Jump to content

CONTINUED: Democracy on YCM!

Darth Duelist

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Windowlicker Newbie

Windowlicker

Posted
Posted

I have seen the apocalypse:

 

The site will have sudden outbursts of noobs. All of the decent members would leave, then all the mods would literally die of bordom and also leave. Then YCMaker and FP would give up all hope and also leave. The noobs would be then left to their own devices, then spam so much they break the max post limit and deactive the server. As cruel as it is, that would be a fine day in the history of YCM. :3

 

Sorry, everyone else was having mindless rants. I just thought I should brighten the mood.

 

Ever-so-slightly more on topic (not that it really had one) : Don't lock this thread, I'm enjoying it too much. D:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Great Unclean One: VK Newbie

Great Unclean One: VK

Posted
Posted

Well the why I see it is ones the People become MODs they start abusing there power and obsessing over the site and YCMaker and the other admins dont have the time to look through eve characters posts and stuff and they choose people who te think are worthy to be MODs but 50% of the time the people they choos arent worthy and not al the admins interact with YCM so I think it would be best for thepeople who have interacted alot with the other peopl to dicide if thr person is wort to be a MOD. Thats just how I see it othes might think differant.

 

Not to mention, now there are 4 factions. I myself, a non-Elitest, is thinking of turning neutral. Sure, I think some Elitest are pricks and argue over trivial matters such as post length and such, but is it worth yelling at a Elitest and creating a all out war, thus disrupting our peaceful way of RPing and such? No. Now, if the mods at LEAST let us vote on new rules the will greatly affect us, (the advanced clause for example), and do the same thing as we did for it (vote, the side with who's for it wins, those who are not vetoes the rule, and if it's close, find a way to make everyone happy.) The Advanced Clause being the most recent, and best example.

 

1) "Elitest": People who are believed to want YCM to be a better place by creating new rules that "encourages" better posts, not caring about what the rest has to say. Many high levels are accused of being Elitests but none are or ever said they are.

 

2) "Non-Elitest": People who stand against "Elitest", saying that the "Elitest" are trying to run YCM in their own fashion and accuse the Elitest of being inleague with the many mods of this site, thus giving them unlimited power. So far no evidence support this.

 

3) Neutral: Many users are this. They don't give a damn about who wins (which is impossible). Their just here to enjoy the site and nothing else, not create rules, and not to argue anything that will continue endlessly in a cycle of warnings, bans, and hatred.

 

4) Trolls/Spammers/Etc. : Horrid users who pollute the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OMGAKITTY Newbie

OMGAKITTY

Posted
Posted

Well the why I see it is ones the People become MODs they start abusing there power and obsessing over the site and YCMaker and the other admins dont have the time to look through eve characters posts and stuff and they choose people who te think are worthy to be MODs but 50% of the time the people they choos arent worthy and not al the admins interact with YCM so I think it would be best for thepeople who have interacted alot with the other peopl to dicide if thr person is wort to be a MOD. Thats just how I see it othes might think differant.

 

Not to mention' date=' now there are 4 factions. I myself, a non-Elitest, is thinking of turning neutral. Sure, I think some Elitest are pricks and argue over trivial matters such as post length and such, but is it worth yelling at a Elitest and creating a all out war, thus disrupting our peaceful way of RPing and such? No. Now, if the mods at LEAST let us vote on new rules the will greatly affect us, (the advanced clause for example), and do the same thing as we did for it (vote, the side with who's for it wins, those who are not vetoes the rule, and if it's close, find a way to make everyone happy.) The Advanced Clause being the most recent, and best example.

 

1) "Elitest": People who are believed to want YCM to be a better place by creating new rules that "encourages" better posts, not caring about what the rest has to say. Many high levels are accused of being Elitests but none are or ever said they are.

 

2) "Non-Elitest": People who stand against "Elitest", [b']mostly noobs who can't RP or use proper grammar to save their life.[/b]

 

3) Neutral: Many users are this. They don't give a damn about who wins (which is impossible). Their just here to enjoy the site and nothing else, not create rules, and not to argue anything that will continue endlessly in a cycle of warnings, bans, and hatred.

 

4) Trolls/Spammers/Etc. : Among the most active members on this site, outside of CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Archelaus Newbie

Archelaus

Posted
Posted

Mods control bad users/idiotic outbreaks before they could even happen, let's just respect their job. Rules were made to be followed. That's why they're called Rules.

 

The reason why this Thread hasn't been locked yet is that they know nothing good will come out of this Thread even if they lock it. 0.o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Archelaus Newbie

Archelaus

Posted
Posted

No' date=' they just know some idiot would make another one, sooner or later.

 

This should be moved to Debates.

 

Anyways, Leftism is always better.

[/quote']

 

That's why the Mods won't lock it, because nothing good will come out in locking it. Here's the scenario:

 

~Mods lock this thread -> idiot makes another -> New thread gets locked -> another idiot creates another -> etc...~

 

It's a never ending chain.

0_o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Great Unclean One: VK Newbie

Great Unclean One: VK

Posted
Posted

No' date=' they just know some idiot would make another one, sooner or later.

 

This should be moved to Debates.

 

Anyways, Leftism is always better.

[/quote']

 

That's why the Mods won't lock it, because nothing good will come out in locking it. Here's the scenario:

 

~Mods lock this thread -> idiot makes another -> New thread gets locked -> another idiot creates another -> etc...~

 

It's a never ending chain.

0_o

 

Agreed. It's better to have 1 democracy on YCM thread then have millions. But it should be moved to debate. Other then that, we need to find a mod who's willing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Katoki Newbie

Katoki

Posted
Posted

I actual agree It is better as it is there is a few things id change like some of the rules and I think that the admins should look at a thread before it is locked when in comments and suggestians but you know Im just a damn noob no one cares what I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGOMartini Newbie

YGOMartini

Posted
Posted

Well I agree and disagree with having a Democracy in this site.

 

Starting off with agreeing, one thing us could do is vote for moderators, instead of the Site Admin choosing himself. If someone gets in trouble, there should be a thread where they can discuss what's going on, then people that are chosen to see if he/she should go or not, like a jury. Also, "We the People." The people are able to destroy, change, and/or make a new type of power when the one they have goes corrupt. Limited Gov't, which is the government is NOT all powerful. Consent of the Governed, which the people give permission to do what the government is doing. Also, the 3 branches of government, there should be three branches full of people which control what each one does. All of this relates to Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances. I like how you were thinking, but I also disagree because of some bad reasons.

 

I also disagree because if we choose some people to make the decisions, some of them might think they can do whatever they want, and we don't want that, which is why the Admins and Mods do this, since the Site Admin I guess trusts them. Also, if too many people are put in a position of authority, one part of the "branch" or "group" might want to take over, and we don't want them controlling what happens to the site, and all the people in it.

 

It's a hard decision, since there are good and bad things about this idea. If we were to vote about this, we would need the leaders of this site to let us, and all of us would just get a big, fat NO, unless we create a petition. Also, if the leaders were to vote on this, we'd have more declines, than accepts, then some people would start spamming/flamming about it if they didn't like what the leaders did. Then people who agreed on what the leaders chose would fight against the rebellion. It would then start a whole ridiculous fight of what the members want.

 

Well, good luck trying to get this "Democracy" to pass, but I doubt if it'll work. You have a lot of high hopes for this to work though, thumbs up for believing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...