The Thirteenth Vote

[manker]

Yes mods are supposed to give closure to a situation but that rule can't surpress member's points of view, nor can it stop members posting about them. I am trying to suggest a course of action that will appease everyone.

I don't see why a comparison to a referendum is absurd. In importance yes, but in practicality, no. Mods run a forum for the members, not for personal gratification, so why not listen to their opinions on matters which particularly grieve them? If only for the harmony of the board.

[pol]

Originally posted by manker@13 July 2004 - 10:41
Yes mods are supposed to give closure to a situation but that rule can't surpress member's points of view, nor can it stop members posting about them. I am trying to suggest a course of action that will appease everyone.

I don't see why a comparison to a referendum is absurd. In importance yes, but in practicality, no. Mods run a forum for the members, not for personal gratification, so why not listen to their opinions on matters which particularly grieve them? If only for the harmony of the board.

yup we get a great deal of "personal gratification" with things like this you know. the thing is when you signed up for the board, the same as me and anyone else, you agreed to stick to the rules of it

[pol]

Originally posted by Withcheese+13 July 2004 - 10:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Withcheese @ 13 July 2004 - 10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by pol@13 July 2004 - 10:26

Originally posted by manker@13 July 2004 - 10:22

Originally posted by pol@13 July 2004 - 10:17
<!--QuoteBegin-manker

@13 July 2004 - 09:03
I was reacting to this post. I see what you mean though.

I still think a public vote with the options described is a good compromise tho&#39;

if you&#39;d read that thread then i dont see a need for this one. everything was explained on page 2 of it

i was confused myself at first about a 13th vote after looking at the team list link and seeing 12 names, but as Rip said and was already explained in that thread, there were another two mod team members when the poll was started

it wasn&#39;t a decision taken lightly, as you can tell the poll itself lasted a few days and only came about because of other threads

as for a member vote, are you suggesting that every decision made by mods/admin have to be approved by the members first. wonder how that would work

Yeah I realise that now. As I posted earlier in my reply to RTJ.

I&#39;m not suggesting each and every decision is taken with the aid of a member vote - that would be impractical - but in instances such as this where there is great discord among members and moderators alike, then yes, I think it would be helpful and a it would give some closure on the matter.

Kinda like how a referendum isn&#39;t taken with every decision the UK Government makes, just on matters which split parliament and the general public.

the problem is the mods/admins decision are supposed to give closure on the matter. members who would be voting wouldn&#39;t know all the facts, warn levels and previous warnings/moderations etc

comparisons with referendums and the like just seem absurd to me. it&#39;s an internet forum, and we have to stick to the rules of running it to keep it fair for everyone, as i said before despite how popular someone is

Problem is your decision making process is flawed.

Your voting system is just strange, forum stars are allowed to vote? Doesn&#39;t that give Error two votes?

Some members in the past have been just banned outright with no team consultation, what the hell is that about? Cely and Peerzy have suffered because of this...glad to see them back now though.

And how much effort would it be to say, "Look we&#39;re having a vote on this matter we&#39;ll get back to you all."? [/b][/quote]
i missed your post. how is the voting flawed, it&#39;s already been explained in this thread and the other one it links to

[Cheese]

Originally posted by pol+13 July 2004 - 10:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pol &#064; 13 July 2004 - 10:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Withcheese@13 July 2004 - 10:36

Originally posted by pol@13 July 2004 - 10:26

Originally posted by manker@13 July 2004 - 10:22

Originally posted by pol@13 July 2004 - 10:17
<!--QuoteBegin-manker

@13 July 2004 - 09:03
I was reacting to this post. I see what you mean though.

I still think a public vote with the options described is a good compromise tho&#39;

if you&#39;d read that thread then i dont see a need for this one. everything was explained on page 2 of it

i was confused myself at first about a 13th vote after looking at the team list link and seeing 12 names, but as Rip said and was already explained in that thread, there were another two mod team members when the poll was started

it wasn&#39;t a decision taken lightly, as you can tell the poll itself lasted a few days and only came about because of other threads

as for a member vote, are you suggesting that every decision made by mods/admin have to be approved by the members first. wonder how that would work

Yeah I realise that now. As I posted earlier in my reply to RTJ.

I&#39;m not suggesting each and every decision is taken with the aid of a member vote - that would be impractical - but in instances such as this where there is great discord among members and moderators alike, then yes, I think it would be helpful and a it would give some closure on the matter.

Kinda like how a referendum isn&#39;t taken with every decision the UK Government makes, just on matters which split parliament and the general public.

the problem is the mods/admins decision are supposed to give closure on the matter. members who would be voting wouldn&#39;t know all the facts, warn levels and previous warnings/moderations etc

comparisons with referendums and the like just seem absurd to me. it&#39;s an internet forum, and we have to stick to the rules of running it to keep it fair for everyone, as i said before despite how popular someone is

Problem is your decision making process is flawed.

Your voting system is just strange, forum stars are allowed to vote? Doesn&#39;t that give Error two votes?

Some members in the past have been just banned outright with no team consultation, what the hell is that about? Cely and Peerzy have suffered because of this...glad to see them back now though.

And how much effort would it be to say, "Look we&#39;re having a vote on this matter we&#39;ll get back to you all."?

i missed your post. how is the voting flawed, it&#39;s already been explained in this thread and the other one it links to [/b][/quote]
Instead of using the poll button you should just post whether you are in agreement or not to any idea. Particularly when the decision is close, especially when the decision is close. That way you can make sure the right people are voting.

Surely if forum stars have access to Team Chat that means they can vote in the polls as well? That just seems wrong to me.



Edit By RF: Removed one sentence that, in effect, removed someones privacy...and legal reasons concerning it.

[manker]

Originally posted by pol+13 July 2004 - 10:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pol @ 13 July 2004 - 10:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-manker@13 July 2004 - 10:41
Yes mods are supposed to give closure to a situation but that rule can&#39;t surpress member&#39;s points of view, nor can it stop members posting about them. I am trying to suggest a course of action that will appease everyone.

I don&#39;t see why a comparison to a referendum is absurd. In importance yes, but in practicality, no. Mods run a forum for the members, not for personal gratification, so why not listen to their opinions on matters which particularly grieve them? If only for the harmony of the board.

yup we get a great deal of "personal gratification" with things like this you know. the thing is when you signed up for the board, the same as me and anyone else, you agreed to stick to the rules of it [/b][/quote]
I took the time to point out that, in fact, mods did not run this board for personal gratification rather than the converse as you seem to be implying.

Indeed, I did agree while signing up to stick to the rules. However, I am pretty sure that by posting what I have so far in this thread I am not going against any board rules.

I just don&#39;t see the harm in taking the member&#39;s wishes into account at times when the situation may be eased by it.

[{I}{K}{E}]

Originally posted by manker@13 July 2004 - 09:34
I propose that instead of the Thirteenth Vote a poll is put up on this section of the board where all members can vote either for indefinite moderation or an outright ban. The indefinite moderation can, of course, be managed by the current team at their discretion. I consider that in itself to be a compromise After all an Admin did state that there were as many members who didn&#39;t like Sam as there are members who do like him.

But will people vote because they like him or not? thats whats going to happen I think.. Its not a matter of who likes him or not. its because what he did recently and what he did in the past. You cannot read his warnings or how high his warning level is. So I think its not fair to make a public vote for the ban, also because other members did not get a public vote if they should be banned or not.

[pol]

Originally posted by manker+13 July 2004 - 10:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (manker @ 13 July 2004 - 10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by pol@13 July 2004 - 10:45
<!--QuoteBegin-manker

@13 July 2004 - 10:41
Yes mods are supposed to give closure to a situation but that rule can&#39;t surpress member&#39;s points of view, nor can it stop members posting about them. I am trying to suggest a course of action that will appease everyone.

I don&#39;t see why a comparison to a referendum is absurd. In importance yes, but in practicality, no. Mods run a forum for the members, not for personal gratification, so why not listen to their opinions on matters which particularly grieve them? If only for the harmony of the board.

yup we get a great deal of "personal gratification" with things like this you know. the thing is when you signed up for the board, the same as me and anyone else, you agreed to stick to the rules of it

I took the time to point out that, in fact, mods did not run this board for personal gratification rather than the converse as you seem to be implying.

Indeed, I did agree while signing up to stick to the rules. However, I am pretty sure that by posting what I have so far in this thread I am not going against any board rules.

I just don&#39;t see the harm in taking the member&#39;s wishes into account at times when the situation may be eased by it. [/b][/quote]
i wasn&#39;t talking about you, or this thread

[Cheese]

Originally posted by {I}{K}{E}+13 July 2004 - 10:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ({I}{K}{E} @ 13 July 2004 - 10:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-manker@13 July 2004 - 09:34
I propose that instead of the Thirteenth Vote a poll is put up on this section of the board where all members can vote either for indefinite moderation or an outright ban. The indefinite moderation can, of course, be managed by the current team at their discretion. I consider that in itself to be a compromise After all an Admin did state that there were as many members who didn&#39;t like Sam as there are members who do like him.

But will people vote because they like him or not? thats whats going to happen I think.. Its not a matter of who likes him or not. its because what he did recently and what he did in the past. You cannot read his warnings or how high his warning level is. So I think its not fair to make a public vote for the ban, also because other members did not get a public vote if they should be banned or not. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t agree with a public vote either, polls on forums never really work. But taking the time to ask people&#39;s opinions in a thread before making a decision is a good idea.

[pol]

Originally posted by Withcheese
Instead of using the poll button you should just post whether you are in agreement or not to any idea. Particularly when the decision is close, especially when the decision is close. That way you can make sure the right people are voting.

Surely if forum stars have access to Team Chat that means they can vote in the polls as well? That just seems wrong to me. Especially since that means Error has two votes on any matter...(not saying he would use it but as it stands he has that option...).

i can only speak for myself, and i did post in the thread, 4 times i think. as i said it wasn&#39;t taken lightly, by anyone, and went on for a few days. as i said earlier it only came about because of other threads that were going on

[manker]

Originally posted by pol+13 July 2004 - 10:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pol @ 13 July 2004 - 10:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by manker@13 July 2004 - 10:57

Originally posted by pol@13 July 2004 - 10:45
<!--QuoteBegin-manker

@13 July 2004 - 10:41
Yes mods are supposed to give closure to a situation but that rule can&#39;t surpress member&#39;s points of view, nor can it stop members posting about them. I am trying to suggest a course of action that will appease everyone.

I don&#39;t see why a comparison to a referendum is absurd. In importance yes, but in practicality, no. Mods run a forum for the members, not for personal gratification, so why not listen to their opinions on matters which particularly grieve them? If only for the harmony of the board.

yup we get a great deal of "personal gratification" with things like this you know. the thing is when you signed up for the board, the same as me and anyone else, you agreed to stick to the rules of it

I took the time to point out that, in fact, mods did not run this board for personal gratification rather than the converse as you seem to be implying.

Indeed, I did agree while signing up to stick to the rules. However, I am pretty sure that by posting what I have so far in this thread I am not going against any board rules.

I just don&#39;t see the harm in taking the member&#39;s wishes into account at times when the situation may be eased by it.

i wasn&#39;t talking about you, or this thread [/b][/quote]
But you replied to me and quoted me. But I don&#39;t care about that.

(@ IKE too) You seem to think that because you are fully briefed on the circumstance that you (the mod team) posess the only opinion that counts and that all other opinions on the matter should be disregarded.

I don&#39;t want to post another political analogy but it doesn&#39;t require an expansive knowledge to understand what ideology that pertains to.

Let the members have a say, no matter how small. One vote out of thirteen isn&#39;t too much to ask for, surely?