I hate to agree with a 13 year old,
They could be picked per offense or they could serve a term. I also think you should have to have 150 post to serve on a jury.
Excuse me?
Excuse me?
LOL it was a joke.
Just making sureLOL it was a joke.
I may be wearing 13 yo boxers right now...
mosinowner's?
mosinowner's?
So for every reported post, you're going to select a jury? Do you have any idea how many jurors per day would be needed? What about posts that don't get "reported but are obviously a gross violation of the rules?
Scutter any input?
But it is always interesting to me, that the same people who would espouse the benefits of our representative republic and / or those who believe in democracy, act like dictators when running a forum.
the same people who would espouse the benefits of our representative republic and / or those who believe in democracy, act like dictators when running a forum.
Some may claim that this conglomeration of ideas from hudreds (thousands) of reguolar visitors/members is "theirs." I'm sure most dictators felt their country was theirs as well and the populace should be happy if they are allowed to live.
Furthermore, you're operating under the assumption that INGO is a democracy. It is not. It's a benevolent dictatorship and the rules are defined by the site owner. I can virtually guarantee that the site owner is not going to hand over enforcement of the rules to the membership at large. There is literally no benefit for him to do that.
True. It sounds like a good idea like paper IMHO, but the mods are doing a fine job right now and change would be to difficult.Yes, you've planted an interesting framework, but no details about how it's actually supposed to work. I can tell you that moderation by popular vote is a losing proposition. It does not work. That's why you won't ever find a forum that uses it. Furthermore, you're operating under the assumption that INGO is a democracy. It is not. It's a benevolent dictatorship and the rules are defined by the site owner. I can virtually guarantee that the site owner is not going to hand over enforcement of the rules to the membership at large. There is literally no benefit for him to do that.
As long as Fenway owns INGO, he's free to operate it in any fashion he chooses. Why should it be otherwise?