Post by The Jiggler on Jul 13, 2015 4:50:30 GMT -4
Democracy - A thing the Greeks invented
God do I sound like a real American politician recently but yes, democracy. It has appeared to me that although the member-based society on Bannanachair does have an impact mostly due to the greater number and pressure on the staff, we don't have a true choice on what happens. An overreaction to what happened with the statue? Perhaps. Required? Not entirely. Good help and benefit the community? Definitely. Democracy by definition is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." This means that a collection of eligible members can vote on a thing that the state has provided and the majority decision goes. Although, that would mostly if not completely null the power of the Bannanachair Lords, I suggest a veto option. If a collection of more than one Bannanchair Lord decides that the member's decision is not... hmmm... good(?), they can veto it and proceed to do as they initially acted.
And I know I've been stressing the unfairness between the moderators and the members recently although it is only a select few.
But as some, or most, of us know, I was temporarily IP-Banned today by a Bannanachair Lord. I had this revoked due to a large surge of people wanting me to be unbanned or at least have the ban reduced to a shorter amount of time. Tim took the situation into his own care and unraveled it properly. And the Bannanachair Lord was warned, but I believe this all could've been avoided if we'd (the community) have the chance to vote on what should happen or not given sufficient evidence. If it is very a clear the culprit is breaking the rules of Bannanachair constantly, the members can easily decide to have a consequence persecuted on them. But say if they have violated the rules a few times but have recovered and then have done something bad, the court can decide if the culprit should either be banned or given a warning and a warning level increase.
And I know I've been stressing the unfairness between the moderators and the members recently although it is only a select few.
But as some, or most, of us know, I was temporarily IP-Banned today by a Bannanachair Lord. I had this revoked due to a large surge of people wanting me to be unbanned or at least have the ban reduced to a shorter amount of time. Tim took the situation into his own care and unraveled it properly. And the Bannanachair Lord was warned, but I believe this all could've been avoided if we'd (the community) have the chance to vote on what should happen or not given sufficient evidence. If it is very a clear the culprit is breaking the rules of Bannanachair constantly, the members can easily decide to have a consequence persecuted on them. But say if they have violated the rules a few times but have recovered and then have done something bad, the court can decide if the culprit should either be banned or given a warning and a warning level increase.
What do you think about introducing a democratic system to Bannanachair? Yes or no?
(See the poll above the article.)
(See the poll above the article.)
