A Proposal to Appoint a New Moderator

Start with the people with the Letter A first then mark our way up. PURGE EVERYONE EVEN STALIN

Your one of the more nicer mords i'll give you that, the other mods will claim that there fair and just and that others ideology does not sway there position (But there human so it does) though sometimes i admit the Communist on the forum can take it too far (But if you look at it from out perspective, its just)

Personally I believe that if the Other mods have the ability to ban most of the communist they would.

I am content with how it is now. Besides every time we change somthing, someone freaks out and causes a giant shitstorm.

All communists have stopped the spamming on the forum, mine you it turned out to be a little childish in the end, but nonetheless we was expressing our anger on a couple of issues. I do support this, and I think its not a bad idea, mate. A few mods on here adequately do their best to represent everyone regardless if the ideologies or what have you is totally different. But I do agree on a possible new moderator though, I certainly agree that it might balance out things a little bit here on the forums.

No I believe I am the most left-leaning at a centre-left and far left somewhere in there.

Most of the mods are left-leaning. If anything the right-leaning section of the forum is being left out. The mods do a good job, ideology does not get you banned.

You "Communists" are the snobbiest and most annoying people on the forum. I'd gauge that you are all upper class people. That is why you are trying to simulate "Communism" on a fucking forum. Not to mention that you actually have some sort of psychological issue. The mods do not pick on people based on political ideology.

When I proposed the Common Law section of the peoples assembly I was hoping it would stop this sort of thing. Unfortunately it seems to ahve been lost in the transition from old to new site. I propose it is returned, but in a much stronger form.

And before you all get uppity I'll just remind everyone that Common Law is Law by the doctrine of judicial precident and tradition, not "we all decide what happens in a hippy craptastic anarchist" form of law.

Basically, after a decision with a reasonable amount of controversialness the Mods should post, in public for all to view, the decisions of the case. Each Mod involved should give an opinion as to their decision ("Having read the learned comments of my colleague..." will not suffice). Thus not only can we, the people, see the Common Law that is being applied but we can also act as watchmen over the mods.

Additionally, I propose powers for tribunes to make public with mod opinion any decision they feel should be brought to the attention of the people and for at least one such decision a month (unless no such decision are made) to be displayed such.

Those in favour...?

Opposed

Fuck it, all in favor of banning political ideologies on the forums say Nipple fuckers.

It's the only way to be fair.

Mind if I ask why?

No, we nuke the entire forums from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Edit: I oppose your proposal simply because it's unneccasary. The tribunes were a compromise and that's how far we should go.

We must ban everything from the forums, All opinions and thoughts are subjected to removal of the forums starting now.

Well, the current issue raised was that the forum could not be assured of the seperation of ideology from moderator's duties. In my opinion this is the best way to do so.

Also as I recall, when origionally I propsed, and it was passed, it was due to the forum rules being implemented by common law system, but the decisions, and hence the actuall law itslef, not being known to the members. At current we lack this.

Yeah thats fair enough, but I strongly suggest it be brought back. And it would resolve the whole "the mod(S) are against me and all communists" crap if each mod gave his/her own opinion on the case. I'm guessing it is majority decision making and dissenting opinions are usually most revealing .

Honestly I can't think of one time in the history of the site that something had a dissenting opinion with more than two people on that side. The rules are written rather plainly, and so is our method of dealing with people who break them. Not only that, but the rules are very easy to follow. I don't think that one could, having read the rules, actually violate a rule without intending to do so or being fully aware that they were violating a rule. It makes moderating pretty clear cut and doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation, especially since we have a tendency to go with precedent on pretty much all decisions.

My point is common law means that precedent is hugely important in deciding law. Even if this is more a mixed than common law system we should still see the decisions, even if they are all agreeing. Its just basic legal philosophy, all courts publish casees. Specificly, in non-common systems, so that judges can be seen to be acting impartially.

I'm all for transparency, but there's no reason to do any of the other stuff you proposed. Ultimately, we are not responsible to the site, we're responsible to Stalin. The community is composed of simple plebeians, and do not deserve the right to act as watchdogs for us. That said, my opinion on the issue of transparency (and one that I've proposed in the past) is that we ought not to make anything that's not about rule violations private. But I'm part of a clear minority in the Mod's Corner, being 1 against 8 (or however many we have now) as far as I can tell.

Unlike the modship, we regard other people's opinions as worthwhile and do not act without even considering them.

Hey, start proposing legislation again so I can oppose it, I need more stuff to oppose!