|
Post by geneva on Jan 19, 2004 1:42:16 GMT -5
the original purpose of mod elections was to have the ability to cycle mods and not have it be the same people forever. this too, helps that cause...
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 19, 2004 1:56:23 GMT -5
That was only half of it.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jan 19, 2004 2:16:04 GMT -5
My reasoning against this new rule is that it is unnecessary due to lack of corruption, fast cycling, and the presence of a good democratic system. Mods here really don't abuse their powers. They are being watched over by the admin at all times anyway. No mod has yet so far abused their power yet. In other words no one has tried to ban members without provocations deleted posts with malicious intent or stuff of that sort. Therefore the argument that it stops corruptions does not really apply yet. If a mod really does do the above corruption, they can openly complained against. Since no one has openly complained (to my knowledge, I could be wrong ) It seems that more or less everyone is satisfied with the modding. The current system allows reelections every two months. That means there is plenty of opportunities for mods to be taken out of office. Now if the terms were for a year or so, this would make sense. But two months gives a person 6 times to oust an old mod. If the people want the mods to stay there is no reason to kick them out. I will now get off the soap box.
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Jan 19, 2004 20:45:43 GMT -5
oh shush jeff, your undermining the resistance!!!
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 19, 2004 21:01:30 GMT -5
Hypocrite. The original reason for elections was to get Terrance OUT of office, as I am sure you remember; and now you, in bringing him back, call yourself the "resistance"?? Bah!! Bringing in elections was "resistance"; this is just foolishness. But do as you will.
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Jan 19, 2004 21:08:13 GMT -5
what?! no.... maybe for you. My only intention was to get myself into office. I could care less about whether terrance was in office or not. You have a faulty memory.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 19, 2004 21:20:09 GMT -5
"Samish Ishtari: blues and cb should be demodded. Paveltc: what did they do this time? Samish Ishtari: everything.they've ever done. Samish Ishtari: they don't do their jobs. Samish Ishtari: you should revise the mod situation. Samish Ishtari: so as to be more effective"
Which, in turn, although partially, led to elections.
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Jan 19, 2004 21:38:00 GMT -5
ahaha. i remmeber that. what you didn't add was the motivation at the time. I wanted to be a mod. People said there were already to many mods so obviously i needed to campaign to take some out.
At any rate what happened to make the elections happen doesn't have anything to do with the current events. Obviously I have different priorities then i did back then or I would have been running in the mod elections last time.
Right now, I think it will do the forum more good to have a clause which rotates who is mod even more than what already occurs. It will probably attract more people. It's already been shown that people who are mods tend to visit the forum more, even if they didn't before. Wouldn't you say that's a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 19, 2004 21:54:41 GMT -5
That I would. But I am also a counter-terrancist, and first thing he'll do once this rule is passed is run for mod and (perhaps) win.
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Jan 19, 2004 21:59:14 GMT -5
Aha. So you're letting personal opinions have higher priority over the good of the forum?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 19, 2004 22:01:05 GMT -5
Opinions my @$$.
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Jan 20, 2004 1:11:03 GMT -5
sigh
here is me being a good little girl and apologizing for getting into arguements with you... i'm tired today and apparently have to short a temper. I still don't think your right but I am not being very nice either. So.... sorry.
(You don't know how damaging this feels to my pride *sob*)
well not really.... i think it's the right thing to do....
but this doesn't change anything.... I still am for the restriction on consecutive terms.
|
|
|
Post by Hans Lemurson on Jan 20, 2004 3:13:49 GMT -5
And I am against it. Freely passing out authority to attract visitors would be short-lived and accomplish nothing in the long run but degrade the quality of the forum as inexperienced mods are continually replaced with other people who know or care little about the forum. And then once someone's turn is up, will they have gained a deep devotion to the forum from their brief little stint as janitor? And what of those of us who appreciate the forum already, without having been handed a sceptre of power to buy our loyalty. And what of the position of moderator? Would it still be held in the same positiotn of esteem? Being given away as a bribe, instead of being held by those who can use it to it's best efficacy. Moderators are in a skilled and priveleged position, one that should be kept by those who use it well, and not given away to buy favor.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 20, 2004 18:40:09 GMT -5
sigh here is me being a good little girl and apologizing for getting into arguements with you... i'm tired today and apparently have to short a temper. I still don't think your right but I am not being very nice either. So.... sorry. (You don't know how damaging this feels to my pride *sob*) well not really.... i think it's the right thing to do.... but this doesn't change anything.... I still am for the restriction on consecutive terms. ... I really don't think I deserve your apology. You did nothing wrong, and I was not in the best of moods either... I am also sorry, but me for being overly offensive. I didn't mean to get too carried away... -_- ===================== Pavel, when does this poll end?
|
|
|
Post by Icktheus on Jan 20, 2004 19:19:15 GMT -5
I voted no. if people cant become mod on their own, without the help of this rule, then i don't see why they should be mod at all. if the mod is good, then they should stay.
|
|