Note: Please excise quotes properly - the below quote looked as if it belonged to Charcaroth.
Stevertigo wrote:
In that context we of course realize that IAR is not an actual solution,
Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote: I can't understand this. In principle, IAR itself cannot be a solution to anything. Do you mean to say that you don't think that administrators should be using their own judgment when making qualitative judgments in closing deletion discussions?
Its not IAR that helps "administrators" 'use their own judgment' - its BRAINS. And resting an idea of proper action on IAR alone is doing nothing else other than saying BRAINS is a policy called "IAR." Which isn't true. We may not like the idea that RULES > BRAINS, but we already know that the BRAINS > RULES conjecture doesn't fly. Even Einstein, aside from the being-off-planet thing, could not post any new insights into a Wikipedia article without violating NOR. NOR is one of those rules we are suppose to 'not ignore.'
So while this BRAINS policy is a nice idea, without actually making any qualitative discernments about what's in those BRAINS, it just doesn't mean anything other than to exist as a BRAINY way to say that some people have them and others don't. It may seem ironic that a BRAINS policy would itself be quite uselessly simplistic and applicable in only a binary, one-dimensional way, but not really. Not if you think about it. So I prefer that we just stick to the arguments, and let the issue of BRAINS just sort of sort itself out.
In reality the context here is not the success of IAR, but the simple fact that someone made an editorial decision and explained themselves in an detailed way that gave good faith to the arguments of the opposing side. In that context, the opposing side just let the issue go.
I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to come back and screw with me some more later?
-Stevertigo