|
Post by Arachis on Jun 3, 2005 15:17:09 GMT -5
whats the point then of eliminating the third mod? I have never heard you give a reason, instead its just, get rid of a mod.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 3, 2005 18:28:50 GMT -5
Oh, in that case:
Having three mods usually places one in a state of permament inactivity and makes elections sort of pointless. Two will add more competition to elections without actually impeding any work potential.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 4, 2005 14:42:04 GMT -5
why is one always placed in a state of permanent inactivity?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 4, 2005 15:19:10 GMT -5
There has never been a conflagration here that required the help of more than two mods. On a larger forum, three would be ideal, but not here.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 4, 2005 23:36:34 GMT -5
and has there ever been anything requiring even two mods? technically 1 mod could do everything. The way I see it, the more moderators the more safe guards against autocracy and despotism. The more moderators, the more things will get changed. If you start reducing the amount of moderators, you are asking for the forum to be maintained less.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 5, 2005 0:13:08 GMT -5
Autocracy? Despotism? This is a freaking forum, Arachis. A FORUM. The mods are not meant to serve the roles of civil servants; they're police officers and slightly l33ter members, nothing more.
Change should come from us, not them. All you really have to do to make a difference is suggest something on the Forum Discussion board. It will most likely be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 5, 2005 13:10:57 GMT -5
so wheres the problem in having more police officers? if its that easy... theres nothing wrong with it.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 5, 2005 15:36:17 GMT -5
True, but it's a waste. Why not have four? Five? Also, having three mods ruins the elections a bit. Not enough people run to justify the quantity.
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Jun 7, 2005 18:20:54 GMT -5
Why don't we go with my original idea and make everyone mod? Yaay.
|
|
|
Post by flirtayangel on Jun 7, 2005 19:08:43 GMT -5
Just to toss in my opinion, I agree about having only 2 mods. I've said this to pavel in the past for the exact same reasons alexei has given above. Personally, I don't think the mods abuse their powers enough to warrent a need of 3 total to keep them in line.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Jun 7, 2005 22:26:06 GMT -5
Also, having three mods ruins the elections a bit. Not enough people run to justify the quantity. this is the only reason that i think really matters since the corrupt mods don't really get elected from what i've seen, and even then this would help prevent it to some extent i agree with the 2 mods bit, though i didn't at first, reading all the reasons and such makes it seem more logical
|
|
|
Post by Blues on Jun 19, 2005 22:21:15 GMT -5
well, ever since I've been gone....I really don;t see the need for three anymore either.....
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 19, 2005 22:35:38 GMT -5
why.. are you saying that the only reason there was a third mod was so that you could get elected? I think a 3rd mod is good because it can serve to balance the other two. Its easy to get 2 conservative or 2 liberal mods into power, but hard to get 3.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 19, 2005 23:16:55 GMT -5
I'm assuming that is sarcasm ali? Mods don't really have political leanings on the forum.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 19, 2005 23:33:21 GMT -5
thats not at all true! mods have political leanings, though they arent classified by the kinds of issues that american politiciens of the same type are. Nick is a conservative. You are a moderate, someone like me would be a liberal.... there are others who fall a little outside those classifications, but in general...
|
|