Sign In
Register
Help
Posted 02 September 2004 - 07:36 AM
QUOTE
I cannot stress this enough... Please read the thread before voting, I can almost guarantee that if you don't, while you think you know what you're voting for, you probably don't know the full story. I don't mean to be blunt but this is going to change SeeD's course and if you take it lightly the chances of dissatisfaction with the clan will probably go up when a system that you do not really understand is truly implemented.
I have seen many members just pop in and out of this thread in less than a minute leaving a vote (for either side). If SeeD means anything to you at all, why leave the course of our future in a 30-second blind decision?
I'm sorry, because of that problems have come up in the past and members have complained many times about even what they wanted in the first place. Many who wanted this system are complaining about the conflicts which come up as a resut, don't say that you weren't warned, many members brought up these problems but some just did not take them seriously.
(Anything we do can backfire and I'm not blaming anyone or a specific system, this is just an example of why you need to put thought into this.)
If this isn't taken seriously you will subject SeeD to the same problems all over again and we will get nowhere.
If for anything, read the thread to see how each system can be changed. For example, many who have complaints about the strict rule system about how minor situations and greater situations require the same (sometimes wrongly minor or great) action are voting for the rule system simply because they feel that we need rules (not mentioning names but this was PMed to me). I specifically said that rules do exist in both and we can have more rules in the resolution system than before (some giving warnings official ground, for example, which is a common complaint) while allowing judgement for the severity of situations so members are not treated wrongly in a moral sense for what they do.
That was just an example, but one reason why you MUST at least skim through all the points before voting. If you make a vote without knowing, assume that others may as well, which means that in a sense we are making a huge decision in less than a minute and we may as well not explain what it is that we're voting for. We have existed since 2001 with one system and thrived until the faction situation (and the conflicts brought about by the strict rubric for behavior), a reformation will require some thought. Don't just take it lightly. If you don't read it, don't vote. I'm sorry, it is that important.
I have seen many members just pop in and out of this thread in less than a minute leaving a vote (for either side). If SeeD means anything to you at all, why leave the course of our future in a 30-second blind decision?
I'm sorry, because of that problems have come up in the past and members have complained many times about even what they wanted in the first place. Many who wanted this system are complaining about the conflicts which come up as a resut, don't say that you weren't warned, many members brought up these problems but some just did not take them seriously.
(Anything we do can backfire and I'm not blaming anyone or a specific system, this is just an example of why you need to put thought into this.)
If this isn't taken seriously you will subject SeeD to the same problems all over again and we will get nowhere.
If for anything, read the thread to see how each system can be changed. For example, many who have complaints about the strict rule system about how minor situations and greater situations require the same (sometimes wrongly minor or great) action are voting for the rule system simply because they feel that we need rules (not mentioning names but this was PMed to me). I specifically said that rules do exist in both and we can have more rules in the resolution system than before (some giving warnings official ground, for example, which is a common complaint) while allowing judgement for the severity of situations so members are not treated wrongly in a moral sense for what they do.
That was just an example, but one reason why you MUST at least skim through all the points before voting. If you make a vote without knowing, assume that others may as well, which means that in a sense we are making a huge decision in less than a minute and we may as well not explain what it is that we're voting for. We have existed since 2001 with one system and thrived until the faction situation (and the conflicts brought about by the strict rubric for behavior), a reformation will require some thought. Don't just take it lightly. If you don't read it, don't vote. I'm sorry, it is that important.
Truthfully as many know I had been fighting the current rule system for months... All the way back to November of last year many wanted a strict system. Their complaints were that members who did wrong were not punished, while my ideals basically were in the idea that if a problem is solved, it is solved and since this is just a gaming community no further negative action is necessary.
QUOTE
Everyone just needs to remember that if we go back to something like what we had, we can change some things. We can set up rules which can result in instant action (anything major) and rules which give warnings some ground. This is unfortunately impossible with the current system because everything needs to be determined prior to the situation otherwise we would just have a modified version of the old system. It is the question of categorizing all problems and treating them as statistics or treating each one as something different and those involved as individuals within bounds.
I am still a believer that bans and suspensions should only be used instantly for hackers or those who relentlessly flame for the sake of flaming.
To combat the factions we used peaceful means and these methods have ended them completely. I know this for a fact because the hundreds the "he did/she did" PMs, ban request PMs, and conflicting "stories" suddenly ended when the clan's ideals shifted from old situations to looking at the future. Members were not out to get each other and the 15-or-so members directly rivaling each other suddenly became three. One of these three recently left, one will stop, and one has recently stopped... But it was ugly as you know.
Following the recent events there is clear sailing ahead, as funny as it sounds the current problems are over unless we keep claiming that they aren't and trying to prove that that is the case. I'm not saying this inspirationally or anything, I am saying this because I truly mean it. Unless something completely different comes up these conflicts are over unless we drag them out longer.
*********************************************************
Now About Our Future:
The choice is now, if we wait longer it will be difficult to change these aspects again without problems. The choice is yours, below are the pros and cons of each system:
Peaceful (Resolution-Based) System:
Note: This system does not lack rules, it just focuses on solving conflicts instead of just stopping those who cause problems. It also requires judgement of the severity of situations and not a set code or rubric. This is not "anti-punishment", it is "pro-resolution" unless otherwise impossible. There will be some set rules but not covering every possible situation as would be required with the other system.
Pros:
- Members don't have the feeling of admins/mods watching everything they do.
- Everything is more flexible; a minor situation that falls into a certain category unintentionally could end up being blown up with strict rules, though in a system like this anything we do would be based on the severity of the situation.
- We can attack the problems instead of the members.
- No one can be banned instantly unless due to a threat to the site itself, something illegal or obscene, or relentless flaming of the third degree. There are always warnings or attempts to mediate conflicts before action is taken.
- The place would generally have a lighter atmosphere. This is the system we always had up until recently, and this system probably contributed to the "good times" which some old members sometimes bring up because things were not so strict.
- Situations are not treated as a statistic and are not handled by a "robot" ("programmed" to handle everything in the exact same way).
- Mistakes won't cost a member his/her reputation because they can be handled more personally and quietly instead of plastered in GD or another forum with a suspension notice for everything.
- We strive to allow everyone to come out fine from a situation, and if successful the outcome would be better for SeeD and those involved than if a punishment has to be used.
- Leaders try to work more directly with members.
Cons:
- Can sometimes be judged as unfair if members happen to have slightly different treatment through different situations, although we strive for as much fairness as possible.
- Members sometimes feel that nothing is being done regardless of attempts and time spent to solve conflicts (unsuccessful attempts stand out more than those which are successful).
- This can take a lot of time (though is more rewarding in the end).
- Unsuccessful attempts at solving problems can happen.
- This requires that you can work with the leaders and mods, as well as trust that they are trying to achieve the best for SeeD. I can guarantee that they are, but you must judge that for yourself from your perspective.
Stated Rule System:
Note: In order for this to work it must not rely on judgement, otherwise the rules and this system are compromised. This may cause conflicts with moral fairness however, because of the "rubric" used to place members in a statistic.
Pros:
- Everyone is treated exactly the same so fairness is not an issue.
- Everyone knows exactly the actions which would be taken for different offences.
- Members could be afraid to break rules and therefore shouldn't, or so it is intended.
- This is a more conventional system and one which members will most likely believe works upon joining; fewer problems caused by members who want to see change in front of them instead of look for gradual, benign, and often less obvious change at fewer members' expenses.
Cons:
- While "officially" being fair, action may not be "morally" fair. In this I mean that if someone does something very minor and someone does something major, if it falls in the same category they will be punished the same.
- Troublemakers are likely to leave instead of change.
- Has the image of attacking the member instead of the problem (banning a member will not necessarily solve a conflict and this system reduces our ability to help with them).
- The leaders and mods could be feared if you happen to post something slightly questionable. This could decrease posts and indirectly activity.
- Sometimes a conflict will come up directly as a result of action taken. This is something that I have been mentioning for a long time and is visible now.
- Provides a feeling of censorship.
- We sometimes have to perform "forum sweeps" to be sure that we don't "miss" anyone. This is required because in this system action would be taken against every troublemaker and we cannot seem to pick and choose or it won't be fair.
- Have to deal with the admins/mods instead of work with them. Instead of them trying to solve conflicts they will be saying things to the effect of "don't you do this...", "watch what you say there...", and "change that within 10 minutes or face a suspension." This is the administrative appearance instead of the friendly appearance - Often their appearance directly reflects onto the atmosphere of the board itself.
**************************************************
The choice is yours. I am for the peaceful system as I always had been but it's your decision. What do you want the admins and mods to focus on and how would you like to be treated? Like a friend and individual or as a subject and "officially equal"?
Either path is open now, once chosen we can augment it but we will stick with it unless there is a reason otherwise. I know that I seem to be biased with this because our fears came true with the current strict rule system rather quickly, however I will truthfully say that the peaceful resolution system will be easier to augment because it is flexible in nature. Really anything in between would be considered a variation of the peaceful system, but that's up to you to determine for yourself.
Note: With the implications of the peaceful system, if voted in it will probably reduce the length of Style's suspension from 900 days, however this would depend on a following vote if this is applicable.
MultiQuote
.
Posted 02 September 2004 - 08:36 PM
The situation seems to be similar to that of America's government today. Democrats and republicans!!! 
