|
Post by Paveltc on Jan 14, 2004 18:10:15 GMT -5
If you vote please make a post saying that you voted and which way you voted. This is to reduce cheating. If votes start appearing with no posts to validate them the votes will not count. The only people who are allowed to vote are those that have been members since before January 1, 2004. I apologize to new members but this restriction must be done in order to reduce cheating.
Thank You
I have voted in favor of the change.
Note: Another restriction, members who vote must have actually posted before January 1, 2004.
Another note: Fictional character's cannot vote.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Angel on Jan 14, 2004 20:50:59 GMT -5
No...I still think it's better to have the best up there as much as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 14, 2004 20:50:59 GMT -5
Against because of reasons explained on the other thread.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Jan 14, 2004 21:09:50 GMT -5
I voted no, we should keep the people who are good at moderating (if it wasn't a word before, it is now) able to be mods for as long as they want to be
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jan 14, 2004 22:02:08 GMT -5
I voted yes.
To overthrow the authority.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Jan 14, 2004 23:24:08 GMT -5
viva la france, pro limit, vive le progressivism, and yes moderating is a word, its the infinitive.
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Jan 14, 2004 23:38:05 GMT -5
i say yes, becaus eit's more interesting to throw out stale mods and get fresh faces occasionally...
plus it keeps the power spread around
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jan 15, 2004 17:05:54 GMT -5
We don't exactly have to worry about 'bad MODs' too much since there are only 1 or two people who could really cause any harm on the forum. If the MODs suck, so what? It's not like we do much in the first place. So far, I haven't seen anyone post anything that needs deleting or anything. It's such a private forum that we aren't at risk of some random person coming in and posting spam and pron all over the forum. Such as it is, I'm all for it!
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 15, 2004 17:37:45 GMT -5
If that is so, then why bother with 3 mods? I think 2 would be more than enough...plus, it would make elections have more of a point...
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jan 15, 2004 17:54:49 GMT -5
2,3 same difference.
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Jan 15, 2004 18:05:01 GMT -5
Same here
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 15, 2004 18:05:34 GMT -5
Sweet, it's tied! But...where is the 1 post to justify that last 1 vote?
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Jan 15, 2004 18:18:25 GMT -5
sorry, I voted the last post, I voted for keeping the mod term as infinite... that way we are always ruled by the best. I do not beleive we should give power to others who are undeserving of it... those who deserve power should be able to receive it fairly. Why should we prevent a good moderator from being moderator again? If he stops being a good moderator he will be elected out afterwards.... Btw I am back after a long period of laxness on this forum
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 15, 2004 18:26:36 GMT -5
Welcome back.
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Quack on Jan 15, 2004 23:47:48 GMT -5
I voted no, because I believe that, if the mod is good, the mod should stay.
If the candidate is truly decent, then they shouldn't need these restrictions to gain the power, but rather gain it on pure merit. Thus, this measure, if passed, is unnecessary and only works to prevent the forum from reaching it's best possibilities of best leadership.
|
|