Political Crossfire Forums

I nominate winchester

the only reasonable choice

Well put Menson. State your case ex.

Menson has my vote for admin, but as stated before, I'd prefer that disciplinary actions (suspensions and bans) were made democratically, with the mods mostly responsible for reminding us not to be assholes, like NAB and Winchester have done to great effect, and then identifying who needs to have a disciplinary hearing. This is a small community of very loyal posters, who generally do want to keep it going and perhaps expand our small but awesome userbase.

My point is that we can handle this stuff as a community, and it is the fairest possible way to make decisions. I don't want to see a single person here banned or suspended (not even Saz), and I think it's only fair that the community has much more of a formal say than we currently do.

I'd like to create a no rules subforum, then see the rules rigorously enforced elsewhere.

I'd like to invest some user donations into advertising, and really start recruiting select posters elsewhere (poaching).

I'd like to make the finances of the site more transparent, so that we all know what is needed to run it, how much money we have to spend or save, etc.

I'd like to promote the site using a blogging platform to showcase some of the best debates. Updated weekly perhaps. Also get back going with social media - I totally abandoned the Facebook page, and I think the Twitter has been left too, so that needs to be rectified.

I'd like to have a serious discussion about how we can make the site self-sustainable. Perhaps advertising, perhaps some other form of revenue.

I'd like to hold formal debates, once or twice a year, between posters selected by the userbase on particular issues (for instance, get Professor and somebody else to debate health care, or John Galt and Dharma to debate capitalism vs. socialism). Hell, maybe we could even offer a small cash prize from donations, and use this to grow the site and bring in new blood.

Basically I want the community to run the site, to get serious about making it busier and more successful, etc.

i'm really offended my proposal wasn't taken seriously.

I think if you're going to do community bans you need to randomly select users and rotate it. Though it may be difficult at times because what if people simply don't log on that often? You can just pick the active users all the time imo.

I also don't think it should be just straight up community bans like "we vote to ban this person so do it". A mod or admin should still have to iniate it and then the community has a "trial" of sorts. That way people like mr shaman and dharma don't get banned just cause people have an issue with them.

An example of a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. If suspensions and bans were determined by voting, how long before the forum becomes heavily tilted to the left or to the right? There is a reason that the USA is not a democracy but rather a democratic republic. A representative form of government with terms and elections seems to work well for the country. Just a "citizen" viewpoint.