|
Post by Arachis on Jun 2, 2005 0:57:10 GMT -5
Most people think Im a bloody anarchist, and that I support no rule. Well the truth is, I am, and I do. This forum is being overpatrolled and peoples libertys are being quashed. If I were to become mod, I would attempt to turn the forum into exactly that, a forum where people can voice there opinions without fear of censorship or oppression. Peoples bad conduct will only result in their peers abandoning them and become disliked losers. I dont think moderators are needed to hide and delete their idiocy to protect them from revealing their stupidity.
I would then proceed to abuse my moderator powers, because in anarchy, the strongest rule. And moderator powers would give me the strength to abuse other people.
Obviously Im a good candidate.
Vote for me.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 2, 2005 1:44:55 GMT -5
I would then proceed to abuse my moderator powers, because in anarchy, the strongest rule. And moderator powers would give me the strength to abuse other people. You had a point till there, though there are a few flaws with your original argument anyway. Just because people don't like someone won't make them stop posting. They'll just spam for the negative attention.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 2, 2005 9:46:00 GMT -5
hey at least Im honest. Thats more than other moderators can say. They claim that they will actually do something, whereas the most they might do is change the news fader, or censor 2 posts in their entire term.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 2, 2005 11:58:23 GMT -5
That's because that is all that needs to be done. Didn't you just say you wanted a place without censorship and stuff? What else can a mod do if there is no reason to do stuff?
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 2, 2005 17:01:47 GMT -5
Im simply voicing the truth. I blame other mods for not doing anything because they pretend that modship requires a list of prerequisites and skills, and requires duty, and responsability. They pretend that being a mod means they help to construct and rule the forum. If they could find something constructive to do then thats fine, but as is, the forum doesnt really need a republican system. As shown in the purging of pointless boards, a simple democracy works fine. Very rarely is any "greater power" needed. As a result, I wanted to show the truth, and my campaign revolves around honesty. I aim to show others how needless moderators are, and so if elected moderator, I will do nothing, and will be as sparing in my moderator actions as I am long and overburdening in word. I wont censor, or restrict views. If something wants to be done, then the forum will need to vote on it before I act upon it.
Yet, all this doesnt mean that a moderator should never be on the forum, and never do anything. Instead, a good moderator will be always active and bring up points to be voted upon by other members. Bringing up problems that could be changed, like mentioning (as alex did) the excessive boards, or bringing up the fact that pavel needed to allow normal members to access the calender. A moderator ought to be a catlyst for change, always bringing up ways for the forum to be improved, but not acting on it immediately, instead bringing his idea to the forum members and gauging there reactions.
|
|