I'd like to sign up. I have no biases towards political views except for things such as blatant fear mongering and fake information. I am even studying for a political science degree !
The main defining factor should be how willing they are to read through sources, commit to a discussion, and concede when they're wrong. Political stance should absolutely come second
im no rightwing nazi. i long for thed ay when i no longer have to work and instead receive labor vouches from the government for doing noth2ing,, so i can pursue my dream as a video game devloper and get estrogen without having to go throuhg my bitch narcissest mom. i know my fp bros agree
Don't you worry about that, I've already made plans to buy the election for myself and rename it from "Polidicks" to "Hillary Clinton fan forum"
I hope when it comes to nominations, @Grenadiac can be strongly considered, as a few have mentioned earlier as well. He is one of the most levelheaded people here often. His style of conservatism, views and reasoning in general makes a perfect fit for mostly unbiased viewpoints and rational decisions.
I think @Grenadiac and @elix are an obvious two to put on that council should it go forward
I think voting should mimic the American electoral system. Hezzy should create a thread where each post is the name of a nominee and you have to rate coins and diamonds on each post to vote. Those with the most diamonds and coins rated will win
It's been a while since we've had a really good entertaining shitstorm.
Don't forget a system that disproportionately represents the minority political opinion with an extremely small subset of people whose vote is the only one that matters, with the popular vote being completely disregarded.
100% agree on the wide geographical net. Would be nice to have some people from outside the US who aren't as invested in the current political climate there.
2 month term limit sounds good for a start to See how it works out. If this whole ordeal works well then the terms can always be longer next time around.
No thanks, Just instead favor some other country's electoral system that isn't First Past The Post method.
As long as he stops calling everyone who disagrees with him children or immature.
I thought that was cyke lon bee
If it was then my bad.
I know you apologized for your actions, but the simple fact is that there were several instances that we had to pull you back from silly sources. Until you build up your "bullshit detector" I personally cant recommend you to be in a position to moderate over others
A user council isn't the way to go, dedicated mods would serve this Polidicks better. I don't want to see this place enter the scenario of a user being banned with legitimate reason but taken by a large group on here as a disagreement on views instead.
People put faith in the moderators and the people who chose those moderators rather than some common members, no reason for that to change.
How long until Hezzy creates an army on cloned shitposters, turns on the goldis and kills them all, then reveals himself as a sith?
So instead of doing their jobs, the mods wanna push their responsibility onto a small group of users.
I CAN SEE NO WAY THIS'LL GO WRONG!
A diamond to everyone who votes for me!
I try really hard to be patient and open with people who appear to be arguing in good faith but I don't mind calling someone a dumbass if he's obviously not interested in having a real conversation, I guess that's just how I was raised. I have pretty deep reserves of patience for people with genuinely held beliefs. There are people on my steam friends list that I've gone back and forth with on guns for over 8 years and still game with every day Being disagreed with doesn't really bother me, I just want people to reach honest, personal decisions with the most accurate knowledge they have available instead of taking someone else's word for it.
Yeah no i was thinking of cyke, that's entirely my mistake.
@Hezzy I see a few of things that should be done a bit differently from the proposal.
The make up needs to be both mods and users. Either 4:3 Users:Mods or 5:2 Users:Mods. It needs to be an active discussion between both groups and not just users without any guidance that only communicate higher up the chain at the end of the process.
The term length needs to be longer, frankly a fair bit longer. Two months is a rapidly shifting council that honestly is going to be fairly impotent because it's going to be slow getting any change in place. With that short a change may be proposed and before it has been implemented at all a new council is in and making entirely different changes. It also means that discussions will be restarted constantly on long term issues such as slow burn users like Tudd where they're bad faith but not always (I know everyone does the whole "Because it's interesting" thing but he occasionally made threads that were literally just that and weren't political shitposting.) I'd say make it either six months or a year. Maybe do staggered elections such as with a 4:3 split two member are elected every six months and serving a year term. The first batch would all serve one year, with two members picked/elected to serve an additional six months. Or in six months two members picked to serve the full year and two others starting the cycle properly. Of course with a different cycle if it was a 5:2 split.
Reelection or however they are picked. I disagree with term limits, but it might be necessary to at least have a rule about sequential terms. Or perhaps a rule that they can't serve if it would be alongside, say, three or more people from the last two councils they served with before. Force the council to not stagnate, but allow people who did well to come back.
Ratings need to be disabled for council members. Members should be able to neither give nor receive them whatsoever from the moment they are nominated or whatever the selection process is until at least the end of their term. No funnies, no winners, no dumbs, and no coins. While obviously most people here are joking, there absolutely will be people who will whore themselves out for diamonds.
There should be some official, clear, auditable way for non-council users to communicate directly with the council users. Maybe anonymized, although able to be revealed by moderators on the condition that if a moderator does in fact reveal a user it is clearly labelled by who and when.
Do you feel like you might be personally targeted since wvwryone hates you?
Seems like more of a behavioral problem to me tbh, if you want to not be in that spot then maybe stop constantly funposting.
No, not really, I don't post often. 'A ton of people' may hate me, but I don't see them being able to put a foot down in a Brexit thread as some would clearly like to without becoming bias as the topic is currently ongoing and cannot reasonably be moderated apart from simple rule violations. Thus I see that as a job for official moderators, not deputised users.
I don't hate you
I just consider you to be the absolute epitome of "Intellectual Dishonesty".
We will build a wall and the Rust subforum will pay for it.
Walls are more expensive than flammenwerfers, and they don't werf flammen.
I hate him.
After constantly debating him and with him running out of ways to back up his "Pro-Brexit" stances. He decided to shit on my artwork and my job.
He's a dishonest piece of shit.
This is permission to go and flame the rust forum? w00t
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
