"Your details match those of a known spammer, therefore you have been disallowed registration."

Ditto

Elections are just plain fun though. However, I don't think they should be used to oust any current staff.

I wouldn't mind partial elections where we get to choose the short list. It should be taken into account that we are privy to everyone's bad behavior, whereas we might not disclose it to the rest of the forum. That way, we could eliminate any candidates who are particularly disrespectful when it comes to forum rules before the voting even began.

(May 1, 2012 at 1:43 pm)Christi Wrote: Elections are just plain fun though. However, I don't think they should be used to oust any current staff.

Y'all's a bunch of spammers hey? Perfect reason why Spam-O-Matic is bad.

I voted no public elections thinking I'd be a minority, but I'm actually part of the vast majority in this. . . imagine my surprise.

My reasoning is that the current staff is quite respectful and fair, and if you have elections, you just know that numerically near-infinite fundies would flood the page every election day to oust the non-religious members of the staff for literally any fundy.

I suppose you're right. Plus, what would they do if a Christian won? Suddenly, all of the atheist posts get deleted...lol

We have had and currently do have theists on the staff. Just sayin'.

(May 1, 2012 at 6:31 pm)Christi Wrote: I suppose you're right. Plus, what would they do if a Christian won? Suddenly, all of the atheist posts get deleted...lol

About what happened with Tackattack, Rayaan, and every deist there?

The usual

(May 1, 2012 at 6:34 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: We have had and currently do have theists on the staff. Just sayin'.

All Christians are Theists, but not all Theists are Christian. A truly devote Christian would not be able to tolerate most of the posts here and would gladly wipe them all out.

(May 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(May 1, 2012 at 5:19 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Thing is, its not just members that run in packs, staff do too, and indeed are more LIKELY to, and conceivably, although it may not have occurred, a staff member is kept on through personal relationships regardless of their own behaviour.

Haha, and that, sir is an insult to the staff.

Somehow you overlooked the fact I have continually praised the staff in each of my posts. I apologise if you find a hypothetical situation, clearly disclaimed with no prior occurances, offensive.. but quite frankly somewhat ludicrous.

(May 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(May 1, 2012 at 5:19 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: I think its a little disrespectful to a forum of freethinkers to suggest that vast majority would pass a vote to oust a staff member based purely on an individuals irritation.. that's absurd to suggest.
I don't care how much I like someone, and dislike the object of their dissatisfaction, if the complaint has no weight, I'm not supporting it.

Maybe you wouldn't, but you aren't privy to the stinks that get thrown up for very legitimate warnings. Hell, if you think it is disrespectful, that's really your issue. Fact is fact. It is entirely feasible and I would just as soon walk away from this place than see any of our staff members go because of a disgruntled member-based vote.

I think its absurd to suggest that a poll could be rigged by over two thirds by an imagined "clique" of disgruntled members.

Are you suggesting that you are privy to "stinks", that if were put to the vote, would have resulted in a VAST majority of the voting members against a single individual.

Hell, if that's the case, maybe its worth considering a valid point was being raised.

Anyway, I think its worth reminding you I clearly stated I vote to keep things the same, and this was merely a suggestion. I think you should re-read the suggestion in the manner it was phrased, rather than some imaginary crusade.

(May 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Shell B Wrote: Believe it or not, we protect even members that are deemed unsavory by most. If people aren't rule breaking, we don't act.

Non-Sequitor. But yes.. did anyone say you should do otherwise?

(May 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Shell B Wrote: None of what you outline for your argument goes on here, though, so I prefer not to deal in hypotheticals.

You should consider dealing with hypotheticals, reacting to actual incidents is less preferable to preventative measures.

(May 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Shell B Wrote: Of course, this thread is for suggestions, so you should feel free to suggest. Just don't be surprised if your suggestions aren't immediately embraced.

Didn't expect the spanish inquisition over a simple suggestion and clear statements we should keep things the same to be honest. But if it got a bee in your bonnet, I'll continue if it'll keep the peace.

Things are fine as they stand, the voluntary police force do a great job of keeping the mess down, and the rule abusers at bay, a public vote for the position is completely unnecessary. As has been pointed out and I agree with, I mistrust anyone who actively WANTS the role.

Do bear in mind, during recent disgruntlements and overreactions, a public vote was offered if that's what people wanted, exactly in line with my suggestion.

(May 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(May 1, 2012 at 5:19 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: The point of my suggestion is that it removes the possibility of accusations of nepotism rather than its ability to remove staff on a "whim".

Well, trust in a well chosen staff team would also remove the "possibility" of such accusations.

Blind trust is a little unreasonable to expect of new members to be honest, hence why transparency and protection against accusations of nepotism could be a good thing.
It takes time to recognise a good job being done, and one that has continued to be done by the whole staff team, which has been well chosen, and if you don't mind another suggestion, perhaps your efforts would be better spent in response to those that actually disagree with you. We're on the same page except for the minor suggestion.