Sean Barrett wrote:
A) Strawman argument; unworthy of you, mav.
B) Who are these tin-plated tyrants that want to make the kids wait until they're eighteen?
And concentrating on the weakest part of my post and ignoring the rest isn't also beating on a straw man? ;)
My point was that we shouldn't automatically give people power over others automatically based on some numerical scheme and that doing so would give unwarranted power to people who are more apt to abuse that power (such as Lir, Clutch or TMC). Admin selection, IMO, should be filtered through at least some human-controled process. But what I want is for that process to work faster and for us not to dilly dally around promoting obvious Admin choices.
That is all - pardon my exaggeration. I was just trying to make a point.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Mayer wrote: | Sean Barrett wrote: | |>A) Strawman argument; unworthy of you, mav. |> |>B) Who are these tin-plated tyrants that want |>to make the kids wait until they're eighteen? | | | And concentrating on the weakest part of my post and | ignoring the rest isn't also beating on a straw man? | ;) | | My point was....
No, something of the form "of course we have to automatically grant sysop powers; after all, all the good countries in the world automatically grant the voting franchise to everyone over a particular age ... and that's much more important!" would be a straw man argument.
Concentrating on the weakest part of your post is called "concentrating on the weakest (and potentially most humorous) part of the argument."
I can't attack any other part; I agree with you completely!