User talk:Seahorseruler/How I think a wiki should work

Too right! --Agent Johnson |  You... 21:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Epic win! --Speeddasher

Exactly what I've been trying to say, which is why I'm trying to bring in the consensus system. I probably went in over my head and went into too much detail about it, but what you just posted was the bottom line. I tip my hat off to you Seahorse :3 Zone 07:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly was I was saying too.--Agent Johnson |  You... 07:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Even more Democracy never mind Consensus. See Project:IRC Commitee--Agent Johnson |  You... 07:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but it is differnt to AJ's idea (that's good). It is very similar to the current system, I might add. --Sheep|No junk mail please! (Better sig soon!) 13:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is WONDERFULLY PERFECT. I love this. This is all we need for goverment. --Austin8310 23:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your system places too much trust that people won't break into flames. Your discussions are flame wars and they are arguments and.... -you know what? I'm too sick of arguing. Maybe I should just start slamming my head on the desk instead of wasting my time defending order. I hate that you all think promotions should be limited. It's a merit system, not a spoils system. Everyone that deserves it gets it and no one should be punished with demotion unless they need punishment. Sysops and Bureaucrats work hard for what they earn and their opinions should be worth more than some Noob. --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) ^{Dubya dubya dubya dot...} † † As I always say... ――–――――― 22:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

{Slams head to desk}

Now people are going to see this as doctrine and continue to give me the shaft. Would you just leave this all alone? I've already been destroyed, both in credibility and in not swearing. Just leave it alone. --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) ^{Dubya dubya dubya dot...} † † As I always say... ――–――――― 22:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

--Agent Johnson |  You... 00:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)== It Works ==

This idea works. It does. I'll explain later why.--Agent Johnson |  You... 00:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the IRC Committee could easily be worked into this.

"Community discussions, or "Votes", can be started by anyone if they feel one is needed. Anyone can participate in discussions, including admins. Admins are generally supposed to moderate the discussions and are the ones who could close the discussion once it has finished. Discussions should never be seen as "Arguments", "Fights", or "Flame Wars". Yes, of course discussions have 2 sides, like in any, but the disagreements should be discussed calmly without any drama."

Isn't that just what the IRC Committee is? Granted, there are some extra embellishments, but the structure, purpose, and format is the same. Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (PEBBLE DANCE! HYAH HYAH HYAH RAAAAAAH) View this template 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes and that'll be changed to fit that. Also it's called IRC Consensus now.--Agent Johnson |  You... 00:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)