board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

An alternate suggestion - poll added

Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 11 posts ]
Is this idea..
Insane
  
8% [ 1 ]
Not good
  
25% [ 3 ]
Okay but no improvement
  
8% [ 1 ]
Not bad, has potential
  
42% [ 5 ]
Very good
  
17% [ 2 ]
Unsure
  
0% [ 0 ]
Total votes: 12
Author Message
Iavas_Saar
Post subject: An alternate suggestion - poll added
Posted: Thu 12 Jan , 2006 3:38 am
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Okay, so the charter simplification discussion has got me thinking about how I would organise the board if given the choice. I regret not doing this thinking earlier, but I can't change that now..

Anyway, here is my preferred system of governance.

The board would be run much like national democracies. Essentially it would be the "benevolent dictator" model, except that the dictator would serve terms and be voted in by the members. The leader would have a team of rangers that performed the day to day admin. If ranger decisions are disputed, the leader could step in. Members would have the right to call for a referendum on important issues when backed by a certain number of people, otherwise the leader handles it. This includes calling for a vote on whether to change leadership if there is displeasure with the leader, thereby stopping anyone abusing their power.

I do see one huge problem with this straight away - getting enough people to put themselves forward for the position!

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 12 Jan , 2006 6:25 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Due to the amazing ratio of the number viewing this thread to the number of replies, I thought I'd better add a poll, to atleast get some idea as to how crazy I sound :P

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
oldtoby
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 Jan , 2006 3:48 am
Cuddly Studmuffin
Offline
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 10:41 pm
 
Well I didn't vote, but I could tell you you are a raving lunatic if you 'd like :P ;)


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 Jan , 2006 4:46 am
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
Two issues:

1) Voter turn-out. It already kinda sucks here.

2) Campaigning, squabbling, potential for political parties... and you thought we had drama NOW.

3) What if no one wants the job?

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 Jan , 2006 1:14 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Quote:
Well I didn't vote, but I could tell you you are a raving lunatic if you 'd like
I've been told that many times, the effect it has is starting to wear off!

Quote:
Two issues:

1) Voter turn-out. It already kinda sucks here.

2) Campaigning, squabbling, potential for political parties... and you thought we had drama NOW.

3) What if no one wants the job?
Umm, that's three issues. :P

1. I think the voter turnout would be decent for a vote of that importance. It's something everyone would care about.

2. We could have the rule that candidates would always be 'independent', and that mission statements/debate must be kept to a single thread.

3. That is the only potentially big problem I could see. It would be a tough job.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 15 Jan , 2006 12:29 am
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
I'm a crystallographer. I don't need to know how to count. Or proofread. :P

Whether formal political parties form or not you're still going to see alliances being made based on the platforms presented. Let's say we've Jughead running against Sir Spamalot. Some people like what Jughead has to say so they plaster "Support Jughead" on their av or in their .sig. Some people prefer Sir Spamalot, so they do the same. And then they get to arguing about who's the better candidate and why and then, whether we wanted it or not, we have factions forming. This is how democracies work, yes, but we've got a membership that is in many ways enriched for drama, not only by the existence of the Charter but also by the personalities here. The last thing we need right now, at this point, it another way to divide ourselves up and get pissed off at each other.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Pippin4242
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 15 Jan , 2006 1:25 am
Hasta la victoria, siempre
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 7:49 pm
Location: Outer Heaven
 
Well I for one would happily offer to do it but only if we agreed to keep it informal. :)

*~Pips~*

_________________

Avatar is a male me, drawn by a very close friend. Just don't ask why.


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 15 Jan , 2006 3:32 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Quote:
The last thing we need right now, at this point, it another way to divide ourselves up and get pissed off at each other.
But it wouldn't be another thing, as it would be replacing the charter. And I think it would cause less problems than the charter as it's a very straightforward system.
Quote:
Well I for one would happily offer to do it but only if we agreed to keep it informal.
Absolutely, it should be as informal as possible. The board is, after all, (or should be) an informal gathering of friends.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Sunsilver
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 15 Jan , 2006 5:48 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2666
Joined: Mon 24 Jan , 2005 12:43 pm
Location: Gone to the dogs!
 
Okay, excuse me for asking....but if we throw out the Charter, how will the Rangers know WHEN to step in when things start to get out of hand?

I once volunteered to help moderate a board that had NO TOS. It was INSANE!! We had no power at all when members got out of hand. Some of them would just literally thumb their noses at us and go: YEAH YEAH, where's your TOS to show I did something wrong? We kept begging the board owner for a TOS, and he kept promising one and not delivering. (He's more fluent in computer languages than he is in English... :P ) Finally, the mods got together, and virtually wrote the TOS themselves, borrowing from other sites. The owner approved it, and finally we had the backup we needed to keep the peace, though it took over 6 months for things to finally settle down.

The core of the TOS is this:
Quote:
Remember what you agreed to upon signup: You will not use this BB to post free advertising or solicitations, any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.

Posting on BB for research purposes is strickly prohibited and member's account will be closed.


There is also a section on debate:
Quote:
Debates
We promote the idea of lively debate. This means you are free to disagree with anyone on any type of subject matter as long as your criticism is constructive and polite.

Personal Attacks
Our first priority is to the members that have come here because of the flame-free atmosphere we provide. There is a zero-tolerance policy here against personal attacks. We will not tolerate anyone insulting another individual's opinion nor name calling and will BAN repeat offenders.



The idea has merit, but only if there are some ground rules to guide behaviour. In a way, it's a lot like the system we have now on the work-related board I moderate: the mods do the every day stuff, guided by the TOS, and the board owner steps in when there are disputes the mods can't settle, or if their decisions are being questioned.

_________________

When the night has been too lonely, and the road has been too long,
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose[/size]


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 15 Jan , 2006 7:14 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Sunsilver, there would only need to be a couple of ground rules for the rangers. I would suggest a short, succint TOS, with the rangers making judgement calls as to when the line has been crossed. And that's pretty much what has been happening anyway with the charter in place. Rangers still have to use their personal judgement to decide when to lock a thread etc.

It would basically be TORCs system except that those in control would be elected and could be replaced if the community felt they needed to be.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Mummpizz
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 16 Jan , 2006 8:55 am
Gloriosus
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed 08 Dec , 2004 11:10 am
Location: history (repeats itself)
Contact: Website
 
I like that idea (Iavas' idea, with a supplement of Wolfgang's "basic law"). Except that I would vote in each Ranger for himself, too. That would lessen the danger of "faction-building".

Voter turnout is something which cannot be "forced" except by its consequences, if Jughead is elected by two people against one, and installs a reign of insanity and terror, people will see that it's important to vote.

_________________

– – –


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 11 posts ]
Return to “Business Room”
Jump to: