|
Post by Ricky on Jul 15, 2010 22:04:20 GMT -5
Honest questions wont get mad from the outcome, but... is our tribe a dictatorship directed by admins? and are their decisions the kind we are never supposed to overthrow?
Like, I do love all the admins, but I was just wondering if we were ever going to do what Dan is doing with his life and put our tribe to be run by all its members.
I mean after all aren't we trying to prove with Dan 3.0 that it would be a good idea for govn'ts to do it?
I'm not trying to bring hate to anyone or looking for an outcome, I just thought it would be nice to know, thats all.
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on Jul 15, 2010 22:15:48 GMT -5
I'm confused by your question. It took 30 seconds to look up "dictatorship" on Wikiepedia and answer "no."
Perhaps I'm (or you're) confused about what a "dictatorship" is...?
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Jul 15, 2010 22:17:13 GMT -5
We can over rule them. Majority rules on any decison. They have the best decisons making but we can still overrule them.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Jul 15, 2010 22:20:17 GMT -5
Hmm... interesting idea... Technically speaking, the admins have all of the power, but I don't think they use in it a totalitarian manner... In her post in the "Government Ideas" thread, Cortney suggested ideas should be voted on by the tribe, and if it's possible, the admins will implement it.. I can't really say if this would hold true if all of the admins agreed on one thing, and the rest of the tribe disagreed with them on the subject, because I can't imagine that ever happening.. so I can't really say if we could ever "overthrow" their decisions... I don't think that helped at all. Sorry. >.<
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on Jul 15, 2010 22:23:35 GMT -5
Unless I'm confused about what a dictatorship is, I don't understand how you can even compare or have to think about it...? Like, we're more easily comparable to the US Government. That's still a terrible comparison, but it's tons better. wth. Yeah, if you have to think about this question, you clearly don't know how the admins operate. Not sure how this is. Must not read our posts. *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Jul 15, 2010 22:27:01 GMT -5
Unless I'm confused about what a dictatorship is, I don't understand how you can even compare or have to think about it...? Like, we're more easily comparable to the US Government. That's still a terrible comparison, but it's tons better. wth. Yeah, if you have to think about this question, you clearly don't know how the admins operate. Not sure how this is. Must not read our posts. *shrugs* I think he was wondering if the admins had final say, and that even if we protested we still couldnt change it. The answer is no, except for concerning the choosing of admins, when it is then neccissary to not have people choose.
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on Jul 15, 2010 22:32:57 GMT -5
Oh.
No, the only thing you guys don't have a say in is the admin team. The community's opinions are respected and considered for everything else.
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on Jul 15, 2010 22:56:45 GMT -5
well that helps. So since I don't know how the admins operate, can I ask how? just for future reference and that way this problem wont arise again.
and it seemed kind of weird, and maybe I didn't sleep enough last night but I don't really understand your last statement bree.
So, the only thing we don't have a say in is the admin team, but then you say our decisions can only be considered (making it sound like we don't really have the say on them)
Again, just making sure so I know and don't make the same questions again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Side note (no need to respond to this part):
Sorry I wasn't clear enough on my first post Bree, using the examples you provided this is what I meant:
"A government controlled by a small group of people"
"Form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social... factors within the state"
not sure the US govn't works that way xD
or like Pj said: "was wondering if the admins had final say" ;D
|
|
lupin
Meteorite
boom boom
Posts: 42
|
Post by lupin on Jul 15, 2010 23:05:42 GMT -5
We can over rule them. Majority rules on any decison. They have the best decisons making but we can still overrule them. ive learned somthing from forums.. if you mess with an admin hes gonna come at you and kick your account no disrispect your majestys
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Jul 15, 2010 23:10:09 GMT -5
We can over rule them. Majority rules on any decison. They have the best decisons making but we can still overrule them. ive learned somthing from forums.. if you mess with an admin hes gonna come at you and kick your account no disrispect your majestys 1) who are you talking about? 2)it's not funny, we don't need more drama
|
|
|
Post by Rogers91 on Jul 15, 2010 23:20:23 GMT -5
the community no matter how it is run can stand up against any leader... weather it be a totalitarian or a democracy. if we decided we had enough with all of this then we would easily be able to overthrow the leaders even if it meant leaveing SPOTM. we are in control the admins just keep the peace... if an admin got out of line... well they wouldn't be around much longer... even though i realy hope that we like each other enough to not need such actions.
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Jul 15, 2010 23:21:32 GMT -5
sure
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on Jul 15, 2010 23:24:54 GMT -5
@rogers (bree please disregard this post and If you could answer the one i left you)
I'm not really asking anyone to stand up against the admins, all i'm really asking is how it is ran. Still the answer you suggest might be a bit far fetch. For example if we were to compare it to a country, would it seem normal for everyone in the country to leave it if they no longer like their leader?
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 15, 2010 23:34:21 GMT -5
heres the thing. the admins TECHINCALLY could get banhappy...but i dont think that would happen on a community like SPOTM. the admins, while they do hold all the "power" (which is relative and debatable in this case,) theyre here for the same reason everyone else is, and they all follow the same values we do.
whether or not we should have a say in who gets appointed as an admin is a different discussion for a different thread. but think about it this way, what is the true extent of the admin team's power? i'm not advocating this to anyone, do not take this as sound advice for normal circumstances, but essentially all the admins can do is close threads, edit posts, and profiles, move threads, delete posts, ban/suspend members...and probably some more stuff. i know there are other admin functions, like maintaining the actual site, but im just going to address teh power issue here.
suppose the admins go nuts, and stop conforming to our values, and start working against the tribe. they delete a thread? you repost it. they delete or modify a post? you repost or reedit. they delete your account? you make a new one. they ban you? evade it. there are ways of checking the admin's power even without having the tribe elect them, so i dont think there is much to worry about...again, i am NOT advocating anything posted above in normal circumstances, i am just saying it COULD be done if the need arose.
if teh admins decide something contrary to the will of the tribe as a whole, i dont think there is much they could do to enforce it, if the tribe as a whole is genuinely opposed. then again, i dont think THAT would happen either because we are all following the same values...so i would say theres nothing to worry about with the admins leading. we may see the admins at their best now that Dan officially left. we may now see their full potential and leadership qualities.
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on Jul 15, 2010 23:44:52 GMT -5
Yea, I can see were you are coming from Asher, and all I have to say is... well, you are right. Thanks for helping me see it that way.
I suppose the only thing that does still bug me about it is we have the option of all deciding on every single issue, than having to had representatives do it.
Like say, we want to know if it would be a good idea to change forums. A poll is made with all the details, a date is set, and the decision is kept.
Kind of like what Dan is doing with his project
|
|
|
Post by Rogers91 on Jul 15, 2010 23:50:29 GMT -5
For example if we were to compare it to a country, would it seem normal for everyone in the country to leave it if they no longer like their leader? uhh hold on... germany world war two.. everyone who was being pursicuted tried to leave... cuba sence the us embargo and even today people are trying to leave if we let them come here then cuba would be just castro's family and a few unlucky souls that got stuck... arizona in the us everyone who is being discriminated is packing up and leaveing. human nature is to go away from what we dont like. if i dont like any of you i will leave. if all the leaders became corrupt and pushy.. 70% of the tribe would leave... this has been seen time and time again. dont get me wrong the admins are doing a great job. however if this became a worse case senario we would just leave... so yes ignore me and assume i am a newbie and or mad or crazy... im sorry i get angery when people try to ignore me...
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on Jul 16, 2010 0:09:53 GMT -5
Yes those are good points. Still I think the estimation of 70% of the tribe leaving is too high. Also, I think if we were to leave the spotm we would lose the potential of waves of new members from which a few stay, as I suppose Dan wouldn't refer them to us anymore. Which might lead to no new members.
On a side note, I think most people in Germany on world war two were more likely to agree to the Nazis due to how hard it was to actually scape. Don't get me wrong many did, but the numbers were not actually that great compared to how many stayed.
and no, please don't think I was ignoring you by how I phrased my answer before. Its just that I didn't want the conversation I was having with bree to go on a tangent.
I also don't think you are mad or crazy :]
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Jul 16, 2010 0:20:48 GMT -5
Technically if Most of the members didn't like it here, and the admins weren't helping, we could impeach them by creating a new forum. I don't think it will ever happen but it is just cool to say.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 16, 2010 0:29:40 GMT -5
no no no...the only reasons for the admins to go nuts would be a power trip...if you take away that power by completely undermining or disregarding it, they are forced to change if tehy want ANY power...we wouldnt HAVE to leave
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on Jul 16, 2010 0:35:47 GMT -5
well that helps. So since I don't know how the admins operate, can I ask how? just for future reference and that way this problem wont arise again. and it seemed kind of weird, and maybe I didn't sleep enough last night but I don't really understand your last statement bree. So, the only thing we don't have a say in is the admin team, but then you say our decisions can only be considered (making it sound like we don't really have the say on them) Again, just making sure so I know and don't make the same questions again. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Side note (no need to respond to this part): Sorry I wasn't clear enough on my first post Bree, using the examples you provided this is what I meant: "A government controlled by a small group of people" "Form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social... factors within the state" not sure the US govn't works that way xD or like Pj said: "was wondering if the admins had final say" ;D You can get a general idea of how we operate by just reading our posts. o.o Especially in IMPORTANT and Suggestions (which includes Forum Government). As for a direct answer, I don't feel comfortable giving an "official" one at the moment. It wouldn't be fair of me to speak on behalf of the entire team without discussing it with them first (or at least having them approve of/agree with what I want to say). In the meantime, I'm pretty sure this sums it up in a very simple way: No, the only thing you guys don't have a say in is the admin team. The community's opinions are respected and considered for everything else. You must be thinking about "considered" incorrectly: con·sid·ered [kuhn-sid-erd] –adjective 1. thought about or decided upon with care: a considered opinion. 2. regarded with respect or esteem: a highly considered person.
I was saying the community's opinion is taken into account as an equal to our own (the admin's opinions). But generally, if you guys have come to some sort of serious consensus about something, we end up agreeing with you anyway. (Doesn't always mean we can do it, though. Like Click's thread that's been sitting in Suggestions for ages, gathering Likes...) "A government controlled by a small group of people" 1) doesn't apply here and 2) can be used to describe many, many forms of government. "Form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social... factors within the state" 1) again, doesn't apply here, I don't see how anyone could even guess that we have "absolute rule" 2) There are several laws, constitutions (our values and the like), and social factors (you guys, our morals) restricting us. So yeah, still don't get where you were coming from. But there's your explanation! : D ALSO WHAT BOMB SAID. Yay!
|
|