Forum:RFB/RFF Protocol

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > RFB/RFF Protocol
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 31 January 2010 by Rwojy.

In all Requests for Adminship, even Requests for Bureaucratship and Forum Adminship, the page name appears as "Request for Adminship" and the agreement remains the same. I propose that:

1) When a user runs for Bureaucrat, they have to agree to this instead of the other agreement having to do with adminship:

I, username, accept this nomination for Bureaucratship. I understand that the only difference between Bureaucratship and the administrative ability that I already have is that I am able to assign user rights. I understand that I may not, for any reason, delegate any form of Adminship to any user who has not passed an appropriate RFA, RFB, or RFF. Lastly, I understand that the respective agreement in regards to standard adminship still applies [Signature]

2) When the request is for Forum Adminship or Bureaucratship, the {{Title}} template is used to change the name accordingly for the purpose of avoiding confusion.

Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:32, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As Nom. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:32, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This should be more easier to nominate for bureaucracy or forum admin status. Fishing.png NnK Oliver (600613) talk 01:28, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per nom and harassment in cc (joking) Chicken7 >talk 02:14, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It makes things more dynamic and respective and such. However, I think that "I understand that the agreement I signed in my Request for Adminship still apples" should be changed to something like "I understand that the respective agreement in regards to standard adminship still applies", as not all administrators signed the agreement. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 02:32, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Changed. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:59, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Clarity never hurts.  Tien  02:33, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - That will make it clearer to those that look at the page. ~MuzTalk 02:36, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support new nomination template, neutral on using Template:Title - The nomination template makes sense, but it would be easy get the display title and the actual title confused if we use the Title template. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:27, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how this would be more of a problem then people incorrectly voting. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:59, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Clarity ftw. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 03:44, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Clearer, and apples are good Lol . --Nup(T) 08:30, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Would make things clearer. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 10:44, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Nup Swiz Talk Review Me 16:56, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all, I always found the way RfB's used the administrator agreement a little strange, this is much better. --Aburnett(Talk) 17:07, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all FredeTalk 17:09, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all, also I think this has snowballed. Closure time ? :P Veritas vos Liberabit 18:05, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

That policy only apples when the chances of the proposal passing are equivalent to a snowball not melting in the pits of hell. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:27, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
The policy/essay applies when the proposal has as much chance to receive an unexpected outcome as a snowball does of surviving in hell - that is, it can apply to things that have next to no chance of not passing, too. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:50, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:50, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - What everyone else said.Youdead00 20:54, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Confusion..narby. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 11:48, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all the people who said "Per all". I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 22:41, January 19, 2010 (UTC) 

Support - I usually hate to say "per all" but I think this is a simple and logical idea that should have been implemented a long time ago. Good idea! --Robert Horning 00:47, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense. — Enigma 22:55, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. I think we all agree. Time for closure? Balance iz powa!4ndrepd TalkContribsStupid monkeys actually have a use...Jump to the God Wars II! 16:20, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. I support closure. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  19:50, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone else. Closure time? [1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 19:58, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - As per consensus, there will be a new template created called RFB, that is to be used when for bureaucrat requests. UMPOESBucket detail.pngrwojy 20:04, January 31, 2010 (UTC)