Ignore this if you don't care about IRC politics.

Now, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I generally believe that anyone who disagrees with me must be well-meaning but misguided. (Yes, I am this arrogant, but that's a post for another day). Then something like this happens.

In an attempt to guide the whole SorceryNet power-grabbing debacle in a more productive direction, I took a look at what the proponents of the charter changes said that they really wanted, and tried to find a way to accomplish those goals without tearing the whole place apart in the process.

I offered pretty much everythign they wanted. I dissolved the administrative structure. I divided the "power" between a larger number of people. I made it far, far easier for admins to (as a group) contradict someone that they didn't agree with. What I didn't do, was remove the provision that an admin has to follow the rules, and what I didn't do was add the ability for large tracts of policy to be decided in secret.

And guess what, I'm informed that they're still 100% against it. Funny, that. I guess all their posturing that they were trying to reform the place but retain its openness were, as we suspected, a bunch of crap. It just goes to show that the real meaning behind this discussion is that a couple of admins really hate the idea of anyone else being able to tell them what to do.