debate.

Finally, this is a question on the activities of these elite wikians. Either we are calling them elite because they are serving some purpose that the average wikian cannot, or they are doing a much greater amount of work than the average wikian. Can we achieve that? will elite wikians actually be  any different from the average wikian? will they actually follow their duties? How can we keep them accountable for their responsibilities? Putting a tag on them wont ensure that they will do what they were elected to do.

It is easy to point out problems without offering a solution. However, I am not one to only point out problems. I thinnk that a solution for this would to be make only 2 groups instead of 4. Combine the first 3 groups together into a monitor editing group, and then make a security council. These groups would have the same functions as laid out above. This will achive multiple purposes. First, this reduces the amount of open spots, making it more competitive and thus will spark more participation and debate. Secondly, less groups means less unneccessary ranks/tags, will contribute to a cleaner, more professional look for the wiki as a whole. Thirdly, less groups means less people, which means less people for you (Bane) to keep accountable for their functions.

IN order to combat their inherent lack of need, I also propose that if these groups were to be established, that these leaders would be the only ones able to do those functions. We already have Admins, Moderators, Beaurecats, among others who can do these tasks. So why add more people? If this were to be an effective elite group, then these groups should be the only ones able to work these functions. This will drive up their worth and their neccesity on the wiki.

Just some thoughts I have and also why I personally will not actively look to join any group. Unfortunatley, I see this as quite pointless and overall a weak idea which can be seen clearly through it's lack of real participation. Ain't nothing wrong with a little argumentative formality. xD

Plus, the amount you write had nothing to do with it (as far as I know). I should not get a position just cause I write a lot, rather, I should give a convincing argument that sways the crowd. ;)

P.S. Thanks for the nickname, I like it xD