Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic I've got an idea to make this a more democratic place 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 ] Quote: from [m]August Rush[/m] at 1:28 pm on July 19, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]JohnQ[/m] at 9:21 pm on July 19, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]Fenton[/m] at 9:18 pm on July 19, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]August Rush[/m] at 1:14 pm on July 19, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]Fenton[/m] at 9:07 pm on July 19, 2008[quote] FAQ: [url=faq.cgi?i=32773&x=09007301050]What is the Oversight Board? (click here)[/url]     Any member nominated to this board you suggest would have to be approved anyway. [i]But why who, Fenton?[/i] Well... the moderators, most likely.     Besides, they do their job fine. The oversight board is rarely used. Just because you don't see the mods opposing each other, doesn't mean they don't deliberate about most of their non-trivial actions. There's a whole mod forum you can't even see, and I know it's used extensively by all of them.[/quote]   As far as im aware the OB members are selected at random by a generator if they have for-filled some criteria (blue bar status i think).   It's rarely used because its not very accessible.   There have been two instances today where I think the OB could have come in handy but all the members are offline.   I am simply suggesting a small group of member elected reps with MOD powers to do their job on a full time basis.     [/quote]    There's considerably more to being on the oversight board than simply having a blue bar. It's not a vigilant mod-error task force either... it's in place to dissuade [i]grave moderation error/abuse[/i]. Believe me, LW moderates [i]itself[/i] quite capably, and the mods serve as an even more finite check for the site.    As for the "middleman board"... what do you suggest are the requirements for that? I'm willing to bet anyone who qualifies would also qualify to be a moderator, by LW standards.[/quote] I concur completely. You haven't really thought this through. All you're doing is making more people moderators.. Don't you think moderators were members once? They didn't just acquire the status on making their account and David saying "This'll do." No. Time and effort on the moderators and David's part has been put into place so we have a fair system. Sure, some moderators are deemed as retarded fucks. But as long as they do their job, which is to moderate, then they can be as much of a dick to me, or anyone they want on this forum for all I care.[/quote] I understand moderators have worked up to their position and I'll say it again.. i'm not suggesting the moderators are doing a bad job. I am simply saying that to make this a more diplomatic place (as it should be) I think it would be a good idea to setup a two tier system. [quote]There's considerably more to being on the oversight board than simply having a blue bar.[/quote] Yes, i know. I was simply stating that as one of the criteria needed to be on the oversight board. ONE of the criteria. Your using my argument against me. You are stating a truth (that there is more to being on the oversight board than simply having a blue bar) in the hope that that strengthens your argument - and it doesn't.[/quote] 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 August Rush Posted at 1:05 pm on July 19, 2008 Ok, so i've been here since about 2005. I was an active member on this site when it was mostly used for support. I have seen how the site has changed over the years and it has become much more of a place to socialize rather than to come for support. I was reading Briley 07's topic earlier and I agree that this site is slowly going down the pan and a lot of changes need to be made. I don't have half the answers but one thing I would like to debate is the unquestionable authority of the Moderators. This site is being run by the Moderators. They have a very important job to do keeping this site in order; they do most of the maintenance work for the front of house on this site - making sure topics are in the right places and troll's, spammers are kept out. I would like to express a few thoughts regarding the roles of moderators on this site. Censorship, to start, is an issue that I hold dear to my heart. An internet correspondent of mine, a friend who I had been in contact with for a number of years has recently been executed in China for posting controversial blog posts which apposed the government. I therefore understand the importance of fighting censorship. I don't like how the Moderators have the ability to censor topics, opinions or people that they dislike or disagree with. It's not so much their power that I appose but their totalitarian way of managing the site. Posting a moderator error report is pretty much like asking a dictator to reconsider his actions. Most of the time as they justified the action in the first place they are unwilling to reconsider. Useless! I think something should be put in place to counter balance the Moderators rule on this site. This site has blossomed because it is a community driven social site.. the first real social site on the net (before myspace)... and I think it would be a shame for David, and the Moderators to ignore the community right now. I understand there is an oversight board in place where disgruntled members can go with their complaints to get previous decisions overturned but I don't think this is enough. I propose a diplomatically elected member (or small group of members) who can stick up for the other side. Members with the powers to appose a Moderators decisions because lets face it, they don't usually appose each other. In politics there are usually two main parties, in the UK there is the government and the opposition; in the states its the republicans and the democrats. I think there should be a similar sort of system on here. That was a bit rushed so there might be a few holes in my arguments but my general thoughts are clear. I would be interested to hear what people have to say about this.

Replies MindArtist Posted at 5:33 pm on July 28, 2008 I agree with you whole heartedly iconoclast Posted at 10:09 am on July 21, 2008 oh well many moderators are retarded but thats just them, its not like communist china which isnt communist at all some retards delete shit they dont like though and AR seems kinda pretentious and annoying anyway branflakes Posted at 10:07 am on July 21, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 1:03 pm on July 21, 2008 branflakes, its usually more subtle, i.e. harmless spam versus malignant spam, n00bs usually cant tell the difference i don't care what you think because that's definitely not what AR was referring to did you read the OP? it compares the mod squad to communist china on the basis of censoring conflicting viewpoints. he makes it sound like we delete anything that goes against the views of the moderation team (topics against a moderator's actions, changes in site regulations, or overall dissatisfaction with the site) which is clearly a baseless accusation. iconoclast Posted at 10:03 am on July 21, 2008 branflakes, its usually more subtle, i.e. harmless spam versus malignant spam, n00bs usually cant tell the difference but the solution to all of this isn't really democracy, its just to have the idiots gtfo branflakes Posted at 9:58 am on July 21, 2008 i haven't read any of this thread yet so i'm probably just adding to what other mods have already said but.. i have been a mod here for only about 3 months and i can say with a straight face that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about please find me one.. ONE example of censorship for the sake of censorship happening mods DO NOT trash topics because the views held within the topic are different from their own -- they might trash them because they're sexually explicit or promoting self-harm but that's it. i can say too that i really promote free speech -- i'm a libertarian for christ's sake. if i see ONE example of mod abuse, i point it out right away and make sure that the mistake is corrected. and this RARELY happens (to put it into perspective, i disagree with maybe one out of every couple HUNDRED actions and only a tenth of those i disagree with are actual mistakes). members like to think that the mod squad is out there to get them but we really aren't. we were all regular members of this site at one point or another and i think being a mod does not change members at all -- they generally look at things the same way and use the same logic. we all want to make this site a better place, regardless of what you think. beyond that, we all greatly discuss the issues of this site and are working to make it a better place. just because you can't see us always talking doesn't mean discussion isn't happening. medjai Posted at 9:58 am on July 21, 2008 Honestly, a better idea is for David to place me in a position where I can elect moderators based on current moderator's input, so that we are always hiring caliber mods and never firing mods (like the Professional) for uncalled for reasons. I'm rather certain that if that were to occur, things would improve drastically in short notice. medjai Posted at 9:56 am on July 21, 2008 To be fair if you saw the mod forum you'd see how constantly we are at each other's throats for moderation decisions, odds are if you're moderation error report is overturned as invalid then it's legitimately invalid. Site moderation is not and should never be "democratic," that is a joke. You have no idea how many times I've went against nearly the entire mod team, pardoned a member, and then justified it after the fact. The same goes with showing posts, re-adding topics, and unwarning members. Pretending there is an issue where there is non, or a need for something for which there is no need will get you nowhere, August Rush. You're proposing adding even more bureaucracy to the site than there already is. We already have mod error reports, the oversight board, David Jones (who you are always free to appeal to personally via PM, believe it or not members who were banned by the mod team, have, in the past, been pardoned by david and the mod team basically told to stfu, it happens), and personal appeals to moderators (specifically myself if something of yours is removed and was legit or you are banned for a gay reason etc, ask any mod, i raise hell any time i see it happen). Myspace isn't "democratic" as far as moderation goes, no legitimate support site is, that would be absolutely stupid to be honest. You have no idea how many members would have been screwed over unreasonably if it were up to democratic decision. iconoclast Posted at 3:25 pm on July 20, 2008 Voting could work better if it was only support leaders over 200 days active, or members over 500 days active, but even then, there are a lot of n00bs who camp the site and get there. iconoclast Posted at 3:23 pm on July 20, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 5:39 pm on July 19, 2008 Quasi-moderation power assigned based on popularity rather than any sort of objective merit doesn't strike me as a very good idea at all. I don't trust the unwashed masses of LiveWire to tie their collective shoe without burning the place down, I sure as hell don't trust them not to vote in some popular half-literate fucknuts who have the maturity of a manic toddler. David's can't manage this site properly, but neither could a collective of fucktards.The only solution is to change the administrator. Macropiper Posted at 2:04 pm on July 20, 2008 I wouldn't mind seeing people being able to elect new moderators from the list of people who have applied. It would be good for the moderators to be able to veto certain applications, though, if we felt we would be unable to work with that person. Or, people could just agree to have all the notes and misconduct reports on their profiles shown to the rest of LiveWire when they applied. That ought to provide enough background information. However, the biggest problem with voting systems on the internet is that they can be so easily gamed, measures would need to be taken to ensure that people do not register many accounts to vote for themselves or someone they liked or against someone they didn't like. TheOtherHorseman Posted at 4:10 pm on July 19, 2008 Quote: from carracer at 7:06 pm on July 19, 2008 TheOtherHorseman- I respect your opinion. I think you have good intentions, and I respect that, but I don't think your system would work for all the reasons I stated. I don't respect The Professionals because i know that even if it has stance, it has no direction. In this kind of argument he is very very predictable. (About the nazi thing: just a comparison not correlation with naziism ) The Professional gets a lot of hate fired at him, and that might be coloring your reaction here. He's made some good points. carracer Posted at 4:06 pm on July 19, 2008 "You're just as capable of being stuck up your own ass and holier-than-thou as your opposition." Of course. I didn't say it was perfect nor did I say I was perfect. Also in response to The Professional i would NEVER apply to be a mod. 1)I don't trust my self with power vs. curiosity 2)Its the same reason i don't want to be a police officer or politician I don't want to be everybody's person to blame and put things  on. TheOtherHorseman- I respect your opinion. I don't respect The Professionals because i know that even if it has stance, it has no direction. In this kind of argument he is very very predictable. (About the nazi thing: just a comparison not correlation with naziism ) TheOtherHorseman Posted at 3:59 pm on July 19, 2008 Quote: from carracer at 6:54 pm on July 19, 2008 Quote: from The Professional at 3:51 pm on July 19, 2008 Again, no points of TOH's addressed.   Again running away because you cannot prove my observation of you is incorrect.   I refuse to waste my time with someone when I know they are too arrogant to alter their opinions in the least.   Like i said before.   I have watched how you answer these kinds of topics, and its like talking to a brainwashed nazi.   He will always say the same thing no matter how you try to convince him.   He will still always believe he is elitist and the best. I've done my best to address your points. If you feel that my judgment is incorrect, feel free to explain how. If you feel I misunderstood something about your position, then feel free to clarify, because perhaps a misunderstanding on my part made me react more viciously than I should have given an accurate understanding of what you meant to say. Also, you don't get to take the moral high ground just because you want to alter the status quo. It doesn't matter if you see yourself on the side of the rag-tag rebels. You're just as capable of being stuck up your own ass and holier-than-thou as your opposition. carracer Posted at 3:58 pm on July 19, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 3:55 pm on July 19, 2008 Quote: from carracer at 6:50 pm on July 19, 2008 Ask members around.    Im far from a spammer. Despite any appearances to the contrary, I made that sentence a conditional because I wasn't accusing you of being a spammer. I was making a general statement saying that unless someone is a spammer, they have rights. They even have some as a spammer, assuming they aren't haven't screwed up royally enough to be ban-on-sight. Fair enough. i misunderstood. TheOtherHorseman Posted at 3:55 pm on July 19, 2008 Quote: from carracer at 6:50 pm on July 19, 2008 Ask members around. Im far from a spammer. Despite any appearances to the contrary, I made that sentence a conditional because I wasn't accusing you of being a spammer. I was making a general statement saying that unless someone is a spammer, they have rights. They even have some as a spammer, assuming they aren't haven't screwed up royally enough to be ban-on-sight. Most recent 15 of 105 previous replies displayed.