3rd administrator

Liche wrote:

umgh no.

there is a difference between dodging and not understanding the question. I'm still not quite clear on what you mean.

It's called dodging when instead of trying to clear things out you simply avoid the arguement.

Liche wrote:

and its offensive how you all ways say I'm dodging, when most of the time I don't know what your talking about.

As I said, you dodge when you avoid the arguement instead of trying to clear things out.

And it's not a very complex arguement. It's been explained a good ammount of times.

You made a false accusation, it was proven false. Instead of trying to defend your position you just avoid the rebuttal and later you try to defend yourself with fallacies. What's so complex about that?

nothing it just implies that I don't care much about how you think what I'm saying is false.

Liche wrote:

nothing it just implies that I don't care much about how you think what I'm saying is false.

The problem is precisely that. You think you can actualy have the opinion that something true is false. I showed evidence of your slander twice. If you don't care, fine I'm just demonstrating that you're slanderous.

Since you're slanderous and don't even have a clear idea on how to lead an objective discussion, you're completely unfit for either moderator or administrator positions.

Quote :

@Zealot
In that case Liche can't be a moderator if you disagree.

I honestly don't think that's what anyone, even Zealot, wants.

Personally, i'd oppose Liche being an admin as well, but that doens't mean i wanna shove him off the ballot. If he's got significant backing, then shove off Kenzu. Let him run.

Black_Cross wrote:

I honestly don't think that's what anyone, even Zealot, wants.

I'm all for democracy, but I would definitely like people to make informed decisions.

It's absolutely not democratic for Kenzu and me to determine who the 3rd admin will be. I'm just presenting arguements against Liche, in a democratic fashion.

I'm opposed to him, and I'd be glad to veto him but it's just not democratic.

Black_Cross wrote:

Personally, i'd oppose Liche being an admin as well, but that doens't mean i wanna shove him off the ballot. If he's got significant backing, then shove off Kenzu. Let him run.

Let him run. I'll just present arguements against him and let people decide themselves wether they want someone who is objectively unable to be administrator to become administrator or not.

However, I do think that people supporting Liche should demonstrate that they are informed on Liche's characteristics and justify why they want him as administrator. Otherwise I don't think that would be democratic either.

Kenzu wrote:

I have added some yellow text, which you should have written when showing your opinion about other people.

He's slanderous and doesn't read posts to which he replies to showing total indiference for the point of who he adresss and being objectively unable to adress said point thus showing no interest in objective debate. How is that a good candidate for administrator of a discussion forum?

Objective vs. Subjective. Opinion is subjective, argumentation is objective and I'm excering an objective arguement, not an opinion.

Kenzu wrote:

And I know myself that it's not democratic to prevent the most popular candidate to be elected as an admin, but since we are more experienced admins than average members, we have the moral responsibility to let people become admins, who NOT ONLY are liked by our members, but also, who would make able and honest admins.

I think the most important is that they're objectively able to perform that task. And to get to that conclusion in a democratic fashion we should debate about it, which is what we're doing now.

I oppose the possibility of vetoing popular decisions, but I request that said decisions be well founded, conscious and well thought given the relevance of the administrator possition.

I think the administrator to be chosen must have proved a history of fairness, impartiality and compromise with the forum.

I also think that we should create an "administrator's oath" or something like that if we're going to give seriousness to this decision.

We should prepare a code that binds the faculties of all administrators.

And I conmine people to really participate democratically if they really want dmeocracy in this forum:

You have places where you can make proposals, suggestions. There is the relatively abandoned project of a constituion that would rule over WR. Participate on that too, people. Be really democratic, not half assed democrats that just shout "Y'know, we want moar adminz! Preferably our color. LOL" or "Can I haz new admin plz?".

Do well founded proposals, express your voice on the rules, propose modifications; complain, point out and insist when said proposals are dismissed, engage in democratic and objective debate, use arguements to make your ideas prevail. The tools have existed here for long, do it. Don't limit yourselfs to just put a new admin you like, push for changes yourselves, organized.

Kenzu wrote:

And I know myself that it's not democratic to prevent the most popular candidate to be elected as an admin, but since we are more experienced admins than average members, we have the moral responsibility to let people become admins, who NOT ONLY are liked by our members, but also, who would make able and honest admins.[/color]

Elitism... there are other ways to solve this in democratic (and informed) way. Even if the admin did poorly, they could be removed democratically as well. People don't need your benevolent wisdom Kenzu.

Black_Cross wrote:

eople don't need your benevolent wisdom Kenzu.

but its still nice to have.

Liche wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

eople don't need your benevolent wisdom Kenzu.

but its still nice to have.

I disagree entirely.

k, well thats your opinion

I for one like to hear every ones opinion, including Kenzu.

Liche wrote:

k, well thats your opinion

I for one like to hear every ones opinion, including Kenzu.

Okay, but explain to me why his opinion should be regarded more highly than anyone elses? That, specifically, is what i'm addressing.

Black_Cross wrote:

Liche wrote:

k, well thats your opinion

I for one like to hear every ones opinion, including Kenzu.

Okay, but explain to me why his opinion should be regarded more highly than anyone elses? That, specifically, is what i'm addressing.

oh oh, its not, I was just expressing that I like to here his opinion. I don't take it higher than anyone else (well except for maybe Calinis and Watermelon).

i am still pushing for my democratic aproach to this

So, there will only be 1 new admin, correct?

Edit: Oh nevermind, there will be 2 new admins (Click)

Um, could I nominate myself, or is this already over?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Um, could I nominate myself, or is this already over?

Well voting doesn't start for another three days, so i'd talk to the admins about it.

There will be at least 3 supermods. The winner might become an admin if all admins agree and after forum has been tested for security.

Kenzu wrote:

There will be at least 3 supermods. The winner might become an admin if all admins agree and after forum has been tested for security.

ok so basically if you like them then yes if not , no.

mattabesta wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

There will be at least 3 supermods. The winner might become an admin if all admins agree and after forum has been tested for security.

ok so basically if you like them then yes if not , no.

Yep, and he's actually stated that before. He's very open with his anti-democratic sentiments.

Black_Cross wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

There will be at least 3 supermods. The winner might become an admin if all admins agree and after forum has been tested for security.

ok so basically if you like them then yes if not , no.

Yep, and he's actually stated that before. He's very open with his anti-democratic sentiments.

Yea it was told by him before and its ridiclious!