Democracy!

[droded]

Just imagine Steve, Andy and Sharon as the three Judges on something like American Idol or X Factor. They have to vote for the best person and it has to be a mutual decision.

Long - Story - Short: Tsuyu is the American Idol/ Has the X Factor.

[Angel]

So many images right now...

[Tsuyu]

That was one helluva audition. I sure did shine that time! Did you keep the tape, Angel? And did we ever catch that runaway monkey on the unicycle or what?

[Angel]

That monkey lives in my garage now - chained to the wall. Don't ask why - it's a secret.

the tape is part of my private stash of...erm...research material....

[Dark Drakan]

Originally Posted by Kamolakk

I believe that there should be no mods, but instead a Voting system.

If someone does something bad, as one might think, but someone else might think it wasn't bad, all the members should vote on punishment or no punishment, so there would be no mod corruption.

Blue Crow brought this up to me, and I agree.

Forums need the staff and authority style team to watch over things, as with voting and such comes corruption and unhand stuff most the time. Nothing to stop people trying to change peoples minds with PM's and such to persuade them into things. A community as a whole cant be full of unbiased people, thats why unbiased staff members are picked.

Originally Posted by FableFreak

This is an internet forum. It is in essence a democracy. This place is nothing without it's members, and it would be rampant with spam and pornography without Mods/Admins. Plus we don't have any malicious moderators or admins on here, so I don't care.

Sure, I'd like to vote on some things, but this is Steve's site. He pays for it, so it is up to him what happens here.

Just for the record id suggested Seph as a mod for some time and most of us are aware of that and she was made mod over at the Resident Evil forums. As i too thought an overseas Mod would be a good idea for timezones and such when Myself, Steve, Sharon or Tsuyu cant be here watching things. We have been discussing things like this from time to time in our staff section to see what we can do etc.

[xSiLeNtxD34tHx]

I don't think he meant it like that... We need to have some sort of leader which would be elected, and mods elected etc, But on big decisions alot of the people don't agree with what all mods have to think.... Just think theres over 6000 people on this forum just because 4 people (staff) agree with the decision, sometimes less of the staff... Makes you think that it's the best decision for the community... let the people that make this forum up decide, arent you deciding the well-fare of these people?

[droded]

To be honest, I doubt even 60% of the Members have even posted.

[Angel]

Originally Posted by Kamolakk

I don't think he meant it like that... We need to have some sort of leader which would be elected, and mods elected etc, But on big decisions alot of the people don't agree with what all mods have to think.... Just think theres over 6000 people on this forum just because 4 people (staff) agree with the decision, sometimes less of the staff... Makes you think that it's the best decision for the community... let the people that make this forum up decide, arent you deciding the well-fare of these people?

Who are "a lot of the people"? Or are they just those who feel slighted because at some point they were told to behave or were temporarily banned or got an infraction? The staff are capable of deciding what is best for the majority - we can't keep everyone happy and there are bound to be times when our decisions don't rest easy with some people but ultimately we are FOR the forum, not against it. It is highly unlikely we would make a decision that would harm the boards - certainly, there may be some short-term fallout due to someone getting upset over a ban or an infraction but that's part of forum life.

To ask the individual opinions of 6000+ people and then try to make a decision based on each of the responses is ridiculous, really. And impossible. Many of those members do not post here, were one-post wonders or spammers. Perhaps the suggestion would then be that we ask those who do post regularly? But then we'd end up with just page after page of debate and even if there was a vote on something, those who did not want such and such to happen are bound to kick off and then we have to mess around with all that. Democracy still has to have leaders and trust must be placed in them to do what is best for the community as a whole, not necessarily the angry few who are not getting what they want.

Members are often invited to comment on changes or updates made to the boards but very very few take the time out to say anything - the same apathy will apply to any voting system put in place.

I'm also a little confused as to what these "big decisions" entail? Perhaps you could enlighten me

[Dark Drakan]

Originally Posted by Kamolakk

I don't think he meant it like that... We need to have some sort of leader which would be elected, and mods elected etc, But on big decisions alot of the people don't agree with what all mods have to think.... Just think theres over 6000 people on this forum just because 4 people (staff) agree with the decision, sometimes less of the staff... Makes you think that it's the best decision for the community... let the people that make this forum up decide, arent you deciding the well-fare of these people?

Yeah i have no idea what big decisions your referring to, when we change something on the forums we do ask the community if they like the changes and if not we revert them back or change things accordingly. The decisions regarding members and action taken against them is no concern of other members as we are essentially the forum security and when someone is flaming or spamming its a pretty clear cut decision that needs no consulting. I have no idea as to what 'decisions' the forum itself needs consultation from the members with.

[projectego]

Totally against the idea.

Originally Posted by FableFreak

Sure, I'd like to vote on some things, but this is Steve's site. He pays for it, so it is up to him what happens here.

Just to clarify: It's up to me and Andy what happens here. Not highlighting this to have a dig at you, FF, far from it. I love you! Just making sure DD gets the credit he deserves.

And I'd say that the site pays for itself.

[blue crow]

Angel how did you become a admin did steve make you one just because your his wife? Also andy when he was dateing hex made her a mod all because they were going out. Sounds like spoils system to me anyone else? Also i notice when hex was a mod everyone thought so highly of her yet she was mean to some people but when she wasent a mod no one cared and people started to say what were on their minds. Mods and admins shouldent have the right to ban someone if they insulted someone and that said member insulted them back. Democracy will make things fair for everyone not just the admins and the mods. Also i think its lame mods and admins can ban people and not give them a fair chance atleast with this idea people can vote and the person who might get ban can explain his side of the story.


Edit - Steve your agisent it cause you dont want your undisputed power taken away.

[Angel]

Originally Posted by blue crow

Angel how did you become a admin did steve make you one just because your his wife? Also andy when he was dateing hex made her a mod all because they were going out. Sounds like spoils system to me anyone else? Also i notice when hex was a mod everyone thought so highly of her yet she was mean to some people but when she wasent a mod no one cared and people started to say what were on their minds. Mods and admins shouldent have the right to ban someone if they insulted someone and that said member insulted them back. Democracy will make things fair for everyone not just the admins and the mods.

I became a mod because Steve offered (before we were married) - he asked Andy first and it's always been due to our relationship, I've never hidden that

However, Hex became a mod because at the time Steve had stuff going on and we needed the extra pair of hands. There were three or four candidates put forward and Hex came out on top not because of her relationship with Andy but because she was posting links, helping people out and other stuff. Things went downhill because of complaints, personal reasons for her and other issues going on both on and off the boards which meant it was not possible to continue her position as it was. You all know this, so I will not reiterate further.

As for banning, you need to understand that unruly behaviour, if not kept in check by both the staff and those instigating the problems, leads to a total breakdown across the boards. People don't know if they can post, if they can't - will they get their head bitten off by so and so if they say this or that? It's not the sort of environment we want to encourage here and the only times so-called "censorship" come into play is when the good of the WHOLE community is being attacked i.e. someone trolling or flaming to try and upset or cause arguments.

It says in the rules that staff have the right to ban/moderate/edit/delete without notification although you will notice that very often people are warned first. If they continue to behave like a retard then they are dealt with accordingly. If people don't like the rules, then signing up here is a bit pointless...but the only people who rage against the machine are those who have told someone to **** off or whatever and been hauled for it.

There have been only two major bans concerning insults etc recently and those people were offered every opportunity to discuss their problems in private, away from prying eyes, but they refused. This was their prerogative and the consequences came about from a continued refusal to sort things out in a mature and amicable manner as well as some very unpleasant behaviour off the public boards. Banning is a last and not a first resort with members and if it comes across as sudden or without indication then that is usually due to behaviour privately which is clearly going to lead to an outburst on the boards which will cause a lot of damage. You might think that is horribly unfair but I'd rather ban one unpleasant member than risk them upsetting a whole string of other people by turning a blind eye.

We also act upon complaints, PM's, reported posts etc when making decisions about infractions/bannings.

[blue crow]

Say if someone pmed a mod an insult and mod banned him is that fair in your eyes?

[Angel]

That would depend. Rare that someone would out of the blue PM a mod in order to simply insult them. What would be the point in that if not to try and see what would happen?

If there was more to it than a random insult for no reason then that would obviously have been considered when determining the necessity of a ban.

[blue crow]

Say it was an insult for getting back at someone. anyone from i think this is goona get at your goona say mods shouldent be insulted even in pms. So its okay for regular members to insult each other in pms. But if a member insults a mod after being insulted its a major no no.