Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-3096633-20170908152553/@comment-31420441-20170908190737

Blaziken rjcf wrote: Shocker03 wrote:

Blaziken rjcf wrote: I did take it to heart. Hence my compromise solution. It doesn't take away the CotG's purpose and will guarantee its users will be active. Shocker claimed the reason for his suggestion was the lack of activity by the CotG. Was that not true? What is that supposed to mean? You are saying choosing the top 5 most active users on the Wiki will not guarantee the CotG will be active but your compromise solution will make it active? How does that make sense? It means that while both your suggestion and my solution would work, the main difference between the two is that mine conserves the CotG's primary purpose, while yours completely ignores it. That's why mine was enforced.

Uh..huh. You're solution conserved the primary purpose which was obsolete (don't ask me how, read the long message I wrote on the CotG suggestion detailing how in your absence the work of Custodians, CVUs, rollbacks and admins was done by regular users without using the added powers).

Thus the primary purpose of having different groups was obsolete. Hence my suggestion to reform it to fit modern usage of the Wiki. Which you didn't want, apparently.