Quote:
Originally Posted by Calthine
And there's always the possibilty the users would vote us off....
|
OK. I spit coffee that time.
As far as having a 'the tribe has spoken' format for retard removal, I'd voted no. The immaculate train wreck of a classic, full monty retard is the mustard on this hot dog of a site. If a certain retard cannot get the hint that they are persona non grata, then let them come back for another dose. I think hovering on the edge of anarchy keeps things fresh and interesting.
Shifting responsibility of certain site policy to the community would just snowball until you had lost control of the site and it had been reduced to the same thing that NGD is on the SOE forums.
It really sucks having to make tough decisions and shoulder the responsibility of potentially unpopular moves, but if you just stand your ground and let the Site Rules be your compass, you can simply be a custodian of those rules. Egregious violations and/or pattern abuse of the rules certainly warrant action. Bucking 'the man' is a sign of the times. There is an entire generation living every day by this belief. Fortunately, there are still a few people around that will stand up - when the standing needs to be done. Here, it's you LFG. You will never have the 'perfect' policy or ruleset. There will ALWAYS be the dissenting vote. Sack up and take the hits or put the Admin panel to work if it is really in the best interests of the continuation of the site.
People need to understand the Site Rules are a living document that constantly evolves to the flow of the community - to keep the SITE going. That does NOT mean making wholesale changes to the fundamental spirit of the rules, but adjustments and clarifications to them. Think Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not the documents themselves, but the way they have been used and maintained.
Let the morons have their opportunity to do time in the barrel.