|
Post by Arachis on Jan 22, 2004 0:18:19 GMT -5
Sorry, I know I'm not supposed to vote but I thought I might put in my opinion anyway. I think Alexei should stay because I think there's no reason to take out a good ruler unless they do something bad. As far as I know, Alexei is a good ruler, and I doubt Terrance's credibility judging from what I know of him and what I've heard recently (sorry Terrance).
|
|
|
Post by Paveltc on Jan 22, 2004 0:51:37 GMT -5
If what you say is true than why are presidents of the United States limited to two terms in office. If a president is good shouldn't he or she be allowed to stay for as long as the people want them?
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jan 22, 2004 0:53:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure, but isn't the two term thing a tradition started by Washington? The original constitution did not have term limits. FDR ran 4 times. I suppose if a president is popular enough they should be allowed to stay in short of corruption and abuse of powers.
|
|
|
Post by Paveltc on Jan 22, 2004 0:55:46 GMT -5
Since the tradition is still kept, there's probably a reason for it.
I also don't understand why everyone is so against this idea. There haven't been any bad mods elected yet, and I don't think that there are enough members here that would make bad candidates. If you don't like the choices for moderators, than you can just not vote.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jan 22, 2004 1:00:49 GMT -5
But no one is required to follow it. People follow many things for the sake of tradition. If a president or mod does not abuse their powers, and the people still wish to elect them in, there is no reason to kick them out.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jan 22, 2004 1:05:09 GMT -5
Since the tradition is still kept, there's probably a reason for it. There haven't been any bad mods elected yet Dude, you forgot Alexei. Considering that the biggest motivator for this movement has been the prospect of not re-electing him, and that there are at present eleven votes in favor of this movement, I think it's safe to say that a least a few people disapprove of his moderation. THIS JUST IN: I have found an example of Alexei's poor moderation in this very thread!I am offended by that. Modify your post. Alexei demanded that young Squall modify his post on the basis that said post "offended" him. Not because the post was, by nature, offensive, but because Alexei himself was offended by it. Was he offended because of the post's offensive nature, or because of Alexei's own personal bias? Indeed, we may never know, for Alexei didst not allow Squall to explain himself, nor to elaborate upon his political statement. I ask you - is this free speech? Is this moderation? No, bit ches! This is the dictatorial hug of the common man! HOLY CRAP DUDES I FOUND ANOTHER paveltc.proboards12.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1072120702&start=75Alexei started a "flame war" by deleting some playful happy post by Geneva, and subsequently being silly and stubborn about it! When he finally realized the flaws of his logic, he gave some cop-out about higher power. Was he referring to Pavel? Not likely, Pavel could have died six months ago without there being any significant change in the forums. The other moderators? Doubtful; they're supposed to be equal or something like that. Clearly Alexei believes himself to be some sort of 'divine moderator,' counselled by deities. Is this really the sort of man we want to moderate this fine forum?
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jan 22, 2004 2:04:53 GMT -5
Sorry, I know I'm not supposed to vote but I thought I might put in my opinion anyway. I think Alexei should stay because I think there's no reason to take out a good ruler unless they do something bad. As far as I know, Alexei is a good ruler, and I doubt Terrance's credibility judging from what I know of him and what I've heard recently (sorry Terrance). Citing several historical examples -Hitler was elected by the people, yet he was a tyrant -Napoleon was also very popular, but caused a big mess all over Europe This is why, as Pavel said, we have maximum terms of office for our presidents.
|
|
|
Post by Hans Lemurson on Jan 22, 2004 3:11:42 GMT -5
As for Henry's arguments, the first part is an oppinion and I cannot debate it.
The second part, the quote where Alexei was offended by Squall's quote, was entirely justified. The offensive statement constituted libel which is not protected under any free-speach statutes, and the restriction of such actions is part of a moderators job. It constituted libel, because it unreasonably applied a degrading label to those who were in fact expressing their right to free speach, that is by voting. To say that holding and voicing an oppinion is wrong, is itself an infringement on free speech rights (and thus cannot be protected by rights it violates), but it puts an insult to it thus rendering it libel (not slander however, because its statements are not specificly malicious in nature). Just as Moderators are expected to control swearing and foul language to keep the board clean, it is also their duty to prevent abbrigements of the right to free speach. Alexei did not violate free speech with his action, but to the contrary, he upheld his duty to protect it.
And for the third claim, it is the only one of any substace. Alexei may have in fact overstepped his authority in deleting Geneva's post, however he ignores the fact that Geneva and Alexei, as it says later in the same thread, eventually reached an understanding about it. This have however been ongoing complaints about Alexei overstepping his authority in what he believed to be necessary forum maintainance, but most of this had to deal with alleged spamming and double-posting. I must agree that Alexei can get carried away with his percieved responsibilities, but that would only be a reason not to elect him, not to prevent him from running entirely. Also, Alexei has been one of the few mods who actually carefully reads through and edits the majority of the posts on the forum, in short, doing his job, overzealousness on this issue has been his only crime. Most of the peole voting for the term limits have, I've noticed, also been the ones recieving the most of Alexei's attention.
Now for Nick's comments: Hitler was not elected. He was appointed leader as the head of a coalition party, as a last ditch effort to get a stable government together, as the last few administrations had been unpopular and short-lived. He was the only guy left. Nappolean wasn't elected either, and Alexei is hardly a tyrant, he is only trying to do his job.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 22, 2004 17:53:34 GMT -5
Thanks for the support, Lemurius.
And to anybody who is still in doubt - I don't wish to veto this proposition because I wish to be reelected. As a matter of fact, I would be more than happy if my replacement did their job well and succeeded in keeping the peace on the forum. But why do you need to cycle the old moderators out in order to get new ones? Sure, an increased variety in the government might be for the better and might seem more democratic, but isn't the forum run as democratically as possible already? So far in almost every single election, there has been at least one new moderator! I was always elected in, but that is because I got votes and only because of that. If this law is passed, there might be 3 new faces every time, but so what? Considering the amount of members registered and active, every 2 times the canidates would repeat again! And then what have we accomplished? Nothing more than a double-cycle, which in the end is twice equivalent to what we have now, except much more static (that is, the bad moderators will be elected at least every 2 times, whether everyone likes it or not).
If you want new faces in the government, it is up to you, the members - run for moderator, vote for new canidates, and don't vote the old mods in again!
|
|
|
Post by KillinKrillan on Jan 22, 2004 19:02:15 GMT -5
I voted no.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jan 22, 2004 19:46:10 GMT -5
Sorry, I know I'm not supposed to vote but I thought I might put in my opinion anyway. I think Alexei should stay because I think there's no reason to take out a good ruler unless they do something bad. As far as I know, Alexei is a good ruler, and I doubt Terrance's credibility judging from what I know of him and what I've heard recently (sorry Terrance). ...except that Alexei is one of three equal moderators, all of which reside beneath the Admin (that's Pavel), who would be the closest thing to a "ruler." Way to not know what you're talking about, man.
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Jan 22, 2004 20:29:00 GMT -5
To Henry: Think before you post and consider buying yourself a muzzle. To everyone else: Here is a collection of major arguments for and against this new rule: For: To overthrow the authority. eit's more interesting to throw out stale mods and get fresh faces occasionally... (Thank you for the first intellectual remark) If the MODs suck, so what? the mod eleactions are corrupt, I'm almost sure of it. If certain people can get in consecutivly, even though they have prejiduces and biases against others, and this behaviour goes unchecked, I think a change in the system would be ideal. (I'm sorry, but the second part of that isn't even coherent...) a separation of powers is necessary in order to prevent tyranny. I'm not saying that it's probable that the mods abuse their powers, but such is possible. if the same, respected mods serve over and over, people will exclude new mods and we will never experience what they are capable of. The second part of this is actually the 2nd good point I see. there is always the assumption that the people do not know what is best. Suddenly, I'm beginning to doubt the credibility of this whole vote. new mods would be a nice change will probably attract more people. Let's see, making rash assumtions, -1, pointing fingers, -1, making accusatioins withpout any evefdence to back it up, -3, I don' think mods who are qick to temper such as this fine example here should have a cemeted spot in the Modship. I'm not saying he got in unfairly, or anytning; he was voted in by us, fairly. This was never about me getting to be a mod again, EVER. (Reading this, Melissa? ) This is about gettting fairness for all. What about all the others whom are discouraged to run for modship becasuee opthers have complete and utter tryany and dictatorship over these very limited slots. This is about letting, and giving others that chance to shine, as anyone should have. If this movment is passed, it will give others a chance to prove themselves, out of fainress. If Alexei suppots fainress, as he has said he does, then he should have no probelm stepping down every once-and-a-while, to let others shine. Aside from this making absolutely no sense, need I say GRAMMAR & SPELLING? I counted 17 spelling errors here, and 5 sentences in dire need of grammar check. Moreover, "fairness" is not a word. presidents of the United States limited to two terms in office. That's a reasonable argument, but Jeff J. explained it already. the biggest motivator for this movement has been the prospect of not re-electing him... Clearly Alexei believes himself to be some sort of 'divine moderator,' counselled by deities. Against: 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.... 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. In a position such as moderator; skill, experience, and reliability are the chief aims. If someone has been proven to do a good job, then do we oust them in favor of an unknown to whom we give great power, but whose responsibility remains untested? I vote no because I see this proposal as unnecessary. No one can really abuse mod powers and the terms are only two months long leading to quick cycling of mods anyway. And also we have plenty of candidiates most of the time and the members are always free to choose how they please. Since some people like Alexei are chosen always, it must mean that he must be doing a good job. After all, there were several chances to boot him in the past and those times, no one did. Voting YES means limiting this forum's liberalism by restricting open elections to ensure specific individuals' rise to power. Once removed, if things go ill, it can be hard to reinstate the original like nothing had happened. I think Alexei is fair, and has done a good job, whereas Terrance strays towards capriciousness and has a history of spamming that would make him suspect for whether he would really use the mod powers properly. Alexei is elected democratically? With this new restriction, we will be limiting our own democracy. This regulation is essentially bypassing the vote, and making it pointless. It's an artificial way of getting people into the mod-office. A fair election as opposed to Alexei being forbidden to run. 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. 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. 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. Even though this one is a phony, it's still a good point. there's no reason to take out a good ruler unless they do something bad. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The rest is up to your own analytical skills, to see whose arguments are more substantial.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jan 22, 2004 20:33:28 GMT -5
So, you've shown that you can take quotes out of context and follow them up with "I agree" or "I disagree [insert insult here]."
We are unworthy! I am blinded by your intellectual prowess!
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Jan 22, 2004 20:35:11 GMT -5
you've shown that you can take quotes out of context." I see you repeat yourself as well as make nonsensical insults. You said the same thing before on the fabled Foreign Policy thread, too. Show me what I left out that was of importance. Proceed. You couldn't have even read this that fast. I just posted it and you posted 30 sec's later. WORK ON YOUR COUNTERARGUMENTS, LITTLE WORM!!
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jan 22, 2004 20:39:01 GMT -5
If you want new faces in the government, it is up to you, the members - run for moderator, vote for new canidates, and don't vote the old mods in again! This is the basis of my argument. If it is better for the forum and its members to have new mods, why don't we simply vote in that direction? It is not like we are from Florida or anything (and that is in reference to the 2000 presidential election for those that don't get it
|
|