How Should We Elect Staff?

[popeyespappy]

Haven't read the thread but just thought I'd throw out there that my vote can be purchased. I accept dollars, pounds, euros, precious metals and prostitutes.

ETA: Lucrative government contracts are another option....

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Haven't read the thread but just thought I'd throw out there that my vote can be purchased. I accept dollars, pounds, euros, precious metals and prostitutes.

ETA: Lucrative government contracts are another option....

I will accept a hamburger with the lot (including beetroot) from my Local greasy spoon or a bum burner pepperoni pizza from the same place.

[WhatIfGodWasJustAMyth]

Other!!!! all staff should fight to the death!!!

[Rhizomorph13]

Other!!!! all staff should fight to the death!!!

My weapon of choice would be the Lirpa!

[Jackalope]

Other!!!! all staff should fight to the death!!!

My weapon of choice would be the Lirpa!

Sir, your Lirpa would be no match against my expertly wielded ripe banana!

Oh, wait, I'm not staff.

Carry on.

[simplexity]

Unless we are voting for someone new to run the whole forum, I think we should keep the same system. And if the first were the case there would be no reason for me to vote for anyone besides Tiberius anyway... most likely.

[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.

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

Well, we are skeptics, its not unreasonable for us to not accept a blanket statement "It just won't happen, it just won't happen" as a factual statement.
Are you asking me to take a statement on faith alone? This of all forums should know that won't wash

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.

I agree, I stated this quite clearly two posts ago, that statisticians know fine well about weighting to take into account factors of those inclined to vote. I personally believe 2/3rds is reasonable.

I think you do yourself an injustice, there are plenty, myself included who would actively vote against an obviously petty complaint and defend our staff against idiots.
If you recall the shill accounts, the forum united against a suggestion to vote out Tiberius. Even those who had notable explosive arguments with him, were first in line to shoot down petty complaints.

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 would not correlate with an active poll, as mentioned, petty suggestions of that sort have been roundly crushed by the members who support you.

I think you should have more faith in your membership.

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?

I think there are more polite ways to state your case to be honest, but I do find your objections lacking in substance.

In summary;

Have faith we would not let nepotism rule over membership
I have anecdotes about members being angry and petty.

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

If it remains within the realms of possibility, the hypothetical is always realistic to consider, and dangerous to ignore.

[quote='Shell B' pid='279863' dateline='1335920783']
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.

Tiberius was the one who made the suggestion to put himself to the vote, not the members. He was roundly shouted down that nobody wanted anyone to step down. In effect, he got the rightfully received vote of confidence in that respect.

[quote='Shell B' pid='279863' dateline='1335920783']We are transparent.

I agree, Tiberius is very open about how he does things, and one of the areas I have massive amounts of respect for.

In fact, new members are completely unaware of said "relationships" and would have no reason to suggest nepotism,

I hate to disagree, I'm still technically a newish member, and I recognised the fact within minutes of joining the forum. It's stated openly (and why shouldn't it be).

[quote='Shell B' pid='279863' dateline='1335920783']
Yes, we are disagreeing on the minor suggestion, nothing else. Therefore, you do actually disagree with me. My efforts are my concern, but thanks.

I refer to the fact that we both agree that the forum staffing should not be a popularity contest (unless I have that wrong).

I simply suggest that a meaningful method of impeachment which takes into account member views is not a bad thing. Supported by prominent members, initiated by staff in response, and subject to weighting in favour of the staff to minimise the "inclined to vote" effect.

You do yourself and your fellow staff a gross injustice if you think minor irritation could oust a member of staff, most of the members would leap to your defence. Hell, I might not see eye to eye with yourself on political and philosophical issues, but I would defend your staff position to the death (okay, maybe mild injury).

[Napoléon]

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.

That is absolute bullshit. You really haven't been here very long and you're making comments like that?

Go speak to tackattack, I dare you to tell him he's not a true christian.

[Tiberius]

Or Ryft, or fr0d0, or pretty much any Christian who has been here for more than a month.