Official YCMock Debate #1 | Opening Cases

[cr47t]

Allow me to respond to Parenthesis, please.
 

cr47t makes mention of a certain quote from Ross Perot. It is a good quote, certainly, but not terribly applicable in this situation. Ross Perot was incredibly adept at what he did, proving incredible efficacy in sales as well as business management. When he makes such a statement, it shows that he is setting a high standard. In this situation, it is used as a defense for lack of a plan. You may be able to listen to everyone, and make use of their input, but if that is all you have, without bringing anything more to the table, why would one choose you, cr47t, over another candidate with more defined knowledge and experience?

My point with the reference to Perot was to point out that some jobs are too big to do by yourself -- in this case, the hypothetical post of President of YCM -- and that you need to work with others. I am accepting of this fact and am willing to work with others to get things done, but I don't think other candidates are the same. (Mainly looking at you, Enguin -- get off your high horse, please.) As for what else I have to offer, I am willing to discuss my views I have to offer on other problems relating to YCM, but those has yet to be discussed, for Dad, as the moderator of the debate, is the one to manage the topics in these debates and has yet to bring them up. However, I am looking forward to addressing the issues of YCM that matter to YCMers.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

I am accepting of this fact and am willing to work with others to get things done, but I don't think other candidates are the same. (Mainly looking at you, Enguin -- get off your high horse, please.)

 

It's not my fault you can't afford a thoroughbred and I'd ask that you refrain from jealousy-fueled attacks on mine.

 

As for the idea of YCM being toxic, I'd ask for examples of what exactly you mean with members leaving due to such. In terms of members leaving recently for any reason off the top of my head there's Raeg, who left because of shitty moderating, Armz who clearly has his own issues not related to here and was driven out by himself, and Snatch Steal who has nothing to do with this at all but is the only other person I can think of to have left recently (and even then he's still on the Discord).

 

I don't see any members being attacked or shunned, so I'm either blind or it's away from public view or does not happen at all (though I can imagine posts of mine being construed this way, I'll never really know because nobody will actually say it to me, preferring to make reports that more often than not go nowhere (and in the case that they do you can never be quite sure how it'll be handled, e.g. Raeg (I just want to have another layer of parentheses there is nothing relevant in this one)) rather than address things as they observe them). If "well yes" is considered either of these things (and going by the response of some to it both during and after I'd imagine that it is, at least by those people and possibly more), then I'd argue that that in itself proves YCM is not "overly hostile". If the worst thing that can happen to a member is they become a spicy meme (and remain on the site, it is worth noting) I can't understand how anyone could be arguing that position.

 

I suppose our old pal EndUser gets a somewhat disproportionate amount of "abuse" (because smh tbqh if lazily repeating the same joke and saying :enduser: is actually considered abuse this is the weakest forum in the world), largely on the Discord, but 99% of that is from either me or Azuriena, who have both spoken to him on a more or less daily basis for 10+ months, and unless you have done the same you can neither comprehend what that is like nor criticise the actions is motivates in a balanced way. Plus he comes out with such quotes as this; digging your own grave is apparently a popular Greek pastime.

 

PARENTHESES ARE FUN FUN FUN FOR EVERYONE

 

In conclusion to this aimless ramble, I offer no suggestion to improve YCM's environment apart from the obvious, which is to actually have a fucking admin who is present and accountable rather than an absentee who didn't mean to offend. As for the second question - "In your opinion, should YCM be left alone, or should the weak be booted out?" - I'm going to have to say I do not understand it. If it's overly hostile and forcing members out as you propose, then leaving it alone will simply allow this to continue, so I don't see why there's an "or" when you can do either one or the other or both, you don't have to choose one.

 

Last paragraph was supposed to be the end but I got dragged off point. Instead this is now the conclusion. Disappointed to have made a real post so early. The idea of YCM being "tougher than most" in the context of internet forums gives me a hearty kek every time I read it. If after this post it is revealed to me that Klav murdered 9 members over a disagreement on the usefulness of Instant Fusion or something I may revise this position but for now nah.

 

If you can't handle YCM, get off the internet. #MYCMGA

[Dad]

Candidates.  We will now move forward with questioning.  The next question will cover YCM's authoritative functions and transparency.

 

Over the past year, much of YCM has spoken of a lack of truth from the moderation team.  There have been claims of power abuse, and a request for more transparency between the members and the moderators.  If elected, what steps would you take to better the relationship between moderators and members?

[Delibirb]

Perhaps I generally stay in areas of the forum where this power abuse isn't present, or these claims are false/over-exaggerated by members who I am generally only aware of, but I have not recognized any serious violations on the part of the moderation team.

 

That being said, more transparency is never a bad idea. This is why an artificial super intelligence guiding progress for the forum would not only need transparency to be accepted by the public, but would thrive in it.

 

In general, this ASI would exist to deliver "suggestions" to the moderation team. These would not only consist of new or altered policies, but also alerts on which threads may be becoming inflamed enough to close, posts which may be over the line enough to warrant warning point distribution, and members which need to be directly handled despite not having officially been warned, due to complacency or ambiguity in warning them. These suggestions would be public knowledge, and it would be up to the moderation team to decide whether to act upon them, of course.

 

Naturally, the community may approve or disapprove of the moderators' choices in regards to these suggestions, and if enough of the community became fed up with one or more moderator's blatant disregard of the ASI's clearly sound logic, they could be replaced. The ASI could even itself make recommendations on the rescinding of moderator powers, based on behavior outside the line of duty or, if it saw fit, the use of "trick suggestions" to see which moderators may be in support of policies which would be considered an abuse of power.