Public vote/trial when Banning members?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I vote Forte gets the banhammer
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
 
well now since you losers broke the chain...

this is a retarded idea. For one the non-mods, are not mods for a reason.
Whether that be they are stupid, immature, havnt done anything worthy of mod status, or are just uneeded.

Correct me if im wrong, but didnt Woner mention, that when someone gets banned several moderators make the decisions not just one moderator.

And aside from all that. If your banned because someone hates you, there are enough moderators that would be able to report, admonish the person as well as unban you.
 
i think that this is an interesting idea an should be taken seriously.

Forums are not, and should never be, a democracy. The problem with forums is that I can go ahead and create 1000 accounts, which would be more than enough for me to hold a majority vote.

Forum structures start with one person, and that is the administrator. The administrator appoints people that they want to be the first moderators. There are no rules for who they pick. They can choose their best friend just because they like them, or the neighbour who will pay $5 to be a moderator. After that, it is normal for those moderators to have a say in who becomes moderators. Of course, that isn't necessary, because the administrator(s) have the power.

tl;dr: forums are dictatorships, not democracies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top