Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-17897872-20150812004159/@comment-3225604-20150812014248

I will give my points one by one:

''A bureaucrat can promote a user instantly to a rollback, chat moderator, or moderator when he feels that the user has a potential to become one. This would be just like how it was before the new system.''

I will semi-support for this one. I do agree that bureaucrats can promote users instantly to rollbacks and moderators, but I don't think I will agree with chat moderators. Before I cut down the number of chat moderators, I do think that this type of promotion is kind of overused. That's why I suggest chat mods to be voted by the public, and I think it's better for the public to choose the chat mods.

''A bureaucrat can promote a user to an administrator if at least one other bureaucrat supports. This could be done via message walls.''

I oppose this idea. Bureaucrats are not super human beings. This is like "small-circle" voting. The user may not be majorly supported by users and by doing that you may just ignore what the users think about the user.

If a bureaucrat wants to promote another bureaucrat, both bureaucrats must support and 90% of others must support in a blog post before the user is promoted to bureaucrat.

Support this idea, but it would be better to be held in a forum thread as it catches more attention.

''If an administrator thinks that a user should become a rollback, chat moderator, or moderator, message a bureaucrat.

If the bureaucrat supports, the user will be promoted.

If the bureaucrat opposes, the admin can message another bureaucrat.

If the second bureaucrat supports, the user will be promoted.

If the second bureaucrat opposes, the user will not be promoted regardless what the third bureaucrat says.''

OK, but I do think the chat mods should be voted by the public.

''If an administrator thinks that a user should become an administrator, the administrator will write a blog post on why the user should become one. A simple, "S/he's good," won't work. The administrator must swear on his/her ranks in the post that the user he/she is trying to promote did not ask for the blog vote, or else the blog post doesn't count. If the admin is caught in a lie, the user will not be promoted, and the admin will lose ALL of his/her ranks. A majority support vote from the users in time and a 2/3 votes from bureaucrats will make the user an admin.''

Support the basis of this idea, but please define what a majority support vote from users is. I also think there should be a minimum number of users set because the user could be an admin like 1 bureaucrat support and 1 normal user support.

''If an administrator thinks a user should become a bureaucrat, message a bureaucrat. If the bureaucrat supports, the bureaucrat will start a blog post in which both bureaucrats must support and 90% of others must support in a blog post before the user is promoted to bureaucrat. If the bureaucrat opposes, the user will not be promoted regardless what the second or third bureaucrat says.''

I kind of oppose this one, because if the bureaucrat opposes, the user who wants to be a bureaucrat will never be a bureaucrat regardless of the majority of support from the users. That is kind of dictatorial to me.