How Should We Elect Staff?

[Shell B]

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.

Of course you do. I'm not actually offended. I said it was an insult to the staff. Suggesting a hypothetical is still making a suggestion. So, the premise of your argument is that the staff could keep a member on whose behavior is bad simply because another staff member has a personal relationship with said person. Well, it could happen, but it won't, so it is irrelevant.

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

You're seriously missing the bigger picture here. If you really think that all members of this site would be interested enough to vote, you haven't been paying attention. We wouldn't need two-thirds of the people on this site to vote poorly, we only need two-thirds of those who bothered to vote to vote poorly. Those with an agenda are more likely to vote than those who are here for discussion, not petty politics.

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.

I have been privy to threads where the only ones who participated were those who were mad at one person, with everyone else staying out of it. That is all that would need to happen. The word "vote" isn't magic and will not make everyone give a fuck about the thread. However, you can sure as shit bet that the name of the staff member that is disliked by that small group would attract the disgruntled ones like flies to sugar.

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.

I think you should realize that I was disagreeing with you, not raising an army of the undead to smite you for saying something I disagree with. I don't care how you voted. I'm not disagreeing with how you voted or I would have mentioned that. I am disagreeing with your suggestion. Is that not allowed?

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

You should consider dealing realistically rather than hypothetically and idealistically. So, there.

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.

I don't have a bee in my bonnet. I disagree with you. No need to behave defensively about it or suggest that I am being untoward. I'm simply disagreeing with you.

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.

Oh, I am bearing that in mind, as I'm sure you have been. I said I would do it because I was interested in the fact that there was a popularity contest going on and I was interested in seeing how far certain individuals would take it. The staff did not agree to it. In fact, Tiberius was quite irritated at the suggestion and told me and others in the thread flat out that he would not adhere to such a vote.

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.

We are transparent. Can't help it if there are conspiracy theorists. Furthermore, if people were less concerned with "relationships" that hold no bearing on the running of this forum and more concerned with jobs well done, it wouldn't even be a consideration. In fact, new members are completely unaware of said "relationships" and would have no reason to suggest nepotism, were it not for the few members who like to tout this as the reason for certain staff members still being in place.

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.

Yes, we are disagreeing on the minor suggestion, nothing else. Therefore, you do actually disagree with me. My efforts are my concern, but thanks.