Forum Politics Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Abel

Abel

Ex-Soldier
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
51
Age
37
Gil
0
It seems like a lot of people disagree about this, and thus it's a hot topic. I think it would be interesting to discuss our opinions, free of the "LOCP vs. FFF" turn the last thread took. I'm sure nobody would mind if other forums are used as examples, so let's keep it free of the bias that saturated the last thread so.

So what's better for a forum? Athenian Democracy, Communism, Tolitarianism? Anarchy?

Dicuss.
 
Cut it out, this is a FINAL FANTASY FORUM!!!!!!
It may be a general discussion forum, but its not a propaganda forum. By no means should this site be used for such things.
Stop exploiting this site to spread your political agenda.
If you don't stop this I'm going to report you.
These political discussion are getting to be very annoying!
Look on the brighter side of life for once.
 
Depends on the intent. If someone wants to have a service for discussion on games, then they may simply just choose to use a policy that consists of guidelines for gaming discussion; no porn, no inappropriate graphics/text, and moderator discretion used when appropriate. This normally suffices. They just want control over the service that they thanklessly paid for. If someone wanted to have a service controlled by people rather than themselves, even if they're paying for it, then maybe that's what they want.
 
Thanks anyway Sephiroth, the only reason why this person started this thread is to get back at us. I know it for a fact, this is going to end in an argument. However, before that happens I will drop my position in this thread. I will avoid it.
 
No, this is a debate forum. If you're looking for a fight, go elsewhere. Here we debate.

Athenian Democracy and self-moderation are usually the best kinds of moderation available. A forum is about the members, not the person who made it so that they could lord their power over the members.
 
Please read my point again. A forum is a place for discussion. It could be about the members, it could be about video games, it could be about Final Fantasy, it could be about religion, or anything else people want to discuss. But there are certain topics that the creator of the forum doesn't want to discuss on that forum because it either defeats the purpose of the forum or has nothing to do with the topic that he originally intended. People create forums, not with the intent of "lording" over people, but with the intent of having a place where people can discuss a specific topic, or a few specific topics. Or in certain cases, with the intent of allowing people to discuss whatever they want as long as the rest of the members don't mind. But in most cases, the person who has created the forums has already provided the kind of environment that would draw most members that want to be there to discuss that topic, and not really anything else. So when someone else goes in there and discusses a topic that is irrelevant or inappropriate on that forum, it's quite likely that the members already there don't appreciate it, and in the interests of the forum creator, who has already attracted a crowd that he or she already wants, that new member would probably be unwelcomed, just as anyone who wants to join a forum for the people would be unwelcomed if its members did not want that person there.
 
I agree with Sephiroth, but here's the next thing: Once people become accustomed to the community of posters that they know at a certain forum, they might want to start discussing things with one another that is not related to, say, Final Fantasy. That is why every forum you go to has a "General Discussion" forum of sorts, so that anything can be talked about with the people they know and love.

Getting back on topic (derailed after only 6 posts? Hahaha!), Democracy is always the best system when providing a discussion community. Forums are created for the members, not so the king can rule over a bunch of pawns. If a plurality of members feel a certain way, their will should be reflected upon the forums. What are they going to do, ban everyone that disagrees with the ~three people on staff?
 
Well said. And you argue that the members don't mind your tyrannical stranglehold on their balls, but obviously members like myself do. You may not want to consider us members, but last I checked, you told me that no member was better or more important than any other.
 
As a rule of thumb, it's impossible to please every single member on a forum. We are only able to please the majority of people on a forum. As you have said, a few people like yourself don't like the way we run this forum and service, but since most people don't mind, it doesn't matter much. I could apply the same thing with your democratic forums. If only one or two people disagree with everyone else, why does anyone bother with it?
 
We've never had anyone disagree with our Democratic running of the forums. They can discuss what they like, they can keep power hungry egomaniacs out of power and they don't have to kiss ass to get a position of power. I can't see any disadvantage.
 
I'm saying that there's almost no difference. As long as most of the members are happy, it doesn't matter. We do have a suggestions and feedback forum in case members are having problems with something, or would like to see something implemented. For example, we were considering whether or not we should have RPG Inferno back, and we let people have a vote to see if we should have it back. We have it back now because we were able to find staff members for it, and because most members wanted it back. If we were power hungry ego maniacs, and we didn't want RPG Inferno back, we wouldn't even have posted a poll for it. The only difference between democracy on a forums and the way most forums are run is the emphasis on the control over the service. Just like asking to have porn on a Final Fantasy forum would be asking a bit much, and most of the members already on a FF exclusive forum wouldn't agree to have it, and in the end, such a suggestion would not be implemented. As I have said, there's only one or two people who care to have democracy on a forum, even though it's present in one way or another. You would be arguing for a redundant point, since it only matters that the forum works for most people.
 
But why have a forum that works for MOST people, when you could have a forum that works for ALL people? Sure you may not be able to boss around those worthless little "members" at the bottom of you little feudal system of a food chain, but they may not revolt, either.
 
If you allow flaming on a forum because everyone (except for that person being flamed) agrees to it, then it's not everyone, is it? Or, if someone comes to the forum and has a dispute about flaming on the forums, then that's not everyone anymore, is it?

It is quite well known that a forum cannot please everyone. Pleasing most people who use the forums is simply enough, and as for those that we can't please, since there are few enough of them, the concern is not very significant. The difference between "most" and "all" is not very significant anyways. And if you couldn't please everyone because they want different things, then so what? What would you do about it? You can't well make a choice over something if every member doesn't want the same thing.
 
I personally enjoy getting flamed, and I'm sure anyone who is mature enough to handle it in the name of humor does too, so your argument doesn't hold much water, there, Seph.
 
But some people do take offense to flaming. Maybe they don't see the joke or appreciate that kind of humor, and it would become a problem if people don't stop doing it to those kinds of people, even after they've been told they don't like it.
 
I forgot to mention, something I strongly disagree with is your comparing "most" to "all." Just because a majority is in favor of something doesn't mean you can just screw the minority by not listening to their point of view. You can't please everyone all the time, but you have to try or else you're doing a disservice to your members.
 
And then after having heard both sides, what would you do? You still can't please both of them if appeasing what one group asks for means that you can't appease what the other group asks for.
 
Well it's hard to appease both sides in a dictatorship situation, because the choice ultimately comes down to you. If you allow more democracy, then there's some give and take.
 
Like what? If most members want a certain member to be banned, and there are only a few members that want that member to stay on the forums, then what? If you ban that member, the few members will be unhappy. If you leave that member there, most members won't be happy. So you can't please both groups. Leaving that member on suspension may or may not make most members happy. Perhaps the only way to appease most members is by banning that member. It's kind of ridiculous to have to let that member stay if he causes trouble and most members don't want him back. It could also depend on what the matter is. Some things are more serious than others. A decision for RPG Inferno could be more important than closing a thread.
 
We've never had anyone disagree with our Democratic running of the forums. They can discuss what they like, they can keep power hungry egomaniacs out of power and they don't have to kiss ass to get a position of power. I can't see any disadvantage.
Click to expand...

I've talked to members who don't agree with that statement about your forum supposedly being pefect but that's besides the point. FFF is not being run by your forums. FFF is a serperate entity run by someone who has decided to run it differently. Follow the rules and you'll do just fine. Don't like the rules? You are not being forced to stay on FFF.

But why have a forum that works for MOST people, when you could have a forum that works for ALL people? Sure you may not be able to boss around those worthless little "members" at the bottom of you little feudal system of a food chain, but they may not revolt, either.
Click to expand...

There is no humanly way possible to satisfy every person everywhere. It's just not possible. Some people will just complain just because they have nothing better to do. I have it on good authority that your forum has its own complaints, thank you.

I personally enjoy getting flamed, and I'm sure anyone who is mature enough to handle it in the name of humor does too, so your argument doesn't hold much water, there, Seph.
Click to expand...

You enjoy having someone call you four letter words or insulting you? Fine. That's your right. But I know the majority of people do not, including myself. If you want a forum that flames people go where there is one. Flaming is not allowed any on responsible forum and certainly not this one.

There is a difference between jokes and insults, after all.

forgot to mention, something I strongly disagree with is your comparing "most" to "all." Just because a majority is in favor of something doesn't mean you can just screw the minority by not listening to their point of view. You can't please everyone all the time, but you have to try or else you're doing a disservice to your members.
Click to expand...

Let's say you have five people in a group. One person wants burgers while the other four wants fried chicken...And there is only one resturant you all can go to because of time restraints....Now are you telling me that you say too bad to the four just to satisfy the one? Hardly.

Well it's hard to appease both sides in a dictatorship situation, because the choice ultimately comes down to you. If you allow more democracy, then there's some give and take.
Click to expand...

Democracy...Dictatorship...It makes no difference in that situation. Read my point above. You have a vote and the four people win. Same outcome. Staff would only be derelict in their duty if they voted in favor of the one over the many. That might indicate favoristism, in fact.

Follow the rules and everything's fine. Don't see why people have problems with that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top