User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-26845762-20170713190006: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\5\2/\4-\3, -'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-(.*?)'''([\s\S]*) ?\{\{retitle\|///(.*?)\}\} +{{retitle|\2/\5}}\n'''User:\1/\2/@comment-\3'''\4)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{retitle|The Panopticon/Closing threads based on points not previously brought up.}} | |||
I couldn't help but notice a recent change to [[Tardis:Changing policy]]. | I couldn't help but notice a recent change to [[Tardis:Changing policy]]. | ||
{{Quote|That said, consensus '''does not mean''' that the majority wins. If a majority says the moon is made of cheese — or that the conversation thus far has not taken into account various salient points — the closing administrator not only ''can'' disregard the majority, they ''should'' do so.||}} | {{Quote|That said, consensus '''does not mean''' that the majority wins. If a majority says the moon is made of cheese — or that the conversation thus far has not taken into account various salient points — the closing administrator not only ''can'' disregard the majority, they ''should'' do so.||}} | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Of course, a thread being closed based on factors not brought up before the final post in the thread is not something that has never happened here, but I don't think this should be kept in [[Tardis:Changing policy]] as a fall-back for future threads. | Of course, a thread being closed based on factors not brought up before the final post in the thread is not something that has never happened here, but I don't think this should be kept in [[Tardis:Changing policy]] as a fall-back for future threads. | ||
Also, I really don't think this falls under "Closing administrators are often participants", because if the admins were in the debate then they should have already brought up their "salient points". | Also, I really don't think this falls under "Closing administrators are often participants", because if the admins were in the debate then they should have already brought up their "salient points". | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20170713190006-26845762]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 22:46, 27 April 2023
I couldn't help but notice a recent change to Tardis:Changing policy.
That said, consensus does not mean that the majority wins. If a majority says the moon is made of cheese — or that the conversation thus far has not taken into account various salient points — the closing administrator not only can disregard the majority, they should do so.
In my opinion, this change to the changing policy is a step too far. Surely if the majority can miss several salient points, so too can the closing admin. If an admin has a good point, what's the harm in allowing people to have a chance to counter it? I get it, the admin are doing this on a completely volunteer basis, but so are all the other editors. I do not believe an admin's time is any more important than the time of a regular editor.
Of course, a thread being closed based on factors not brought up before the final post in the thread is not something that has never happened here, but I don't think this should be kept in Tardis:Changing policy as a fall-back for future threads.
Also, I really don't think this falls under "Closing administrators are often participants", because if the admins were in the debate then they should have already brought up their "salient points".
