I agree with ICC. This comment only applies to your own thoughts and emotions. I have had the pleasure of meeting and getting to know some of the members of our community, and they are the soul of EMC. They are generous, they have no desire to break the rules or harm others, but rather to enjoy the environment EMC provides to play the game of Minecraft in a social environment. In fact, your comment gives the mods, if anything, too much power. Their purpose is to be stewards of the community and facilitate the enjoyment of the game. They are not kings or gods or overlords. Well, except maybe Maxarias.
Hey, this is actually what I am saying! Did you read my posting? ICC, it seems that you quoted me out of context and that you've created this misunderstanding. I am actually criticizing (people that are) talking about EMC community as incapable and corruptive! I think EMC community would be capable of (s)electing good moderators!
Okay. I am just going to add this. If you had a baby. Would you let total strangers pick out your babysitter?
DIS IS REAL LIFE...... NO ITS EMPIRE MINECRAFT!!!!!! (We have had these threads before, wonder why this one is any special then the others)
Do I understand you right ... Justin and ICC = parents, EMC (community) = baby? If you mean that, well, this is exactly one of the big points that this discussion is circling around. Is it a baby? Is it a small child? A bit bigger child? Already in puberty? Or even beyond the age where it needs mummy and daddy to change diapers? Can you paternalize an on-line community and treat it as your kid?
I'm realy confused what you are trying to say/imply it's not clear Please in ONE sentence say what you mean instead of contradicting yourself. Or is it just because it's Late and I need sleep And my opinion is we shoudln't get to vote because it's working how it is now, right?
Where did I contradict myself? ... What follows here, the quote and the following sentence applies to my own thoughts and emotions. And I think that they are competent, capable and conscientious enough to build a structure within the community and organize themselves in a successful democratic process that does not lead to corruption nor to chaos, but to positive development.
Ayee, I do like when people post their thoughts here, I like to see what others think in criticism or positive feedback . This is mainly allowed because the server is run by mature adults who like to see what they can improve by us expressing issues or ideas. It's hard to find a server where the community can express themselves such as here
My question is WHY should we all of a sudden change from something that obviously works well, to something where we could endanger the server, i'm not saying it isn't good to try new things. But when who we choose to decide who gets banned and the like? That's a different matter, from what i have heard there have been next to no instances of a mod going "Bad" so to speak, and when you look at that compared to other servers, the difference is astronomical. I have seen people get modded on some servers, who got permanently banned the next day for turning out to be a griefer. The mods that were chosen to start out with were chosen by the server owners because they trusted them, they trusted them enough to give them the power of a moderator, just like the mods before them. It all boils down to who the owner trusted well enough to make those kind of decesions. If take the democracy approach to this, we WILL have more bad mods than we would if we let those appointed by the server owners decide who was mod. That is NOT Authoritarian, that letting those who are trusted enough to make those kinds of choices make them.
That right there is a good part of what i am saying, Our mods who are chosen are also trusted to not be Bias, because they are observed over time and those little details that happen during conversations are remembered in the long run. The community here isn't afraid to speak their minds because if they say something a mod does not like, they aren't told they will get banned or kicked for disagreeing, another reason why we should let the mods choose the mods, voting will end up in there being "Parties" so to speak, and that leads to bad stuff.......at least in Minecraft
So glad someone got it but it does have symmetry with the glitching as both have the ability to affect the economy and damage the finances of other players who now have to sell at a loss. Yet the one you would get banned for and the the other is legal and legit.
Perhaps it helps if I just quote myself again - from my first post in this thread: It is a natural thing that Justin and Jeremy will choose their staff. End of story. Ok? How providers' staff is chosen does not prevent the community to build a structure and organize itself. Like in "The New Republic." Or does it? I'm criticizing the opinion that providers' staff shall take care of everything within and around this community. I'm criticizing the opinion that the leadership shall unconditionally come from the provider and the staff, because anything else would inevitably be inferior. Of course Justin and Jeremy (and therefore all staff) do earnestly care about the community. It's in their interest. But that does not prevent development within the community. I'm criticizing the opinion that a democratic process within the community would (inevitably) lead to corruption and/or chaos.
Yes. Show me any town anywhere where the citizenry votes on the rank and file members of the police force. It just doesn't happen, and for good reason. The citizenry have their own lives and don't know anything about selecting good police. Now, granted, in many cases the elected officials aren't so great at selecting police either, but in this case the founders of our "city" seem to be pretty darned good at it.
You know part of the reason "The New Republic" Exists? Because our mods are chosen by other mods who KNOW they will not be bias when banning people and hear out opinions and such, whereas those who get elected through voting WILL end up being bias against those who voted against them, A democratic approach to moderator selection in EMC is a time bomb waiting to go off, i have said this before and i will say it again. If you want a Democracy like in "The New Republic" Go and make your own outpost! Enforce what rules you see fit there (Withing reason) Be it Democracy or otherwise. I have seen NOTHING even hinting that anything else would be inferior, and if someone did say that they are wrong. Very recently a member of a wild outpost was promoted to Moderator status, he was promoted because he was trusted enough by the mods, and proved that he could handle the responsibilities that come with the title. and yes leadership SHOULD come from the Staff and at the end of the day, the owners. They made this server to run how they saw fit, and yes they have been kind enough to take our concerns and occasional gripings into account when making choices. But as a moderator it is their JOB to have ultimate authority. and again i cannot say it enough, anything else is NOT inferior, but voting equals political parties being formed, which in turn leads to bias judgement. You can look online or the news or whatever and see this literally every day. But that is because that is REAL LIFE not minecraft, people do not come here to argue over who should be their leader or political stuff, they come here to play a game, yes it is fun to go off and make communities and run them like that, but on a large scale 99% of the time it will end with lots of angry people, same as in the real world.
I don't think I get this ... can you explain? Once again, I never proposed to choose moderators (EMC / Kalland Labs staff) through voting, that would be unnatural. You have even quoted me telling that. It is not about that the EMC community should run Kalland Labs. There are communities that run servers, but EMC is not one of them. That does not make much sense to me. Create something, i.e. provide service to people to impose your own rules? You think that someone providing service(s) to a community somehow "owns" the community? Ok, so you think democracy and elections are bad, about same as IRL. Did you consider different types of democracy? Is there anything better? Where should the authority come from?
You make very good points, I can most certainly offer a hypothesis as to why people believe the process could be chaos. It's because it could turn out as a popularity contest and mob mentality could rule. When one reads posts on EMC, we regard those with a higher number of likes to be higher value than those with none. This could very easily bias somebody's thinking and derail rational thought. Just as there are plenty of intellectuals who think out their choices when making democratic decision, you also have the hooligans who vote for no apparent or rational reason. It is very easy to make that vote and not be able to retract it should you change your mind. For example, let's say me and some obscure but really cool guy were the final two candidates in a mod selection. Mr. Cool As A Swimming Pool could type an essay detailing his contributions to the community so far and the wealth of things he could do with a moderator status, and I could write 'lol dun worry guise I won't use my tp command to lava wall smp5 lol'. Why? Because, let's say 20 people view the thread. 10 intellectuals, 10 hooligans. The intellectuals read mine first and are disgusted. They fully consider the points of view of the Cool Guy, and all vote for him. However, in the time it took the intellectuals to put forward 10 votes, all 10 hooligans looked at my proposition, lol'd, looked at the Cool Guy's, thought "lol tl;dr" and vote for me. All other hooligans do the same. In the time it takes the Cool Guy to get 10 votes, I have 100. I believe there was a Men In Black movie describing a person as a thoughtful, intelligent being and people as ravenous, ruthless monsters. I would personally prefer that the staff maybe showcased their candidates, and the community maybe could veto some candidates if they disagreed with their selection. The candidates would not be competing, if none were vetoed, none would be eliminated. All vetoes would be considered equally regardless of how much they are liked and the Admins and Senior Staff could act on them if necessary. The community would get a say, and any posts like my supposed candidate essay would be disregarded by the staff, regardless of the number of likes.
