On 2/9/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/9/07, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
Fully agreed. It seemed to work with many, including me (well, I'll leave that judgement to the reader ;-)); the current system seems to be negatively selecting against people who will "be bold" or "ignore all rules", too, which suggests a slow corruption of our community's spirit (note that I do not suggest that this is in any way deliberate).
Do you blame them? People have seen the amount of damage admins can do before being stopped. They know that if the admin is smart enough and not unlucky it is highly unlikely they will be stopped.
So what is the rational response to this situation. To elect safe admins who you have a fairly good idea how they will act. That means electing admins who respect policy and don't like getting into fights.
Or simply make admin powers an automatic process after hitting some reasonable editing benchmarks.