Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jonesy" data-source="post: 4158621" data-attributes="member: 10324">Voting rights would certainly be a nice benefit for paying members, but you are talking about a single election for a single person to be a moderator. A one time event is a curiosity at best, and I don't really see how it would make anyone want to become a CS. Regular moderator elections on the other hand would promote anarchy as in "a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power" (with the emphasis heavily on the word inefficiency).True, but not exclusive to your proposal.Where do you see a mob in here? Why do you assume that non-CS's can't be responsible? And how exactly are CS's rather like delegates? I am not a CS and yet I still represent this community in and outside this community. I've encouraged people interested in our interests to come over and check the place out to see if they'd like to join. Representation and participation are not unique qualities of the paying members. And if you want to suggest "opening up the process of governing" you need to start talking about actual decision making, not a single election to elect someone to make decisions for you. It's just another moderator, it doesn't alter anything.You propose that paying members should influence the moderation more, and then suggest that there are better ways than that? Which is it?We have influence here. More so than in most other sites I've been a member of. We have awesome moderators and I wouldn't want to disrupt that.Citizen advisory board member? So the elected mod wouldn't be a real mod? How does a vote in an election for a moderator with less than the normal amount of influence make anyone want to join the site to become a paying member? That's a rather far-fetched theory you have there.Besides, are you sure you don't want anarchy? It would be great to have a community where everyone has "absolute liberty without the implication of disorder". A good idea in principle, but rather impossible in practise. You know, just like most any political ideas.Let's not muddle up things here. The vast majority of online communites are owned by businesses and businesses run their business as they see fit. Calling the members of those communities "citizens" doesn't give them any rights to dictate themselves how things are done. All the options are usually the same because "things seem to work" and the businesses usually can't be bothered to spend resources to inventing something new.As for EN World, it is improving, and mostly because of feedback from its members.I think you need to focus your enthusiasm on sites that don't allow members to give feedback on their sites. Oh, that's right, you can't because they don't allow it.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> We have one of the nicest friendliest communities on the internet here and you suggest rebooting it on the off-chance that it "might" become better? No, thank you.A car is good thing to own. But it also might not be.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Social pressure? On EN World? The whole place is already one huge stress remover. It's a site dedicated to a hobby we all love. And if you have a problem with someones moderation talking to the moderator himself is far better than going through an extra layer. It's called personal contact. There are sites out there that don't even let you talk about moderation at all, to anyone.Someone who is so insecure that he can't take criticism constructively is someone who shouldn't be a moderator in the first place.I happen to consider the moderators here very fair. I don't see how adding another layer of moderation would make it any more so. Added bureoucracy doesn't equal added fairness. I've worked for a government agency and can claim that it's actually the other way around.Sorry if I came across a bit snarky.</blockquote>

Verification