Giving us normal users more power

My idea came off this post by Finn​

http://www.sythe.org/showpost.php?p=7056505&postcount=51

Now for my suggestion. For us "normal users", it's frustrating when staff make a decision we do no agree on. However, our attempts at venting our frustration is usually passed off as being not our business.​

How about giving us the power to appeal. It would work for bannings, promotions, denial of applications, etc. It would go something like this:
User A is promoted. We do not agree with this decision. I get together with four other "known" members, and lodge an appeal. This appeal needs to be signed or backed by a global as well as a section moderator. If all is in place, an appeal is posted in a section that requires approval before posting. The global then approves the thread, and the staff discuss their reasoning in PUBLIC for all to see.​

So basically it requires:​

• Five "known" users backing it​
• A global moderator approving it​
• A sectional moderator approving it​

Then:​

1. It is posted in a section that requires approval​
2. Said global approves the thread​
3. Moderators discuss their reasoning behind it in public​

Hope this makes sense. Thanks.​

 

This could start a "Sythe Black Market" (oh the irony) where people will buy and sell appeal signings. Most of the time I tend to agree with staff decisions anyway...

 

Then that staff member would be banned like he would with leaking. Why do members always look to find flaws.

 

I think the appeal system would be abused due to ban evading/scamming members that are banned. If respected in the Spam Forum like a lot of older users are, and banned for a legitimate reason, then this could be abused. Although, this would come in handy for unfair bans that the community does not approve of(Syed for example, etc.). Admin = Veto powers and reserves the ability to close the thread and prevent a thread for the user from coming back again.

Change "known" users to "respected" users. Great idea, but any time a suggestion is made like this, it gets denied rather than discussed throughly for fine tuning and perfect refining.

Also,

We do so the suggestion can become refined and approved, it's a great suggestion, in all honesty.

 

A lot of other things can be abused, vouches for example.

The reason I chose the word known was it would be easier to define. I've already thought of a basic system.

• Member with 1000 posts and registered for at least 6 months
• Member registered for at least a year with 500 posts
• A user educator
• A donator (Also an added perk)

The thing that annoys me is that they point out something that would be dealt with case by case. They didn't decide on giving Obama presidency when they elected Bush.

 

• An OMM?

 

You'd expect an OMM to meet at least one of the criterias. But yeah, you can add him in there.

 

Yeah, true, I seem to have overlooked that.

 

This website is not a democracy, never has been and never will be.

 

You're incorrect. The collective staff make decisions and such in regards to the forum. Sythe does have supreme rule, but he prefers to allow freedom in decisions similar to this.

I agree with the idea whole heatedly, mainly because this is close to what I was working on with my forum. It allows for ideas and progression to be more thoroughly investigated rather than locked and removed.

I see no way to really abuse it, as long as when a final decision is made and whatever is denied, the subject may not be brought up again, and any further discussion without supplying new information will be treated as spam and the person doing so infracted.

 

I agree with this very much, I think users should have more of a say as equally as staff does.

 

You have described an oligarchy and not a democracy, so I am afraid I would be correct in this situation. Due to the fact that a majority of your posts are hit or miss retarded, though, your ignorance of this does not surprise me. You were partially right in your ability to describe an oligarchy, though, so I award you 1 point.

 

Having a sectional sign off on it is pointless as globals are more important than sectionals and more experienced, so if you have a global a sectional isn't really important at all.

 

I just thought it'd make it a little harder to get something signed. But I don't mind either.

 

Yeah, it's annoying when we vent ourselves and in the end we get slapped with a 'none of your business'. Support.

 

This is totally true, I think sythe should now turn into a democracy! Muahahahaha, no but seriously it should. Staff should only decide on decisions that are concerning regular players that are non-staff. Normal players should have the ability to vote on things such as, different color backgrounds (idk), things such as that.

 

You don't get the suggestion. They'd still make the decision, we'd just be able to appeal it.

 

Listen here, scrot. I'll admit I didn't know what an oligarchy was, but I took the time to figure exactly what it was out so I could point out how fucking retarded you are.

Don't attack me, never attack me, lesson number one you should learn in life, is if Deacon says something, don't fucking start, because he will tear your ass up and leave you begging for help. Plain and simple.

There is indeed a figure head on Sythe, but Sythe does not usually involve himself with matters involving how the forum is ran. Not only this, but he listens to suggestions, and he takes ideas from people when making the website run.

Moderators and such are not chosen through a lineage system, but rather voted upon by others who have proven themselves worthy of voting on such matters. Because of how the internet works, a true democracy cannot be put into play. I've ran many websites, I've even designed a democracy system that would run on a forum, and let me tell you that this is as close as it gets.

If there's truly an issue, with actual weight behind it, the system allows for users to voice their opinion. An oligarchy does not allow for this. Nor does it allow for changes to be made to the system. Sythe allows for such changes, but they must be worth while, and they must show positive approval and desire from a majority of the members.

Now, before you post a reply, think about who you're debating with, and do not treat me like I do not know what I am talking about. I will win against you, and you will look like a jackass when I do. So save yourself the trouble, and just don't. Ok?

 

I like the concept, the core idea of giving users more say, but your idea is truly misleading. You'd still need staff support. From what I understand, instead of letting that global create a private 'appeal' in the staff lounge, you'd like to make it public? Ultimately you'll always need 60% of the staff to overrule a decision- not just one or two. Making it public only creates more drama on both the staff team and in the community. This would also encourage a groupthink attitude- something Sythe himself strives to avoid.

I just don't see the point. You're not giving regular users anymore power.

 

Basically, yes. We want to know what's going on, why it's going on, etc.

Again, the idea is based on letting us know. I'm sure what globals say in the private areas and the public areas of this site are two different things. Plus decisions could be influenced by user given information, user based thoughts, etc.