---

No, you still misunderstand.. I said that not many long term members would nominate themselves for the position (only the good ones would put themselves forward.. "But there aren't many who wouldn't" is where you got confused; if you thought thats what I was trying to say.

Sorry, i know its petty, i just had to clear that up.

---

Still don't see your point.

Do a test yourself, check the results.  Form a list of 10 members.  Five hugely popular members you think DON'T deserve the job, then 5 you think would deserve the job.  You'll see the problem.

---

Quote: from carracer at 5:02 pm on July 19, 2008

---

"I think something should be put in place to counter balance the Moderators rule on this site."  

 I have actually thought about this.  
 The most logical conclusion i came up with is that we probably should have monthly shifts of mods.  
 So that even if they do abuse their power they will not have it for long.  
 The monthly new mods will be chosen as the best candidates based on applications to the admin.

---

Absolutely terrible.

We have 33 team members now. So each month, we would demote all 33 and appoint 33 more? The next month the same thing? Simply math should tell you the idea fails. 12x33=396. How would such an idea work?

Also, have you not considered learning curves, or consistency? Each mod comes with a different opinion, that forms around what the team has PREVIOUSLY decided. Factor that in with 33 new mods every month, and you'll see there would be zero progress in the mod department.

---

Also zero corruption.
there wouldn't be enough power or time to do it.
Let me ask you a question.
How many of those mods are active on a regular basis?
Different opinions should always be welcome.
Just because you may happen to not agree with it does not mean they are wrong.
Democratic Government is negotiation.

-------
The world is only as sweet as you make it and only as terrible as you see it

---

1) We need a new admin. David doesn't care about the website.

---

This isn't worth discussing between us. Either davjs wants to continue on as he is or he doesn't.

---

2)Who decides who is reliable or not? Anyone and everyone is good at deciding what is spam and what to do with it etc.

---

Except spammers, and people who don't care, and people who think spam is funny, and those who think spam should be permissible, and on and on we go...

---

3)As stated above we would need a new admin or multiple new admins to make this site a little more successful (we should have more of a republic then a dictatorship)

---

See response one.

---

4)" I don't think that would be sufficient to fix a crisis that, arguably, your own new system would likely be responsible for. Random members are just that, and can hardly be trusted."

a jury system works in reality why not on a forum?
governments don't decide everyday people can't be trusted why should we?

---

Because in reality, randomly selected individuals are legally obligated to carry out their duties and can hold the freedom or even life of a human being in their hands. Between those two circumstances, the gravity of their role is pretty well made clear to them.

Selecting random jack-offs on an internet forum to make decisions will end up looking less like Plato's Republic and more like Lord of the Flies.

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

Quote: from carracer at 6:13 pm on July 19, 2008

---

1) We need a new admin. David doesn't care about the website.

---

This isn't worth discussing between us. Either davjs wants to continue on as he is or he doesn't.

---

2)Who decides who is reliable or not? Anyone and everyone is good at deciding what is spam and what to do with it etc.

---

Except spammers, and people who don't care, and people who think spam is funny, and those who think spam should be permissible, and on and on we go...

---

3)As stated above we would need a new admin or multiple new admins to make this site a little more successful (we should have more of a republic then a dictatorship)

---

See response one.

 

---

4)" I don't think that would be sufficient to fix a crisis that, arguably, your own new system would likely be responsible for. Random members are just that, and can hardly be trusted."  

 a jury system works in reality why not on a forum?  
 governments don't decide everyday people can't be trusted why should we?

---

Because in reality, randomly selected individuals are legally obligated to carry out their duties and can hold the freedom or even life of a human being in their hands. Between those two circumstances, the gravity of their role is pretty well made clear to them.

Selecting random jack-offs on an internet forum to make decisions will end up looking less like Plato's Republic and more like Lord of the Flies.

---

maybe a little "lord of the flies" is all we need for a while....

-------
The world is only as sweet as you make it and only as terrible as you see it

---

maybe a little "lord of the flies" is all we need for a while....

---

That is fucking stupid.

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

Also zero corruption.
there wouldn't be enough power or time to do it.
Let me ask you a question.
How many of those mods are active on a regular basis?
Different opinions should always be welcome.
Just because you may happen to not agree with it does not mean they are wrong.
Democratic Government is negotiation.

---

Zero corruption?  How in the world do you get such a figure?  Right now, we have the best this site has to offer on our mod team (a few that need to be promoted, though).  We we demote all 33, and SCRAPE the barrel to get 33 more, you think that would yield LESS corruption than now?  That's a very very odd belief system you have, and it doesn't logically make sense at all.  Another huge weak point is that if they know they are going to be demoted in a month, then why even try to be a good moderator?  What's the benefit?

The second huge fall point is the learning curve, which you didn't even address.  We have regular discussions in the mod forum about our policies, where we stand, what should change, and what needs to be added.  These policies are NEVER posted anywhere but the forums - so it's up to the moderator to remember the consensus.  If all 33 moderators are demoted who worked an entire month to get to an agreement, how will the knew 33 mods know of it?  Will they agree with it?  If they don't, and they change it, how will the site know wtf is going on?

Right now the mod team is strong in opinions, and very diverse.  We have lenient, we have strict.  Each side has vocal parties, so we manage to meet in the middle somewhere.  If a new batch is brought in every month, that mix, that blend, will never form like it has now - the rules will either change drastically every single month, or being abuse without mercy.

This is one of the absolute worst ideas I've seen proposed, to be honest.

Post edited at 3:26 pm on July 19, 2008 by The Professional

---

Quote: from carracer at 6:22 pm on July 19, 2008

---

maybe a little "lord of the flies" is all we need for a while....

---

That is fucking stupid.

---

Anarchy paves the way for a new system to take power, and that is all we need.
Destruction opens the door to new beginnings.

No.
Dictatorship and lack of rights is stupid.

Change is not.

Unfortunately for you, change will happen sooner or later in the real world and here and if you don't follow it, you will get stomped on by the rest of society.

-------
The world is only as sweet as you make it and only as terrible as you see it

---

Quote: from carracer at 5:17 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Also zero corruption.
there wouldn't be enough power or time to do it.
Let me ask you a question.
How many of those mods are active on a regular basis?
Different opinions should always be welcome.
Just because you may happen to not agree with it does not mean they are wrong.
Democratic Government is negotiation.

---

Zero corruption? How in the world do you get such a figure? Right now, we have the best this site has to offer on our mod team (a few that need to be promoted, though). We we demote all 33, and SCRAPE the barrel to get 33 more, you think that would yield LESS corruption than now? That's a very very odd belief system you have, and it doesn't logically make sense at all. Another huge weak point is that if they know they are going to be demoted in a month, then why even try to be a good moderator? What's the benefit?

The second huge fall point is the learning curve, which you didn't even address. We have regular discussions in the mod forum about our policies, where we stand, what should change, and what needs to be added. These policies are NEVER posted anywhere but the forums - so it's up to the moderator to remember the consensus. If all 33 moderators are demoted who worked an entire month to get to an agreement, how will the knew 33 mods know of it? Will they agree with it? If they don't, and they change it, how will the site know wtf is going on?

Right now the mod team is strong in opinions, and very diverse. We have lenient, we have strict. Each side has vocal parties, so we manage to meet in the middle somewhere. If a new batch is brought in every month, that mix, that blend, will never form like it has now - the rules will either change drastically every single month, or being abuse without mercy.

This is one of the absolute worst ideas I've seen proposed, to be honest.

---

From what I have seen, any resolution opinion that has you demoted you have deemed ridiculous.

Am I wrong in that observation?

-------
The world is only as sweet as you make it and only as terrible as you see it

---

Quote: from The Professional at 3:24 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Quote: from carracer at 5:17 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Also zero corruption.  
 there wouldn't be enough power or time to do it.  
 Let me ask you a question.  
 How many of those mods are active on a regular basis?  
 Different opinions should always be welcome.  
 Just because you may happen to not agree with it does not mean they are wrong.  
 Democratic Government is negotiation.

---

 

 Zero corruption?  How in the world do you get such a figure?  Right now, we have the best this site has to offer on our mod team (a few that need to be promoted, though).  We we demote all 33, and SCRAPE the barrel to get 33 more, you think that would yield LESS corruption than now?  That's a very very odd belief system you have, and it doesn't logically make sense at all.  Another huge weak point is that if they know they are going to be demoted in a month, then why even try to be a good moderator?  What's the benefit?  

 The second huge fall point is the learning curve, which you didn't even address.  We have regular discussions in the mod forum about our policies, where we stand, what should change, and what needs to be added.  These policies are NEVER posted anywhere but the forums - so it's up to the moderator to remember the consensus.  If all 33 moderators are demoted who worked an entire month to get to an agreement, how will the knew 33 mods know of it?  Will they agree with it?  If they don't, and they change it, how will the site know wtf is going on?  

 Right now the mod team is strong in opinions, and very diverse.  We have lenient, we have strict.  Each side has vocal parties, so we manage to meet in the middle somewhere.  If a new batch is brought in every month, that mix, that blend, will never form like it has now - the rules will either change drastically every single month, or being abuse without mercy.  

 This is one of the absolute worst ideas I've seen proposed, to be honest.

---

From what I have seen, any resolution opinion that has you demoted you have deemed ridiculous.  

Am I wrong in that observation?

---

You have addressed absolutely zero of my points.

This is why you fail at coming up with ideas.  Because you don't even argue your point through, so you never see the falls, so you never change, so you keep spouting the same dumb ideas.

This is exactly why there should not be a rotation.  Because sooner or later, YOU would be a mod, and, well, what more needs to be said really.

---

Quote: from carracer at 5:30 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Quote: from The Professional at 3:24 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Quote: from carracer at 5:17 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Also zero corruption.
  there wouldn't be enough power or time to do it.
  Let me ask you a question.
  How many of those mods are active on a regular basis?
  Different opinions should always be welcome.
  Just because you may happen to not agree with it does not mean they are wrong.
  Democratic Government is negotiation.

---

  Zero corruption? How in the world do you get such a figure? Right now, we have the best this site has to offer on our mod team (a few that need to be promoted, though). We we demote all 33, and SCRAPE the barrel to get 33 more, you think that would yield LESS corruption than now? That's a very very odd belief system you have, and it doesn't logically make sense at all. Another huge weak point is that if they know they are going to be demoted in a month, then why even try to be a good moderator? What's the benefit?

  The second huge fall point is the learning curve, which you didn't even address. We have regular discussions in the mod forum about our policies, where we stand, what should change, and what needs to be added. These policies are NEVER posted anywhere but the forums - so it's up to the moderator to remember the consensus. If all 33 moderators are demoted who worked an entire month to get to an agreement, how will the knew 33 mods know of it? Will they agree with it? If they don't, and they change it, how will the site know wtf is going on?

  Right now the mod team is strong in opinions, and very diverse. We have lenient, we have strict. Each side has vocal parties, so we manage to meet in the middle somewhere. If a new batch is brought in every month, that mix, that blend, will never form like it has now - the rules will either change drastically every single month, or being abuse without mercy.

  This is one of the absolute worst ideas I've seen proposed, to be honest.

---

 

 From what I have seen, any resolution opinion that has you demoted you have deemed ridiculous.

 Am I wrong in that observation?

---

You have addressed absolutely zero of my points.

This is why you fail at coming up with ideas. Because you don't even argue your point through, so you never see the falls, so you never change, so you keep spouting the same dumb ideas.

This is exactly why there should not be a rotation. Because sooner or later, YOU would be a mod, and, well, what more needs to be said really.

---

Besides my own mother you are the biggest hypocrite I know.

"so you never see the falls, so you never change, so you keep spouting the same dumb ideas. "~ Hypocrite

"Because sooner or later, YOU would be a mod, and, well, what more needs to be said really"~Hypocrite

Have any more points that pertain to your own flaws?

-------
The world is only as sweet as you make it and only as terrible as you see it

---

Besides my own mother you are the biggest hypocrite I know.

"so you never see the falls, so you never change, so you keep spouting the same dumb ideas. "~ Hypocrite  

"Because sooner or later, YOU would be a mod, and, well, what more needs to be said really"~Hypocrite

Have any more points that pertain to your own flaws?

---

Where have I not argued my points through? Check this thread, for example.

How does the second comment make me a hypocrite at all? Do you even know the definition of the word?

Are you going to defend your own argument, or admit it's utter failing by not addressing the points?

Post edited at 3:40 pm on July 19, 2008 by The Professional

---

Quote: from carracer at 5:36 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Besides my own mother you are the biggest hypocrite I know.  
 
"so you never see the falls, so you never change, so you keep spouting the same dumb ideas. "~ Hypocrite

"Because sooner or later, YOU would be a mod, and, well, what more needs to be said really"~Hypocrite  

Have any more points that pertain to your own flaws?

---

Where have I not argued my points through?  Check this thread, for example.

How does the second comment make me a hypocrite at all?  Do you even know the definition of the word?

Are you going to defend your own argument, or admit it's utter failing by not addressing the points?

---

"Are you going to defend your own argument, or admit it's utter failing by not addressing the points?"

Again Hypocrite

I've done these topic before, and have watched you argue for pages upon pages saying THE SAME EXCAT THING which always conveniently consisted of "that is stupid and would never work".

Worst argument of the millennium.

Your power is unfortunately for you, soon to be utterly failing.

-------
The world is only as sweet as you make it and only as terrible as you see it

---

Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 3:24 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Quote: from carracer at 6:22 pm on July 19, 2008

---

maybe a little "lord of the flies" is all we need for a while....

---

 

 That is fucking stupid.

---

Anarchy paves the way for a new system to take power, and that is all we need.
Destruction opens the door to new beginnings.

---

Welcome to the internet, pseudophilosopher.

A new system does not need to be preceded by another system of shitty ideas and half-assed control by a bunch of random chucklefucks in order to be fully implemented. Anarchy precedes a new political system in reality, at times, because there is a struggle in instituting the new system or in gaining acceptance for it.

Your system, besides being completely infeasible due to maintaining a capable moderation team of sufficient size, begets anarchy not for the reasons I stated above, but because it is just a terrible design.

---

Dictatorship and lack of rights is stupid.

---

A benevolent dictatorship is the best government that can be achieved. Good decisions, rapid enactment of policies. What we have isn't a dictatorship, of course. Due to davjs low levels of community activity, we have something more resembling an oligarchy which is intended to also be a meritocracy.

You also don't lack rights. It might seem that if you're a shitty spammer, but that's only because shitty spammers lack rights.

---

Change is not.

---

Change is neither inherently bad or good, it is neutral. What is bad is that which you propose we change into.

---

Unfortunately for you, change will happen sooner or later in the real world and here and if you don't follow it, you will get stomped on by the rest of society.

---

thanks for your input

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

Quote: from carracer at 6:28 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 3:24 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Quote: from carracer at 6:22 pm on July 19, 2008

---

maybe a little "lord of the flies" is all we need for a while....

---

  That is fucking stupid.

---

 

 Anarchy paves the way for a new system to take power, and that is all we need.  
 Destruction opens the door to new beginnings.

---

Welcome to the internet, pseudophilosopher.

A new system does not need to be preceded by another system of shitty ideas and half-assed control by a bunch of random chucklefucks in order to be fully implemented. Anarchy precedes a new political system in reality, at times, because there is a struggle in instituting the new system or in gaining acceptance for it.

Your system, besides being completely infeasible due to maintaining a capable moderation team of sufficient size, begets anarchy not for the reasons I stated above, but because it is just a terrible design.

---

Dictatorship and lack of rights is stupid.

---

A benevolent dictatorship is the best government that can be achieved. Good decisions, rapid enactment of policies. What we have isn't a dictatorship, of course. Due to davjs low levels of community activity, we have something more resembling an oligarchy which is intended to also be a meritocracy.  

You also don't lack rights. It might seem that if you're a shitty spammer, but that's only because shitty spammers lack rights.
 

---

Change is not.

---

Change is neither inherently bad or good, it is neutral. What is bad is that which you propose we change into.

---

Unfortunately for you, change will happen sooner or later in the real world and here and if you don't follow it, you will get stomped on by the rest of society.

---

thanks for your input

---

"It might seem that if you're a shitty spammer, but that's only because shitty spammers lack rights. "

Ask members around.
Im far from a spammer.

" thanks for your input"

And your welcome.
Though I am perfectly capable of recognizing possible sarcasm.

-------
The world is only as sweet as you make it and only as terrible as you see it