More Member Involvement

[Azdgari]

No. This is essentially completely negating the power of the staff. Also, just read Kevin's post. He's said what I would've said better than I probably could've said it. xD

Nice polarized and biased voting options, though.

Time has shown the benefits of a government of, by and for the people. It has also shown that when the government (in our case, forum staff) acts without the approval of the people (forum members), crap hits the fan. Might I reference communism, which has never worked anywhere.

Snowy, this is a Lion King internet forum... if you really cared about its well being you would just talk about Lion King on it and not stir up trouble every other day and try to fight the staff over every little thing...

[TheGunner18]

Yes, but if you don't give something a try, you'll never know how it will turn out. It's always best to try something new out. If it doesn't work, fine, we just won't use it again. Simple.

[YFWE]

I said no, and I'll try to keep my reasoning as brief as possible. It would slow down the decision-making process to an excruciatingly slow pace, there's potential for there to be plenty of gridlock and it's simply not something the staff is required to do -- among other reasons. When it comes down to it, the rules a forum goes by and its decisions are at the discretion of the admin and his/her associates. We're lucky enough where we can at least tell Moka and the guys if we disagree with an action -- and heaven knows I have. But at the end of the day, they don't have to allow us to do even that. On forums like these, you don't actually have these civil rights in which you can force the governing powers to do what you say. It's their forum and their rules. We can question them, and they can sway their opinions that way if necessary, but we can't force them to do anything. The common solution? You don't like how a place is run, you leave. There's plenty of other forums out there, and even if not, they're easy to create. At the end of the day, you bend to what the staff says, whether you like it or not. This isn't real life; you can't get away with civilly protesting or something to get your way. You either conform to the spirit of the place -- whether you agree with them or not -- or you leave.


Yep, I didn't keep that as brief as I'd have liked. Oh well. There's my contribution, for what it's worth.

[KingKivuli]

I understand the reason why mods are not very willing to share power with the regular users: When everyone is a mod, no one is truly a mod. However, Using real life-examples, many democracies discovered that this system actually works quite well (most of the G8 nations are democracies one form or another). However, they all have a system of checks and balances to keep any one group from getting power. I don't see this forum getting such a system, as it will be extremely complicated. In short, I believe that the mods will always get outvoted simply because there are less of them than regular users. (Us vs Them when the Us are several times larger than Them).

Despite this I actually voted for giving regular members a voice. Why? Because if we actually get such a system to work, it will be much better than if the mods have all the power.

Note to everyone: I would love to see such a system work. But there is a catch: When discussing serious things, you will need to stay serious. I know this is a Lion King Fan Forum, but democracy is not a game. People lost their lives fighting for it, and while we won't have to, the attitude must be the same. We need to show that we can handle a democracy as mature people. As the cliche goes, Freedom is not free.

Mods: Give this a try. Imagine telling other people: "I am part of a democratic forum". By all means, if we can't handle the responsibility, remove it! But I suggest to the Nth degree to let us try a democratic system.

ok new guy never seen you round so first off welcome

and i have to say thank for the open minded view and keeping cool. in regards to your note to the mods and being democratic we already are. The new warning system in place gives any member a chance to make up for their wrongs. we do not want to ban or lose people. HOWEVER the current situation which has lead to Sillydog being banned, Amanda WS and Snowy given a final warning, has been going on for months. They have been talked to and pmed plenty in the past by ALL the mods and yet the situation is not improving so we have to act

also a system where we have to vote on banning would take too long and it would essentially make everyone a mod. and dotn even get me started on the amount of drama it will cause when a full forum of ppl start disagreeing over 1 thing

[WildSimba]

HOWEVER the current situation which has lead to Sillydog being banned, Amanda WS and Snowy given a final warning, has been going on for months. They have been talked to and pmed plenty in the past by ALL the mods and yet the situation is not improving so we have to act

I hope you realize, you just broke a rule, mister rule enforcer.

Discussing moderation actions in public forums. If a member has a concern with a moderation action (such as warnings, suspensions, editing posts, deleting posts, etc), that member is welcome to discuss it with staff via Private Message. The staff will never publicly discuss the warnings or suspensions of any member. We ask that you return the favor, whether it is about yourself or another member.

By the Way:

@WS...it was our mistake for adding you to that list, I think. There was some stuff said in January, but you've been fine recently...so sorry about that and sorry for causing a fright.

Moka already admitedly said he was wrong for adding me to that list in the Sillydog topic, so why am I landing up on there again?

****

Now for my own reply to this matter:

As the phrase goes "Don't knock it, till' you try it", I think the same would apply to this. I mean, it could have bad outcomes, but the good could also have potential to outweigh the bad in this situation. I think, since people can be very biased upon certain subjects, which I have certainly seen from the mods on here, it would be pretty fair as to get some more opinions, to make it a little less private when your banning someone.

[Ushujaa]

i personally disagree with this, there is no reason to have a vote on whether a member should be suspended or not because when it comes down to it, it will be a question of not their wrong doing but their popularity on the forum... if you don't do stupid things on the forum there shouldn't be a reason for a suspension but if you do , do stupid things then you don't deserve to be judged by a jury of your peers, you deserve to be judged by those deemed responsible enough (BY THE MEMBERS OR THE ADMIN) to be a mod

I think we have a good thing going here why ruin it, i mean we just got to elect our first member elected mod ever... which was awesome... lets trust him and the rest of the staff to do their job and not question every single decision you might disagree with snowy.

[Shade]

I'm for this idea. Everything is too secretive these days

[Mike]

This idea, I think, crosses the line into roleplaying government on a silly scale. Moka runs a forum, not a city-state. A government analogy isn't reasonable. A <much> closer analogy is to a movie theatre owner. Moka puts on a show, with the forum, that the audience, members, enjoy. He hires an usher and a snacks machine guy to be his mods. He doesn't let the kids that were whispering too loudly talk back at his usher as they're being thrown out, and he certainly doesn't let those same obnoxious kids choose who the ushers are.

His <only> obligation is to himself, to provide the generous service of this website which we've all used, and in the cases of many people in this thread <abused>. He makes decisions that he believes will bring the greatest good to the forum as a whole, and he has an excellent track record of making them well. He also has an excellent track record of allowing members to organize, create, and discuss as they choose. He even has a history of taking important and popular member suggestions into consideration, and making them work for everybody.

Make no mistake: Moka's self-imposed job is to make the decisions that affect his forum.

[Moka]

I was gonna give an analogy of the forum being a convention instead of a country. But typing on this phone is annoying and I can't hope to keep up with topics like this.

Point is, when a murderer is arrested the entire population of a given country do not vote on his or her punishment. That would be silly, like this suggestion. No offense.

[Harvs]

This idea, I think, crosses the line into roleplaying government on a silly scale. Moka runs a forum, not a city-state. A government analogy isn't reasonable. A <much> closer analogy is to a movie theatre owner. Moka puts on a show, with the forum, that the audience, members, enjoy. He hires an usher and a snacks machine guy to be his mods. He doesn't let the kids that were whispering too loudly talk back at his usher as they're being thrown out, and he certainly doesn't let those same obnoxious kids choose who the ushers are.

His <only> obligation is to himself, to provide the generous service of this website which we've all used, and in the cases of many people in this thread <abused>. He makes decisions that he believes will bring the greatest good to the forum as a whole, and he has an excellent track record of making them well. He also has an excellent track record of allowing members to organize, create, and discuss as they choose. He even has a history of taking important and popular member suggestions into consideration, and making them work for everybody.

Make no mistake: Moka's self-imposed job is to make the decisions that affect his forum.

I like this analogy.

I was gonna give an analogy of the forum being a convention instead of a country. But typing on this phone is annoying and I can't hope to keep up with topics like this.

Point is, when a murderer is arrested the entire population of a given country do not vote on his or her punishment. That would be silly, like this suggestion. No offense.

Another good comparison. Deriving what I've learned from 18 posts on the subject, I have to agree with Mike and Moka. I mean, it's pretty much pointless saying what's been said countless times, but... well... I'm just confused. Why are people always dissatisfied with Moka? From what I see, he has created a very stable site, growing in members every day, and flowing with good intentions. And... a good system that works shouldn't be messed with. All in all, everything I've said has been said already, but to shorten up this statement, I disagree with this suggestion.