I disprove of the current action.

Drakeson wrote:

For all I know you are all plotting to silence members and plotting more things behind several of our backs.
All of which trying to silence us, and end us.

That's just stupid. Quiet.

I will admit that what the people did was a little hasty, but does having Matt out of a leader position really matter?

Kruggly wrote:

Drakeson wrote:

For all I know you are all plotting to silence members and plotting more things behind several of our backs.
All of which trying to silence us, and end us.

That's just stupid. Quiet.

I will admit that what the people did was a little hasty, but does having Matt out of a leader position really matter?

Does not matter, you removed him easily without hesitation you didn't even THINK of demoting him to Head ADMIN or Basic Admin
YOU made a decision of removing him completely -OUT OF STAFF- That is what matters.

It all seems a giant grudge, a giant hatred of which you only removed him because he couldn't do anything when he was grounded, finals, and trying get his grades up.

So, he's out of staff. He's still in our community, just not in the 'leader' position which was gotten rid of.

And it wasn't me that made any decisions.

Kruggly wrote:

So, he's out of staff. He's still in our community, just not in the 'leader' position which was gotten rid of.

And it wasn't me that made any decisions.

He may still be in our community, but he could've been a Basic Admin.
Leader Position sure removed him from that could've easily given him moderator at least.

But you may see here, that he could've still helped, could've done more things. But hey, you just threw him out as if you used him only for his server. Which is truly pathetic and only taken advantage over him.

Another thing I can't trust of admin team because they could easily use us and throw us out like nothing.

Drakeson, I agree. He could have been a BA, and I don't see why he was put so low.

Anything else, I give up with thinking. It's all too confusing, and I'm not getting involved.

Listen, everyone. Matt, too.

First off, Matt. We only took down the leader position, it wasn't working, you saw it for yourself. You were absent, we understand. But that's not our fault. If there must be a leader, he or she has to do their job. You weren't cutting it, and everything did need to be put by you.

When the first 'Council' of members was created, from what I heard. As soon as you heard of it, and since it wasn't put past you first, you destroyed it.

If you want to overreact, throw a bitch-fit, and leave. That's your own fault. Nobody wants you to -leave-.

And seriously, shut the fuck up with this 'coup'd etat' and 'backstabbing' bull shit. It had to be done,
We were falling apart, soon enough we'd have collapsed.

On a different note, I wish democracy would work, but it wouldn't. There's far too many people for that sort of thing to ever be organized, and it would be much too biased. But, the idea of having 1 group of admins is appealing, at best. And, maybe it's something that should be considered by the heads.

It doesn't seem fair to me. Matt had no choice. It's not like he was sitting on his ass while all this was happening, he was grounded and had finals. You fail to understand that real-life takes priority over this. If it's that important, a temporary leader position should have been put into effect, and discussed with Matt at the soonest possible time. You could've restored him as a leader or just given him admin to show your appreciation for providing a server. Instead, you went behind his back and demoted him to a normal member, without so much as a thank-you or an apology.The fact he came into this thread "throwing a bitch-fit" is a damn good sign that you did something wrong.

But whatever. You're all convinced you did the right thing out of your own conceit. I've been in a community where this exact thing happened before, and I left it. Guess what I'm going to do now.

Ok, listen.

First of all, on the topic of why I am doing this, Geo. I'm not doing this to get positive reputation, I'm certainly not doing this to get admin ( Geez, that's one of the things I'm trying to prevent on the first place ), I'm doing this so certain people can have a choice. What you don't know, is that there's a LOT of supressed opinions on the community. I've heard them, I want people to express them.

But sadly, most don't just have the guts of saying them out loud. That's why I'm proposing democracy. Since seemingly you shoot the idea down over the idea that everyone who isn't an admin isn't good for deciding, well, then lets make an actual system.

Most real life democracies follow a quite simple process to atleast assure partially that voters are aware of what they're voting for. First, there's an age limit, we could implement this here as a simple post limit for voting. The second one, is by campaigning. The reason Obama won over McCain was because Obama's campaign was simply kickass, and McCain's campaign spinned around destroying Obama. If you want any campaign to win, focus on yours, not destroying others'.

And democracies have a self regulating arm too, and that is simply impeaching. After a certain amount of time, in the case of Venezuela half of that political entities' period, anyone can be subject to a voting, that simply being: "Do you want this person to keep ruling or not?". The people know best as to who deserves power and who doesn't.

This self regulating system prevents ( NOTE: I SAID PREVENT, NOT AVOID ) corruption, and trust me, it brings the most happiness to the people. I know this, I've lead communities before, I got elected by people, and all my propositions were passed through voting. It worked well until I began another project, which resulted in the failure of both due to me not being able to code for both, my time was heavily splitted, so I left my position.

On the second project (www.projekt7e9.com) I used the only admin rank format, and I've seen it work just nicely. All of the admins reached to a general concensus, and when anyone did something wrong, it would be publically seen, the admin would give his explanation on the event. It's as simple as that.

I believe is the best course of action, I can back it by facts and past experiences. I'm leaving dumb shit aside, I don't have any particular grief with anyone that makes me want to do this, I don't want to rule anything. But I want to play, what I want to play.

kamaitama wrote:

First of all, on the topic of why I am doing this, Geo. I'm not doing this to get positive reputation, I'm certainly not doing this to get admin ( Geez, that's one of the things I'm trying to prevent on the first place ), I'm doing this so certain people can have a choice. What you don't know, is that there's a LOT of supressed opinions on the community. I've heard them, I want people to express them.

Ya' think? I've known that. I wasn't summing it up for you, I was saying that in the case that that was your goal, it would not be a good one.

kamaitama wrote:

But sadly, most don't just have the guts of saying them out loud. That's why I'm proposing democracy. Since seemingly you shoot the idea down over the idea that everyone who isn't an admin isn't good for deciding, well, then lets make an actual system.

No. We're not shooting down who "isn't an admin". We're shooting down the entire free choice, free opinion bit until the thing they don't agree on is established. Like I said; Can't say the water's cold if you haven't dipped your foot in it.

kamaitama wrote:

Most real life democracies follow a quite simple process to atleast assure partially that voters are aware of what they're voting for. First, there's an age limit, we could implement this here as a simple post limit for voting. The second one, is by campaigning. The reason Obama won over McCain was because Obama's campaign was simply kickass, and McCain's campaign spinned around destroying Obama. If you want any campaign to win, focus on yours, not destroying others'.

Post limit? That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard. People will post in every single thread, and very likely off-topically to get a choice when deciding things. It's a free power-plus plan. You post, you own.

kamaitama wrote:

And democracies have a self regulating arm too, and that is simply impeaching. After a certain amount of time, in the case of Venezuela half of that political entities' period, anyone can be subject to a voting, that simply being: "Do you want this person to keep ruling or not?". The people know best as to who deserves power and who doesn't.

If they knew best why are some of the people that the community chose not doing their job correctly if at all? Like I said, people'd rather vote over popularity and people that they know than those who actually have what it takes. We as admins would know because we know what needs to be done. What we need from the admins. And especially, the most important one, what we need in the admins. You could hide behind a shield of responsibility and thus putting on a kind and caring front (as Mack had, once) and then when you gain that power you're using the shield for, you go apeshit and abuse it.

kamaitama wrote:

This self regulating system prevents ( NOTE: I SAID PREVENT, NOT AVOID ) corruption, and trust me, it brings the most happiness to the people. I know this, I've lead communities before, I got elected by people, and all my propositions were passed through voting. It worked well until I began another project, which resulted in the failure of both due to me not being able to code for both, my time was heavily splitted, so I left my position.

Psh. You know what, that's the funniest thing I heard. Where I'm taking my break, it's an RP server, the main town is corrupt all to SHIT. Why? Because it's a democracy. There's a council, there's the Law, and then there's the public. The public -always- gets a say and some of those among the public don't mean well for the town. I've got proof because my character is campaigning against these things. A man was jailed for acting in self defense against someone. Later on, said 'someone' kills him. The man still gets jailed, but so does the 'someone'. Democracy isn't fair, it's equal, but not fair. All they care about is if you cooperate, not if you do or do not break the law.

kamaitama wrote:

On the second project (www.projekt7e9.com) I used the only admin rank format, and I've seen it work just nicely. All of the admins reached to a general concensus, and when anyone did something wrong, it would be publically seen, the admin would give his explanation on the event. It's as simple as that.

That's how you work. We work differently.

kamaitama wrote:

I believe is the best course of action, I can back it by facts and past experiences. I'm leaving dumb shit aside, I don't have any particular grief with anyone that makes me want to do this, I don't want to rule anything. But I want to play, what I want to play.

But there are of course limits that are needed. If we say 'you can't play a dragon' then you can't play a dragon. Period. We have our reasons for saying so, you have your reasons for wanting to play one. It's like when you were growing up. You wanted a candy bar? Mom says no. Too bad. You don't get a candy bar. Cry all you want, you're still not getting that candybar.

We don't have to care. If we don't think you're fit, you won't be allowed it. (no wasn't off-topic, it's an example.)

As a highly experienced admin that I know says; "Not rude. Not kind. Professional!"

I'm posting an idea, Geo, if you want to make it personal, fine.

Quote :

Ya' think? I've known that. I wasn't summing it up for you, I was saying that in the case that that was your goal, it would not be a good one.

How is it not a good goal? How is it not going to work? How do you even fucking know what's best for me or not? I said my goal, whatever you think about it, is absolutely irrelevant. And don't you deny that.

Quote :

No. We're not shooting down who "isn't an admin". We're shooting down the entire free choice, free opinion bit until the thing they don't agree on is established. Like I said; Can't say the water's cold if you haven't dipped your foot in it.

I'm saying quite clearly what I don't agree on. I don't agree in the removal of Matt in the absolutely blunt way it was done, hence, why you can see people quitting over it. If someone quits the community, it's a sign something's gone wrong. The absolute plan of action was done wrong, it was far too radical, you can't expect forcing something on a single push and not expect damages.

You want them to talk? That's what this thread is about. You've heard the opinions, two people leaving, and it was dubbed as overreacting.

Quote :

Post limit? That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard. People will post in every single thread, and very likely off-topically to get a choice when deciding things. It's a free power-plus plan. You post, you own.

Hey, so it is on real life, you can just, sit down and wait until you're 18 so you can vote, but hell, that's stupid, ain't it? It's a guarantee that people will atleast have some time here before voting. It's pretty stupid to spam just to get a vote, not only that, but spamming is bannable.

Trust me, the system is not that stupid.

Quote :

If they knew best why are some of the people that the community chose not doing their job correctly if at all? Like I said, people'd rather vote over popularity and people that they know than those who actually have what it takes. We as admins would know because we know what needs to be done. What we need from the admins. And especially, the most important one, what we need in the admins. You could hide behind a shield of responsibility and thus putting on a kind and caring front (as Mack had, once) and then when you gain that power you're using the shield for, you go apeshit and abuse it.

Who? The council? The council had no powers at all, it was a honourary name, in the end it was admins deciding anything anyway, and that's a fact.

It's like that in real life anyway, if someone makes a lot of promises, and puts on the good guy face, then turns out to be a total asshole, there's always impeachment. That's the side you're missing, people have power over the public entity, they get it in AND out. Corruption never goes unpunished.

So what are you saying? That an admin can decide better than me or than anyone because he or she is smarter than anyone? That we're a bunch of sheep who can't decide what's good or wrong for ourselves? You really misjudge, and underrate the power of the people.

Quote :

Psh. You know what, that's the funniest thing I heard. Where I'm taking my break, it's an RP server, the main town is corrupt all to SHIT. Why? Because it's a democracy. There's a council, there's the Law, and then there's the public. The public -always- gets a say and some of those among the public don't mean well for the town. I've got proof because my character is campaigning against these things. A man was jailed for acting in self defense against someone. Later on, said 'someone' kills him. The man still gets jailed, but so does the 'someone'. Democracy isn't fair, it's equal, but not fair. All they care about is if you cooperate, not if you do or do not break the law.

It's not corrupt to shit because it is a democracy, it's corrupt because it's MEANT to be corrupt. It's an RP scenario that would be boring as shit if it worked like on real life. Come on, I thought you could have given a better example of a non functional democracy than that.

Democracy is fair because it's EQUAL. Fairness doesn't mean that the good result turns out, it's the result that is best for both sides, and thus, is equally effective for both. The whole point of democracy is that.

And what the hell do you mean people don't care if you break or not the law on a democracy? Of course they do. If you break the law, you're against the fair way of doing things, if you are with the law, you're with it. If fairness is the point of democracy, then if you're against it, you're against democracy.

Or don't criminals get jailed on democracies? Chased down? Maybe even killed?

Quote :

That's how you work. We work differently.

I'm giving an example on something that works. Instead of shooting down your system, like you're doing, I'm giving examples of ones following my proposal that works.

While I do agree it can't be implemented EXACTLY as it is, it could be simply adapted to Olden.

Quote :

But there are of course limits that are needed. If we say 'you can't play a dragon' then you can't play a dragon. Period. We have our reasons for saying so, you have your reasons for wanting to play one. It's like when you were growing up. You wanted a candy bar? Mom says no. Too bad. You don't get a candy bar. Cry all you want, you're still not getting that candybar.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules, I've never said that. The only thing that keeps democracy together is rules. There's obvious limitations as on what to do, set by a group of laws. What I'm suggesting is not this, it's simply that I want a say as on what's limited for everyone and what's not, instead of someone else deciding for me what I can or cannot do spontaneously with absolutely none of my consent or atleast, without me having a say about it.

If you want a candy bar, and your mother doesn't allow you to have it, then don't blame your mother, blame the rule. You can talk your mother through and convince her that you can have 1 candy bar once a week, and that's fair for both sides. See where I'm getting at?

Admins should be sure the rule is followed, they shouldn't make the rules, and certainly they shouldn't be above the rules. Prove me otherwise how anything good could happen about an admin being above the rule.

I really find this thread to be un-nessesary, Sure, Matt was taken from Leader, Does it even matter? Like seriously.

Icaso wrote:

I really find this thread to be un-nessesary, Sure, Matt was taken from Leader, Does it even matter? Like seriously.

It's not all about Matt. Read the thread.

People are being way too serious about this.

I'm okay with the change. Actually, I'm leaning to liking it.

It's already obvious that you have more people who agree with the change than disagree with it.

You wanted a majority vote, and so you got it.

Case closed.