|
|
Post by Zrined on Apr 4, 2011 11:49:58 GMT
Well, I saw that KK7 suggested this idea then Veers locked the thread due to it being off-topic. I think we should try to make the DBF more like a democracy/republic where the people are represented by people who are believed to be trusted by members themselves. Don't get me wrong, I have all the respect in the world for General Veers, Qwerty, and TSL. I just think we should at least try this form of "government". I will now leave this up for debate.
Don't talk about dragging personal things into things in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 4, 2011 13:41:32 GMT
Ah, you mean this thread? I would like to clarify that it wasn't the suggestion that was considered off-topic, but the foot-in-mouth discussion that appeared afterwards after Sparkpowder's discussion had been long since answered and explained. I do have one question, though, what exactly do you have in mind for the suggestion? The implementation seems to be vague... |
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 4, 2011 18:15:47 GMT
GV and Qwerty are still going to be voted admins anyway. They are pretty much the best for the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 4, 2011 18:54:46 GMT
I've gone over this with Izacque several times over. It would be impossible to implement in a way that didn't let a small number of trolls completely take over the forum with proxies and alts. Besides, we can't have the admin password just tossed around. We're already a practical democracy (albeit a technical oligarchy) anyway. If a member suggests something that is good it will likely be done, especially if it has support behind it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fireball9903 on Apr 4, 2011 20:00:25 GMT
Not to be out of topic here, but if this thread gets to having too much conflict, it would turn into a civil war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Apr 4, 2011 20:24:12 GMT
Well, here, I think the people should be represented by those that the people would think are best suited for their personal interests. Here's an example wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_PageEDIT: I'm not able to find the specific article in which they have bureaucrats who are elected by the people. For the record, if there were an election, I probably would vote for the current admins, however, I don't believe their rule should be indefinite until they decide to step down or are brought down in a similar way to TheListo. I propose we have an election every 1-2 years, In which each "admin" or whatever the new title might be, serves a term of 1-2 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 4, 2011 20:43:59 GMT
No need. We've been over this. One person could easily make a few alts and overthrow the forum. Besides, that wiki probably functions differently. Here, any one admin can "hijack" the administrator password, so we need to keep the admin password restricted to as few people as possible.
Besides, the people are represented by themselves in this case. We don't have enough people to worry about elected officials.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Apr 4, 2011 20:47:56 GMT
I'd say 413 people are a large enough pool to choose from and anyway, the ONLY thing I am suggesting is elections, and please don't say "this has been discussed before" I wasn't there, therefore the point is invalid to me. All I'm saying is we shouldn't have an oligarchy.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Apr 4, 2011 20:50:01 GMT
Of course, couldn't you, in anger, possible wreak havoc yourself, Temp?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Apr 4, 2011 20:51:57 GMT
NO PERSONAL ISSUES.
EDIT: Qwerty I would be grateful if you ignored KK7's post.
EDIT 2: Actually I didn't think much about KK7's post, it could happen, however Qwerty earned that position by showing respect, loyalty, and shows the ability to make good judgments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 4, 2011 21:05:38 GMT
Ha, like Kurai's one to talk. And he was trying to apologize? I was at a semi-acceptance before but now it's obvious he has no intention of changing.
413 people is just the number of people that have made accounts. It is NOT the number of active users, and it is definitely not the number of people that would bother to vote. One would only need 10 alts or so (easy to do with five trolls at your back) to completely conquer the forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by priok on Apr 4, 2011 23:07:40 GMT
i do not think it needs to be changed, the forum is going fine right now. trying to have some advanced idea for a government online is a really bad idea, because you really don't need one
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Apr 4, 2011 23:18:20 GMT
For the record: it is not "advanced" if you've ever heard of the United States Government, it's not new. All I'm suggesting is that we vote for admins, so everyone gets a chance to vote, participate, and possibly be one (I'm not saying this to my own benefit 'cause I already know that there's no way in hell I'd be elected).
|
|
|
|
Post by priok on Apr 4, 2011 23:34:51 GMT
it is really better to do what's best, the votes can all just be sockbubbetted in, like those other people above me said. not everything that the majority choses is necessarily the best for whatever is being run. i don't really see why we'd need to change anything, it is fine, and changing it to something more advanced is just a waste of time. i mean, come on, it is a forum, it's not very important anywhomb
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Apr 5, 2011 0:00:26 GMT
Priok, what you don't understand is that maybe at some point in the future, the way we have it might not be the best way. And anyway, we could have a system where it's only one vote per IP address.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Apr 5, 2011 0:03:07 GMT
Priok, what you don't understand is that maybe at some point in the future, the way we have it might not be the best way. And anyway, we could have a system where it's only one vote per IP address. Two problems with that. 1. Dynamic IPs. 2. Multiple people using the same computer. |
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 5, 2011 0:11:48 GMT
Also proxies. Not to mention the current fuss in the US shows how much a system like this fails. People worry more about being reelected than they do about the good of the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rock on Apr 5, 2011 0:14:41 GMT
Well, I'm going to have to agree with everyone who disagrees with this idea. Qwerty, Veers, and TSL have done an amazing job rebuilding the forum, what could only be called rising from the ashes of a disaster. We're perfectly fine the way we are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Apr 5, 2011 0:46:55 GMT
Alright, I abjure, you win, no representatives, no democracy, no republic, no voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 5, 2011 2:58:49 GMT
Granted, the Triumvirate is on a trust system, but I'm doing my best to uphold that trust. I presume the other staff members are doing so, too...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rock on Apr 12, 2011 2:23:08 GMT
Yes, there is no reason not to trust us. We listen to your ideas, and if they work, we add/do them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rabidbadger on Apr 13, 2011 14:19:29 GMT
In my opinion, the admins have proven themselves the best candidates for forum leadership anyway. To implement this idea would be, at best, obsolete, as it would change nothing but to give people the ability to say how great the current admins are every 1-2 years.
Oh well. At least it isn't as bad an idea as alternative vote. XD
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 13, 2011 16:25:40 GMT
My one problem is that, eventually, I will have to find work, and when I'm working, I likely won't be able to visit the forum for a while at a time. Unlike college, where I can get on the forum between classes, I'll likely have to focus on the task at hand during work.
Well, I guess that's where the rest of the Administrators and Global Moderators come in, as well as the password sharing amongst the Administrators...
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxorion on May 20, 2011 19:52:34 GMT
On that day, the triumvirate shall darken with a shade on a third of itself.
|
|
[M:977802]
