User blog comment:EthanKoenigsberg/Change the Seasonal Wiki Polls NOW/@comment-5590986-20161218235800/@comment-5590986-20161219224630

I was looking at this in the long run if you read my comment, specifically the second paragraph. I have been through this  situation so many damn times (actually more like uhhh 5-10 but that is still too many).

and yes, Mat almost did won. But if you look at his latest records, he seems to be somewhat of a "corrupt" candidate, in my opinion. While he does seem to think of himself as a good admin and he had experience by banning people (like anyone could), I even had high hopes and confidence in him. But after the Fall 2016 polls Mat started acting wierd, I observed that he lies to either get ahead or to look like a morally-good admin (such as accusing many people in mappercraft of having hacked clients, there are other things such as accusing all of the other admins he was with in Mappercraft as corrupt), but when he doesn't get his way he usually riles people up and says slander and libel (ex: he once rode his way up a protest in mappercraft when people wanted us to set the spawn to "niga", a place in Africa), he is also an anarchist (while I normally don't care unless they start trouble) and this makes him anti-establishment and like i said earlier he accused staff of being corrupt and constantly encourages rebellions, he once tried to gather a team and blow up a mc world because he dislikes it (despite the majority of players voting for the world) and also he used his ADMIN POWERS TO PUT DICKS ALL OVER THE WORLD AND BLOW UP STUFF, he finally ended up getting his way by making the server host DEMOTE ALL STAFF AND ENFORCE STRICT RULES OVER FUTURE STAFF MEMBERS. He was so opposite of the rest of the staff that he was the one slowing the administration down in the long run by dividing it (although it's just him vs. the rest of the staff). The host then made a vote to trial each staff member and most of the staff managed to get their rights back (mostly), but only mat had an overwhelming negative votes and he wasn't promoted again. He later negatively complained about the administration EVEN IF he got his way. I could go on, but I already said enough and I don't want to keep damaging him.

And heres the thing about human psychology: this blog, if admins doesn't accept it, and people known about it, they would have less respect for admins. Yes, there will be cyber-riots like I said earlier (and you), but is it better to not make blogs about this at all to risk this and go to the admins privately?

If I hypothetically say no to this blog, people may start rioting and we'd have to ban more people than we have to because they can't seem to stand that this whole thing, frustrating as it is, isn't life or death if the administration doesn't accept a small thing. If not, then this gives them more reasons to dislike the staff more (because it is in human nature to pay attention to the bad), and since I am the "leader" of this administration they'd blame me and not the staff who disagreed. Most of the administration is filled with most of those who had been here waaaaay longer than half of the people in the comment section. And the thing is that the staff generally agrees on alot of things and this allows us to pass things almost instantaneously without much outrage from the rest of us compared to a administration that does a majority rule (and in the long run would build up more diverse admins and make general disagreements).

If you have to choose, would you give a newbie more power earlier or have them start from the bottom?

I bet you are disliking me more (regarding anything) as we keep going on about this, whether or not it can be enough to be labeled as a word or just a grain of dislike from a simple disagreement within the atmosphere that is exaggerated. Would that just prove my point?