Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic My idea: Support Leader's can ban members... Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Bearsy Posted at 8:00 pm on July 27, 2008 IF 20 of them agree to it. And for everyone who disagrees, another one has to agree. Ex: If forty SL's say, "No, don't ban" 60 have to say yes, ban for them to be banned. And if 20 vote no, 40 have to vote yes. Got it? It's hard to make a mistake when you have THAT many yes's! Also SL's can warn now but five have to agree to the warn and it's only a one or two-day warn. I think this site can be truly member one and we can get a hold of control over the nazi regime that is the moderation team, but this might be the only way (while defending us from trolls). What are some opinions on this?

Replies daboss Posted at 6:37 pm on July 28, 2008 leave that up to the mods iconoclast Posted at 2:19 pm on July 28, 2008 as long as they also have the power to demote moderators which would suck too, because popular fags would get to stay like now greatescape Posted at 2:03 pm on July 28, 2008 As if we need more bannings :rollseyes: boothy Posted at 9:47 am on July 28, 2008 I suppose that's subjective, I presume you weren't being serious about locking it though. The Professional Posted at 8:42 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from boothy at 10:38 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from The Professional at 4:29 am on July 28, 2008 Quote: from Praise the Lard at 10:01 pm on July 27, 2008 terrible fucking idea   if anything fewer members should have the ability to ban not more    Thread could've been locked after this response. What? His response was perfect. boothy Posted at 8:38 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from The Professional at 4:29 am on July 28, 2008 Quote: from Praise the Lard at 10:01 pm on July 27, 2008 terrible fucking idea    if anything fewer members should have the ability to ban not more Thread could've been locked after this response. What? The Professional Posted at 8:29 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from Praise the Lard at 10:01 pm on July 27, 2008 terrible fucking idea if anything fewer members should have the ability to ban not more Thread could've been locked after this response. I didn't think you could trump your last terrible suggestion of SL's being able to view anonymous, but somehow you have.  That says a lot. Bearsy Posted at 8:22 pm on July 27, 2008 I would fucking LOVE IT! MariJani Posted at 8:22 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 8:18 pm on July 27, 2008   Yes it will be brill. You guys would absolutely hate it. boothy Posted at 8:20 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 4:19 am on July 28, 2008 Quote: from boothy at 8:13 pm on July 27, 2008 The two sections would spill into each other, eventually rendering the separation pointless. To stop this? Moderate. Bringing the entire idea to take power away from moderators to a failure, as this would take more power to instate this system. I like your democratic theory, but democracy never works as a voice of a few, nor does it work on a black or white answer.   :(   But two is too little voices, especially to remove a post, what if someone has two different accounts and is SL on both? What are you on about? I was talking in response to Praise the Lord and you responding to me saying "what". Read the convo. Bearsy Posted at 8:19 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from boothy at 8:13 pm on July 27, 2008 The two sections would spill into each other, eventually rendering the separation pointless. To stop this? Moderate. Bringing the entire idea to take power away from moderators to a failure, as this would take more power to instate this system. I like your democratic theory, but democracy never works as a voice of a few, nor does it work on a black or white answer. :( But two is too little voices, especially to remove a post, what if someone has two different accounts and is SL on both? boothy Posted at 8:19 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from MariJani at 4:14 am on July 28, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 8:13 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from MariJani at 8:11 pm on July 27, 2008 And how do you suppose support leaders would go about banning people without having access to the mod forum, members notes, the members previous history, deleted posts by the member, etc etc etc.   Basically, it would be hard to ban someone without knowing anything about their prior conduct, and you couldn't just be like, 'oh, I think he was warned last week, IT'S TIME FOR A BAN!'   Also, I fail to see how banning people from the site is 'supporting' them, which ideally is what SUPPORT leaders are for.    There will be a support leader's forum, support leader's member notes, we can check IP's, see what they're deleted psots are, etc etc etc. So there would basically just be 200 mods running around? Wouldn't the only difference be that it would take more votes? Precisely. Democracy never works as a voice of a few, nor does it work on a black or white answer (just copied and pasted myself to reiterate). Essentially what this person wants is a more democratic system rather than a heir achy, but a democratic system would involve every member to be truly democratic. I don't think LW would fit this kind of system at the present moment, to be honest - for the same reason democracy fails in general. What the people want is not necessarily (or indeed often not at all) what is best for the people. Bearsy Posted at 8:18 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from MariJani at 8:14 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 8:13 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from MariJani at 8:11 pm on July 27, 2008 And how do you suppose support leaders would go about banning people without having access to the mod forum, members notes, the members previous history, deleted posts by the member, etc etc etc.     Basically, it would be hard to ban someone without knowing anything about their prior conduct, and you couldn't just be like, 'oh, I think he was warned last week, IT'S TIME FOR A BAN!'     Also, I fail to see how banning people from the site is 'supporting' them, which ideally is what SUPPORT leaders are for.    There will be a support leader's forum, support leader's member notes, we can check IP's, see what they're deleted psots are, etc etc etc. So there would basically just be 200 mods running around?  Wouldn't the only difference be that it would take more votes? Yes it will be brill. MariJani Posted at 8:14 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 8:13 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from MariJani at 8:11 pm on July 27, 2008 And how do you suppose support leaders would go about banning people without having access to the mod forum, members notes, the members previous history, deleted posts by the member, etc etc etc.    Basically, it would be hard to ban someone without knowing anything about their prior conduct, and you couldn't just be like, 'oh, I think he was warned last week, IT'S TIME FOR A BAN!'    Also, I fail to see how banning people from the site is 'supporting' them, which ideally is what SUPPORT leaders are for. There will be a support leader's forum, support leader's member notes, we can check IP's, see what they're deleted psots are, etc etc etc. So there would basically just be 200 mods running around?  Wouldn't the only difference be that it would take more votes? Bearsy Posted at 8:13 pm on July 27, 2008 Quote: from Fire37 at 8:13 pm on July 27, 2008 We don't need SL's on a power trip... \ They are already on a power trip. Most recent 15 of 38 previous replies displayed.