First off, i did not fully explain my first point about "The New Republic" and i apologize, what i meant is that because of our mod choosing system, because we do things the way we do them, we can have outposts like that that flourish, because our mods are chosen by other mods who know what they are doing. And yes, go create your own community if you do not feel the ones we have set are appropriate, if you boil it down, that is why most outposts are made, people want the thrill of living outside the cradle that is town. and yes in a way, the creator should have the first say over how he runs what he makes, in the instance of EMC yes, JustinGuy DOES own this community, does he own the people in it? No he does not, everyonr has the freedom to do what they want within the set rules, if they have issues with rules they can either A. Break them and get punished B. Take their issue up with the Mods, who will then make a choice. Or C. they can leave. That is just how the server works. We try to make the EMC experience the best possible for everyone, but there will always be that one guy who is unhappy or breaks rules, it has always been that way. EMC is run by their community on certian issues though, NOT on bigger issues such as who becomes a moderator and things that could affect how well our server is cared for. By holding votes for moderator status, we are allowing people to do something most know little to nothing about, and that in itself is a bad thing.
From now on no more posts out of topic. Just debate the idea of voting for mods (very bad idea I admit)
If this had ever happened, I would never had made Senior Staff, and Aikar would of been hard pressed to be promoted as well. I'm not saying the veto bit is bad, but some players have issues against others getting promoted when they aren't, and would retaliate against that. If the community ever has any issues with any staff members, they're free to go to IcecreamCow at anytime, and he'll look into it.. However, it won't be for the reason: "I don't think they're good", it has to be because they actually DID something wrong.
I suppose it is a bad idea because people that shall remained un-named would be mods and then do unsavory acts. *cough cough* i think you all know at least 1 example *cough cough*
I'm aware that there is a number of people on EMC that does think like this, like "go and make your own community and make any rules you think (some) people will accept." My opinion is that this is / would be a type of violence and exploitation. Because you give the people something they want and need, but then you restrict their development as community, and therefore restrict their personal development. My opinion is that thinking like that or even trying would be very wrong. You can not "own" a community. While not the very same as owning a slave, it would be similar. I do not think that Kalland Labs "owns" the EMC community, and i do not think that the owners and the staff think like that (I hope). It would also be against their interest on the long run. It would be not supporting the community optimally and therefore reducing the number of members and supporters. Even if EMC is one of the best servers at the moment, it would not be wise to miss supporting the community in the very best way and provide basis for its development. If you want to succeed and live, you need to serve. Just provide, not impose. People do notice how you treat them overall. They will accept many trade-offs and circumstances, but they will remember. What goes around comes back around. If you do good to people, it certainly comes back. Multiplied.
I don't think you're getting my point here. This has changed from a discussion of wether or not we should be voting for moderators, into moral values, political opinions and the like. You seem to think keeping our current way of choosing moderators will impede the development of the servers, if anything it is exactly why we are able to move forward, because we all know we can trust our moderators choices and judgement. Fact of the matter is. There is NOTHING wrong with how we run things now, In all my time on EMC i have never seen mods have problems with one another, or mods have problems in which they were the cause, all the issues were with people disagreeing with something the mods said or did. I am not saying the community does not have a right to disagree or voice their opinion, they have every right to do that in any situation, and their opinions will be taken into regard when choices are made, but at the end of the day the moderators and admins will have the final say in things, that is how it is and always will be. This is my final say in the matter, this started to get off topic anyways.
Normal Community (Lasts 1 week - 3 months)Founder: John SmithAdmins (Sometimes just moderators): Friends of JohnModerators (If there are Admins too): Friends of John and his friendsSuperPlayers: Elected from moderators/admins when askedPlayers: regular people that join Structural Community (Lasts 6 months - 2 years)Founder: John SmithAdmins: Friends of John (or promoted Moderators)Moderators: (players chosen by Admin)Supporters: (Players that pay)Players: regular people that join EMC CommunityFounder: JustinGuyAdmins: IceCreamCow (Friend of Justin) Maxarias & Aikar (Promoted Senior Staff)Senior Staff: ShaunWhite1982, MileHi, BigDavie (Promoted Moderators)Moderators: (Long List) (Players chosen by Admin/staff)Supporters: (Players that pay)Players: regular people that joinTutorial Players: regular people that are in tutorial area From my demonstration above: Most normal communities where players are chosen/set from for being a staff member's friend, don't last long ... because if you are friends with someone you tend to take advantage of them or let the rules slide a bit when you are with them; and if players catch someone breaking the rules and getting away with it/ or ask for op - the community starts to go down hill quick and players start leaving. Most structural communities are set up very well; they last along time (Like pvp/hunger games server for example) ... Mainly just admins and mods worry about people using illegal mods, occasional spamming or language checks ... but for the most part they will let a lot of language, obscene gestures and phrases, and some illegal mods slide ... and the moderators chosen are sometimes determined by how much he/she donates, and they basically pay for the position or it's based off of how popular players are and will be promoted.It's a good community setup, but a lot of mishaps are not dealt with. EMC community, much like structural communities, except there are more player ranks, and the players are elected differently. Much like the staff of a structural community, emc's staff will deal with illegal mods, foul language, obscene gestures, etc. However, unlike most communities, the mod's on emc aren't chosen by the people, or how much he/she donates ... forms players fill out are looked through, and player's backgrounds are thoroughly checked... then after the backgrounds are checked, the players are determined if he/she is qualified enough to want to be a moderator to watch over chat, forums, etc. Communities can be similar in a lot of ways ... but the way emc's staff are chosen should not be based off of the common community; there are a lot of things the community doesn't know about a player that the staff might know ... That is how some communities have downfalls, but if emc's staff voting system stays the same, there is more of a likelihood that the community will be better maintained.
I don't understand why so many people don't read the postings ... or I just did not manage to get my point across. Almost nothing here is black and white. There are many trade-offs. So, I'll try to reword once more: I think that the current way of choosing staff is natural and reasonable. I do NOT think that the community should choose staff of, or even run Kalland Labs. I do think that Justin, Jeremy and staff earnestly care about the community and provide necessary basis for its stability. I also think that the community CAN develop and build a structure and that it would be a natural development, and that no one should (try to) restrict this development. What Kalland Labs provides does not substitute natural development of a community. Did I say any different? What is wrong is how a part of the people think about the community and the staff (and obviously themselves), especially connected to that of "owning" / patronizing a community, about the roles of the EMC staff, about inevitable nepotism, bribery, corruption and chaos. And some other related things...
