Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-5619531-20140411125117/@comment-5619531-20140411154005

Defrether wrote: Now, I can see where you are coming from on this, but, unlike most people, I tend disagree with what is presented. Yeah, Ryan is a great person, I know this first hand, I'd say that instead of just demoting out of the blue, he gets a fair warning, and a choice. The warning would be presented to him as something like,

"We have noticed a decrease in your activity on the main site of the Creepypasta Wiki"

Follow by,

"We are giving you one chance to correct this, but, it will not be against your will. You may decline if you wish, please respond within the next 24 hours."

That's how I think it should go, but that's just my opinion. 41488p wasn't given a fair warning for his demotion. Neither have I. So, are you saying that for the users who appear each and every day, but don't partake in site work, and has a right that involves site work should be warned about their work? Los was slacking off on the site, and he was demoted by Skelly. He wasn't warned about his lack of contribution to the site, but he was demoted right off the spot after a while of his lack of work? Does that mean he should get a fair warning about that he should work harder? No. If the user is slacking off, then it is the bureaucrat's discretion to demote that user from their right if given the amount of slack of work.

I, on the other hand, am pointing out the flaws of Kill's lack of work, as he seems to be on each and every day. It shouldn't really be common sense that the user, who has a right, should work on the site, rather than being warned about it.