Authoritarianism.

[Radium]

I propose we give administrators unlimited power and the right to ban anyone they wish without the need to defend their choice. Who agrees?

[n00b]

Hell yes.

[JelZe GoldRabbit]

One single quote defines my statement:

Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[Fawriel]

As tempting as it sounds, I must agree with JelZe.
...an all too bureaucratic take on the banning issues, what with the warnings and all, isn't too great, either, though...
It should be taken into account how frequent violations of rules are, whether the user shows any kind of understanding for rules, or more importantly, why they are there.. etc.

[Stijn]

With the current state of the JCF that might not be a bad idea at all. And ofcourse it's fun to laugh at others being banned })

<strike>unless it's me who gets banned</strike>

But actually the admins have unlimited powers already.

[FQuist]

I have trouble understanding JelZe and Fawriel. You two do realise we already basically have the ultimate power here, seeing as we own this place? Would you say we - or to make this personal - I are/am corrupt?

[Radium]

But actually the admins have unlimited powers already.Yes, but they it seems like they're trying to be fair.

[Fawriel]

What Radium said. You ARE setting yourselves rules, which is good. You are in no way corrupt, as far as I know, but absolute power.. is just morally wrong.
...unless we applied the philosophical rules of discourse ethics... those are pretty accurate to determine what is good and what's not....... and stuff.... hmm......

[Radium]

What Radium said. You ARE setting yourselves rules, which is good. I meant it as a bad thing, actually =/

[Fawriel]

I know. Doesn't change my point.

[FQuist]

Fawriel, we have absolute power, as do corporations without shareholders and anyone who owns something.

[Fawriel]

...but you <i>are</i> setting yourselves rules.
I've never seen an admin abuse power... although it's there.
...
So technically, the topic is meaningless, isn't it.

[Radium]

So technically, the topic is meaningless, isn't it.No, what I'm saying is that they should exercise absolute power with less restraint in order to ensure a more peaceful internets.

[William Jennings Bryan]

No, what I'm saying is that they should exercise absolute power with less restraint in order to ensure a more peaceful internets.

You are proposing anarchy!
What we need is to form some trustful colonizers we can send to fullfil our manifest destiny of taking freedom to other forums so that our model for moderation can be spread allover the internet. It will happen!

[LittleFreak]

I need to learn reading threads before voting on the polls.

I somehow thought that this was in the comedy café. d=

Anyways, I agree with Faw.

If the admins had absolute power, you could ban anyone just because you didn't like him.

A good example is Orbitz. He was (or still is? I don't know) actively crashing servers and made the playing experience for players worse, but he wasn't banned from the JCF because the JCF admins aren't responsible for what happens in JJ2. However, had you not been restricting yourself, you could have just banned him from the forums aswell.

[Radium]

You are proposing anarchy!On the contrary, Mr. Bryan! I'm suggesting communism!

[Torkell]

Yes and no. I voted no, simply because that was the side I'm leaning more towards. However, I can understand that there are times when the admins need to be able to do whatever they want (e.g. mass account creation/spam flood) to fix something. However, I don't think they should be able to ban people on a whim (or rather, that they should do so).

So, to summarise: they should have unlimited power, but they should also know not to use it. Which I think accurately describes the current administration.

Edit: is it just me, or have 3 new members been banned today? Alright, own up, who put the troll in the water supply?

[n00b]

It's currently 4-1 with the favor being towards Team Radium.

[Torkell]

Make that 4.25-0.75. Unfortuantly the polls don't allow fractional answers.

<tt>int True=1; int False=0; int Maybe=0.5; // Where do you want to round today?</tt>

[FQuist]

4 new members, probably all the same person. Also, a reference: Che Guevara was a communist rebel, William Jennings Bryan a democratic presidential candidate in the early 20th & late 19th century in the USA, and manifest_destiny a concept in USA history.

[n00b]

Still, Team Radium s winning.
If Team NoPower wants people to take it seriously, they're going to need more supporters.
Supporters who vote.

[Torkell]

4 new members, probably all the same person. Also, a reference: Che Guevara was a communist rebel, William Jennings Bryan a democratic presidential candidate in the early 20th & late 19th century in the USA, and manifest_destiny a concept in USA history.
Ah, so that's where the names come from. Kudos to all the admins for keeping on top of the mass trolling.

[n0]

Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
I was going to say that after I voted but before I scrolled down and saw that you posted it.

[JelZe GoldRabbit]

I just have to speak my mind about this, I really have to. Let me get straight: you guys want to make the admins use all of their power and their priviliges to give you what you want, namely a message board without any troublemakers. But how much better would be it really be?

This whole "banning" you guys seem to like so much thing reminds me of all of those petitions to ban players from the listservers. I know you want to get rid of the pests, at least permanently, I understand that, but come on! This is overdoing it! Next thing you know you'll all go like "He's a hacking geek! Ban!" or even worse "We don't trust him! Ban!" Kinda childish if you ask me, even more than the hackers.

Ironically enough, this will invite only more pests to try and test your wits (trust me, there are guys like that out there) who go all like "Hey, see how many posts you can get in before you get banned" or "Wow, a communistic forum! Let's how quickly I get banned!" Or maybe this will happen after the banning lists grows large: "Nah, I'm not going there, they seem too ban-crazy"

Granted, we're a smal community and we're doing our best to keep it alive. But by taking an attitude like "troublemakers get banned instantly" we'd practically be sealing us off from the outside world like a clam would. Clammed up, it can only wither further and further. And we wouldn't want that now would we? We can keep the pests out, but nobody would dare to join. You can guess the result.

Another thing, what if one of our regular members makes a mistake (unlikely, but still, you never know), the kind that would get him banned? "O, we'll give him another chance..." *buzzer sound* Wrong! The admins' saving grace is that they're constant with their warnings and such, which prevents things like "But, why does he get another chance and not me? We did the same thing!" Answer is in two words: friendly politics (Ã(-) la Bush). With the rules and procedures out of the way, the admins can easily measure with two kinds of scales for the very same thing, which is never a good idea.

Ok, I may seem harsh with this, but my faith in this community (which is somewhat low to begin with) will crumble should the admins fell like banning for no reason. If anything, you'd never see me again.

- JelZe GoldRabbit =:3

[Iam Canadian]

Does a community our size really need more administrative control? Or even less? We do get the occasional influx of a few new users, but we're pretty isolated and close-knit as a rule. I'm really rather neutral on the subject as a whole.

[n00b]

[QUOTE=JelZe GoldRabbit] namely a message board without any troublemakers. /QUOTE]
I'm sorry, where have you been today?
Did you fail to notice the surgness of pranksters?

[TTFighter972]

Sorry that you have to beef up security, but this forum is just fun to troll.

[LittleFreak]

I agree with Jelze. It's fine as it is.

[MoonBlazE]

Administrators should always discuss bans with the rest of the administration. Which they already do. I took your question as if you wanted this to change, which I clearly don't. So I voted no.

[JelZe GoldRabbit]

namely a message board without any troublemakers.
I'm sorry, where have you been today?
Did you fail to notice the surgness of pranksters?

I did not, tho I wouldn't call it a surge just yet. It's just one single person with multiple accounts, yet all go hay-wire! Touchy...

- JelZe GoldRabbit =:3

[FQuist]

It wasn't an individual actually, it was an orchestrated attack by several people together.

Also, I've not really seen anyone going hay-wire.

[LittleFreak]

An organised attack? How pathetic. d=

[Coppertop]

Doesn't it make you feel important?

I think the administration here is doing an excellent job as is. That said ... COMMUNISM!!!11

[White Rabbit]

When are get kolkhozes opening? We want to start working. :)