New Idea

[SecurityCop]

Ok so I know I'm not supposed to advertise outside of the advertisement thread, but I also have a pole to add to my question. My new site has a new type of moderation. Instead of you breaking a rule and being banned, I post a thread and people vote on whether you are to be banned or not. If you want to see what I mean go here. http://democracy.omgforum.net/index.htm
Also vote in the pole so I know which you think of the idea.

[Mattimos]

It can easily be abused. I mean, if a guy's not popular, but he follows the rules and contributes a lot, he's gonna get banned just the same.

[pakman21]

It can easily be abused. I mean, if a guy's not popular, but he follows the rules and contributes a lot, he's gonna get banned just the same.

Your point?

It's just like real life, if people don't like you you get alienated.

[KalashnikoV]

Democratic banning's an experiment that's been done before, and frankly, it's stupid. While people like you and me would reap the benefits all we like by rallying the popular support and banning the **** out of everyone we don't like, well... that's just the problem. It's a popularity contest.

Whether you like a ****ty member or not, they have as much right to be here as we do.

Your point?

It's just like real life, if people don't like you you get alienated.

And that's something that already happens. It's natural that one be compelled to either stay or leave based on their reception and the environment of the forum, but the instant you force that it becomes ****ed up.

[Mattimos]

Your point?

It's just like real life, if people don't like you you get alienated.

Not being allowed on a certain website shouldn't be based on how :cool: he is.

[SupaFruit]

Is the forum to be used for all forums that need banning alike?

[pakman21]

And that's something that already happens. It's natural that one be compelled to either stay or leave based on their reception and the environment of the forum, but the instant you force that it becomes ****ed up.

Well you see, children have taken a shine to the internet nowadays. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but children are very naive, stupid, and they invade places that competent people frequent and shatter all the serious logical discussions with idiotic proposals and horrid grammar.

So, when the flaming begins, it's not unheard of that a person will stick around for no reason. This has been shown in recent cases right here on our little site. Hotstephgurl was repeatedly told to GTFO, yet she stuck around until she was banned.

Hell look at supafruit. There was even a petition to get him to leave, yet he's still here today. Senordiablo, gamermaster, kingjizzy, iwillmaketherecord, the list goes on. It seems that once someone decides upon a forum, he or she will stay around until banned, even as far as banned multiple times.

So, the only logical measure is banning people that are generally disliked by the populace of the forum. Being a general nuisance is a good way to get banned IMO, and I think that there should be a moderation staff to reflect that.

[Mattimos]

I suppose we all want them gone, but having it determined by a vote is just dumb.

[pakman21]

I suppose we all want them gone, but having it determined by a vote is just dumb.

They said the theory of Relativity was just dumb, yet it changed science as we know it.

This is purely expiremental, and I think it's not going to go by numbers but more of the feeling of the general populace. and how pissed off the admins happen to be.

So join, for srs.

[Mattimos]

You'd have to have a mature forum, which we don't. In the end, it would just be taken down because ***gots overuse it.

[KalashnikoV]

Well you see, children have taken a shine to the internet nowadays. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but children are very naive, stupid, and they invade places that competent people frequent and shatter all the serious logical discussions with idiotic proposals and horrid grammar.

So, when the flaming begins, it's not unheard of that a person will stick around for no reason. This has been shown in recent cases right here on our little site. Hotstephgurl was repeatedly told to GTFO, yet she stuck around until she was banned.

Hell look at supafruit. There was even a petition to get him to leave, yet he's still here today. Senordiablo, gamermaster, kingjizzy, iwillmaketherecord, the list goes on. It seems that once someone decides upon a forum, he or she will stay around until banned, even as far as banned multiple times.

So, the only logical measure is banning people that are generally disliked by the populace of the forum. Being a general nuisance is a good way to get banned IMO, and I think that there should be a moderation staff to reflect that.

Believe me, if anyone knows where you're coming from, it's an asshole like me. However, I still don't think it's right. There's more than a handful of people on here that ****ing hate, but if they're willing to put up with the **** from me and you and others, they have just as much right to be here as we do.

Now, I'm glad you brought up SupaFruit, because he's a great example. He sucked it up and stayed here when the vast majority of us either hated him or played along with hating him. Had democratic banning been in place, he would have been gone - end of story. Instead, though, he's stuck around, done his best to contribute well, and is rightfully on his way to becoming one of the more respected members on the forum. This sort of thing isn't uncommon; it happens on forums all over the place (if I remember correctly, it's happened more than once at Ugo.) Members can improve.

Although we're free to influence people as we wish, we don't have the right to decide in black in white who is fit to be here and who isn't - that's reserved for, if anybody, the site admins. Besides, things can actually get a little bland without a few idiots running amuck.

[Pollo]

Normally, I'd be all for this. However, this whole conference thing I'm at is about protecting children on the internet, so for the next four days I'm going to be nice to people and hate your idea.

[pakman21]

You'd have to have a mature forum, which we don't. In the end, it would just be taken down because ***gots overuse it.

Sure we don't talk about quantum physics and the philosophies of Thoreau but we're fairly mature for a forum, I think we could handle democracy.

[SecurityCop]

Look, read the rules, it's not just "Oh I don't like you, you're gone." You don't even get the chance to vote against someone until a rule has been broken.

COPYPASTA


This forum is going to be different. If somebody goes power corrupt, they can be voted out. But obviously still needs rules. i shall also explain things.
When a voting thread appears in the forums, anybody may vote in them, unless you vote in your own banning thread. However, a members vote is only as good as the number of stars he has. The more stars you have the more your vote counts.but until more people get stars, admins votes count as 2, everybody elses counts as 1. this may change at any time. Obviously for this forum, majority rules. Each thread is open for 7 days. Voting is finished at noon EST every Sunday, and threads are only able to be created on Sunday. If you are voted out, you will be banned permanently. Otherwise, you will be banned for a certain number of days. The number of days is equall to the number of votes you have. The next time a mod or admin gets on, the bans will take effect.

Now that you know how the voting works, heres the rest of the rules.
MAIN RULE: 2 WARNINGS AND A BAN THREAD WILL BE MADE FOR YOU:!:


1. No spamming. Post meaningful posts. This merits a warning.
2. No alts. Alts will be permabanned without vote.
3. Voting in your own ban thread doesn't count. Feel free to vote in other threads about yourself however.
4. MODS MAY NOT ABUSE POWERS OTHERWISE YOU GET A WARNING. 3 WARNINGS AND YOU LOSE POWERS.
5. Warnings will go away after a period of time. Whenever a mod or admin feels you have repented for your sins.


These may be updated at anytime.

[loggerbomb]

Wait, you have your own forum as well? :confused::rolleyes:

[SecurityCop]

Wait, you have your own forum as well? :confused::rolleyes:

I just made it cuz I wanted to see what people would think of democracy instead of an oligarchy.

[KalashnikoV]

The problem still persists, if someone breaks a minor rule, their fate still depends on their popularity.

Furthermore, having the more prominent members be represented by more votes only perpetuates the problem. A small clique of high-post-count members would be able to get away with murder and ban anyone they don't like given they slip up and a mod cracks down on them because he's unliked.

[loggerbomb]

I just made it cuz I wanted to see what people would think of democracy instead of an oligarchy.

INteresting.

Though there is no such thing as democracy on the internets.

[SecurityCop]

The problem still persists, if someone breaks a minor rule, their fate still depends on their popularity.

Furthermore, having the more prominent members be represented by more votes only perpetuates the problem. A small clique of high-post-count members would be able to get away with murder and ban anyone they don't like given they slip up and a mod cracks down on them because he's unliked.

Ultimately, it's my decision who gets a ban thread put up about them. I don't hate anybody that's on this site. Sure a mod can warn them, and then tell me, but they don't have the powers to put up the thread. Only the admins do, which currently is me and pakman, as well as soon to be Jasmyn. And ultimately, I can de-admin them if they start to rebel, so it's my decision who gets put up really.

[KalashnikoV]

Ultimately, it's my decision who gets a ban thread put up about them. I don't hate anybody that's on this site. Sure a mod can warn them, and then tell me, but they don't have the powers to put up the thread. Only the admins do, which currently is me and pakman, as well as soon to be Jasmyn. And ultimately, I can de-admin them if they start to rebel, so it's my decision who gets put up really.

I'm talking about whether or not it would work in a real, public forum environment. Honestly, with miniature private forums, you usually don't even need rules.

[SecurityCop]

I'm talking about whether or not it would work in a real, public forum environment. Honestly, with miniature private forums, you usually don't even need rules.

I know it wouldn't work for a large forum, but it works quite well with a small forum. I don't expect mine to get more then 50 people.