Elections

1) Democracy could work.

I remember another site was started out as a democracy because of what was really an objection to some rulings of this place a few years ago. Maybe if this place had been a democracy this great rift in the so called "mature" old community would not have happened and thus maybe the mp-community would have been able to stick somewhat more together and thus would probably have been in a much better position to have an effect on the multiplayer aspect of totalwar. As it is now there still is no real true place for the mp-community.

2) Basically most people here say that a democracy would be bad because we, the forumists, are not mature enough to govern ourselves. Lol, to me that seems to be a really sad picture of ourselves that I cant agree with.

But maybe its just these peoples clever strategy; hey I show myself as a really strong supporter of the current system and mods so that they will like me and make me powerful like them :yes:

Kalle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meghas Alexandros

I dont think that a democracy is a good idea, but I think the people who are being picked for staff should be run by the members first. Has anyone seen what has been happening at the Total War Center?

---

The problem has never been in the elections(Curia) of the TWC but in its ownership, OgresNet in this case.

Not true, that guy Ogre said that democracies don't work, and wanted to change it ... and he had every right in doing so, after that TWC rebelled (as they had every right in doing so, as they were a democracy)

Democracies don't work ... as I said before, it means that the wrong people are allowed to have a say too, we don't want that do we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

1) Democracy could work.

I remember another site was started out as a democracy because of what was really an objection to some rulings of this place a few years ago. Maybe if this place had been a democracy this great rift in the so called "mature" old community would not have happened and thus maybe the mp-community would have been able to stick somewhat more together and thus would probably have been in a much better position to have an effect on the multiplayer aspect of totalwar. As it is now there still is no real true place for the mp-community.

---

Which site was that? You say it "started out" as a democracy, is it still one? I hadn't heard of that site before.

I really don't think the .org is to blame for the fragmentation of the MP community. There are various factors involved in that, I doubt any fan sites have contributed to it's decline. Poor MP functionality in the later games is probably the biggest issue there. Blaming one site or another actually creates divisions. Many at TWC consider the .org to be a rival site that they have to compete with. Most of the members here at the .org don't know/care about that. That's the big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

2) Basically most people here say that a democracy would be bad because we, the forumists, are not mature enough to govern ourselves. Lol, to me that seems to be a really sad picture of ourselves that I cant agree with.

---

How does self government work on a messageboard? Please outline the system. With the "benevolant dictatorship" we have at present at the .org, there is stability and the place runs very smoothly. How would a democracy improve this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

But maybe its just these peoples clever strategy; hey I show myself as a really strong supporter of the current system and mods so that they will like me and make me powerful like them :yes:

Kalle

---

I'm sorry to say it, but with that, rather bitter sounding, statement, some might say that you've just proved yourself "not mature enough to govern". ~;) I often think that these people calling for "democracy" have a hidden agenda themselves. They always seem to have had run ins with the admin themselves in the past, so their calls for "democracy" are often born out of their own vengance fueled desire to supplant the current administration with their own. The "democracy" thing is simply a cover story to gain popular support from the more gullible members or those with, as you put it, a "clever strategy".

At the end of the day, there is no "democracy" in this game, the man in power is the man with the password to the webhosting Control Panel. So forget all of this democracy rot. The TWC is in the mess it's in now because, without absolute control over their hosting, so called "democracy" is not worth :2cents:

:bow:

I support:

TOSACRACY.

Org is fine as it is. The Net try the democratic forum, and it was far from a success.

As for the community breack up, blaming the Org is taking a shorthcut. Put the blame on old grudge between players.

AFAIK the .org is private property...so we dont really have a say in it at all (and shouldn't unless you chip in some cash for it) if the owner(s) wanted to turn this into a porn, firearms, and chimpanzee forum tomorrow they could.

Hi guys,
I suppose that this could work, but only should you modify it slightly so that the Org is not fully democratic. Full democracy could possibly end in anarchy. In my opinion a better option would be to has a sort of democracy that is not a democracy where rank and respectability depends on everything. Once every month each forum gets a moderator of the people. This moderator could be elected from member nominations, but the rules are that the nominated must be a Senior Member, have had no warning points/bans within the past year and must be a regular poster in that forum. If there are no regular Senior Members in that forum then the position could be open to regular members. After the nomination there would be votes for two weeks. After the vote have been counted then the winner is marked as a moderator of the people. These moderators are overseen by a specialist administrator to make sure that they are not too radical or are not too soft or harsh on individuals. One year on after the nominations were opened this moderator would be retired to his previous status and nominations would begin again. If the moderator should do anything of the member sort of wrong, such as break the forum rules, then he/she will be instantly sacked and a new moderator of the people will be elected for the remainder of the period.

I am however, very sorry to say, that even if this was to be implemented I would not be truly supportive. Democracy is not really the right way to run a forum. Regards and cheers.

Bad idea, I like the benevolent hierarchy we have here.

@omanes - too much work for too little gain.

I still stand by what i originally said about democracies not being an efficient form of government in an online context.

All it really comes down to is this - if it ain't broke, don't fix it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Not a good idea at all. It never works. The problem with a mod/admin that is elected by a poll of the userbase is as follows:

1) The userbase elect a personality, not someone that is is best suited to the job.
2) Most of the userbase won't bother to vote, only those that are trying to push their particular candidate.
3) Once in position the person may feel somehow beholden to those that elected him.
4) Encourages the formation of partisan groups, leading to flame wars and boycotts etc.
5) The person may lack the required skills.
6) He may dissolve the admins and mods and proclaim himself emperor of all the org
7) Camels might get deleted.

If this were to happen we would be looking back on it years later talking of the "Golden Age" of TosaInu and the folly of the fools that thought they knew better:

---

Its shocking how much that statement defines the American voting system, and we all see how well that works. :laugh4:

As many have said, a benevolent dictatorship is the way to go. Another quaint euphamism is, if it 'aint broked don't fix it.

Actually even if we tried it I think Tosa would get voted in overwhelmingly, and then mass petitioned for him to lead a coup to straighten everything back out.

How about we do this Athenian style! All members thrown into a pool and we choose by lottery a new site administrator every day of the year! :laugh4:

(not that there are any members here I'd like to throw in a pool though - a bunch of ugly dudes as far as I can see :grin:)

Or alternatively, first poster to 14,000 is teh winner!

Quote:

---

if the owner(s) wanted to turn this into a porn, firearms, and chimpanzee forum tomorrow they could.

---

Tosa, can we have a subforum on armed chimpanzee porn?

Pleeeaaase.~:)

Why change a winning formula ?

I think most people have forgotten another imporrtant fact, Tosa is pretty much the only here with the 1337 skillz needed to run this site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Tosa, can we have a subforum on armed chimpanzee porn?

Pleeeaaase.~:)

---

You're an admin, start the revolt, unadmin Tosa, ban everyone you don't like and shoot the camels

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Why change a winning formula ?

I think most people have forgotten another imporrtant fact, Tosa is pretty much the only here with the 1337 skillz needed to run this site.

---

People rarely think like that. Most members don't realise the time and effort that goes into running a messageboard, they only think of the power involved. This is where these "democracy" ideas come from. The people involved are not interested in sharing power democratically, they will do that as long as it suits their interests, then when the opportunity arises they will depose the others and take over. Always the same, whether they achieve it through subterfuge, whispering, intrigue or any other means.

This is what is now happening at the TWC. Those that are taking over are making those members that have slighted them in the past, or those that seek to remove them, pay dearly. Drunk on power they are making rash decisions, banning or gagging those that have not done anything except disagree with them and ultimately wrecking the place and it's reputation a a Total War fan forum. There are also those who will support the ousted modders, and others, with the hope of eventually gaining power for themselves. They will engage in flaming and other stunts such as attempted infiltrations which will only serve to tarnish the reputation of the "rebels". There are bad apples in both camps. This is what comes of a so called democracy.

Well, I change my vote.

I think:This is like a place which needs good administration.If someone who says "I can be Admin", he is very wrong, because he or she maybe doesnt have the skills.An member check the threads he or she wants.The Moderators has to check every thread.And read it carefully.Members can spend little time(or not) in the org.Mods and Admins have to spend hours.Members receive PM's.Mods and Admins have to send PM's and Warnings.Members report posts.Mods and Admins have to read all the "bad posts", and close they.

You maybe say, Yes, I can do it.But you cant see whats is the work, really. It (maybe) can tire you.But mods like Beirut(I am not saying other mods do nothing, I am taking he like an example) are fighting all the day versus the spammers.Now, you will say:Its one or two threads.Its nothing.But the truth is other.Threads with spam appears always.Everyday.

This is a chain, if you are a mod, You have a chain.
You cant leave the org.Never.

Think it twice.We should "prepare" the new admins, because being a mod in a new forum, everyone can do it.But, being a mod in the TotalWar.Org site is other thing.

Now, I want to ask how many time the mods and the Admins spend in the org daily.I want to know, and we should compare with those says yes! to the democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

You're an admin, start the revolt, unadmin Tosa, ban everyone you don't like and shoot the camels

---

YES !! YES !! Shoot the camels !! Shoot them !!

@Caius: indeed, people tend to forget way too often how much time and effort it takes to make and keep this lovely place the lovely place it is.