Black_Cross: A candidate for the future

Disregard the title, it means nothing. I do, however, believe i'm suited for administration.

- I've administrated three forumotion sites (two currently), so i've had experience running the administration panel.

- I've been on this site for quite some time, and am familiar with the people here.

- I believe i've proven my objectivity (it wouldn't be very objective if i was the judge of this, so decide for yourself).

- I try my best to be on once a day, so i'll likely be up on any "current events" on WR, which is necessary to make an informed decision.

- I think the amount of bans that are given out are far too many, so i'll do my best to get those reduced.

- I will always do my best to reflect what the members want as far as reforms to the site go, because i really believe this site can function democratically if the users are given a legitimate, functioning platform to voice their concerns. For example, CKX has suggested a form of council administration, in which administrators would be able to hear out a broader array of public opinion before making their decision.

Sounds very well.
The democratical plan should be talked more after you win to make a really great forum.
My vote goes here.

Even though you were quite provocative in summer when you were trying to have a revolution here, I think that you are an able person, who could manage our forum.

Good luck!

Kenzu wrote:

Even though you were quite provocative in summer when you were trying to have a revolution here, I think that you are an able person, who could manage our forum.

Good luck!

I won't say i regret that. I still believe this site should be run with a great amount of influence from the user-base.

And thanks.

I support you. I consider you completely capable to serve as administrator.

Trolls have been teaching us something:

Unless we can properly identify members of the userbase the site's democraticity is at best, impossible.

Lets take a look at Rename's case for example.

How do you think we can battle this problem?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Trolls have been teaching us something:

Unless we can properly identify members of the userbase the site's democraticity is at best, impossible.

Lets take a look at Rename's case for example.

How do you think we can battle this problem?

By Rename's case you mean...

https://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/pioneer-camp-f2/may-i-join-komsomol-t2477-20.htm

...This?

If so then there are a couple things that can be done. First, checking IP addresses of all new members, which i think should be the norm (obviously, if Rename got away with four accounts, and Watermelon more than that, then it should be the norm). Second would be instituting Kenzu's idea of post-voting, so we know for sure who is participating in voting. It may be slightly more of a hastle, but if it legitimates our democracy, then i think its worth it (hell, i'll count all the votes myself if i have to). This is the method of voting we used on EMY, and it worked well, with no complaints.

Other than this, i'm not sure (unless anyone else would like to give their two cents). I suppose it would be up to the perceptive observers to speak up.

Black_Cross wrote:

...This?

Yes.

Black_Cross wrote:

If so then there are a couple things that can be done. First, checking IP addresses of all new members, which i think should be the norm (obviously, if Rename got away with four accounts, and Watermelon more than that, then it should be the norm).

What about the use of proxies?

Black_Cross wrote:

Second would be instituting Kenzu's idea of post-voting, so we know for sure who is participating in voting. It may be slightly more of a hastle, but if it legitimates our democracy, then i think its worth it (hell, i'll count all the votes myself if i have to). This is the method of voting we used on EMY, and it worked well, with no complaints.

The problem with this is that a smart and capable enough individual with enough spare time can easily use proxies and pretend to be different people. It's not a hell of a challenge to do that once you effectively use proxies.

By this, a member could create 5-10 acounts all through proxies and have a different identity for each. The implications of this is that said members could completely change the outcome of votations and even gain people's trust through one or several of their multiple accounts without anyone knowin it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The problem with this is that a smart and capable enough individual with enough spare time can easily use proxies and pretend to be different people. It's not a hell of a challenge to do that once you effectively use proxies.

By this, a member could create 5-10 acounts all through proxies and have a different identity for each. The implications of this is that said members could completely change the outcome of votations and even gain people's trust through one or several of their multiple accounts without anyone knowin it.

This is only a problem if there is no post minimum for voting, which we have in place for this election, and that should be in place (if it isn't already [thought it was]) for policy enactment. And even so, if they have that much time on their hands, they can still get around even this (but this is assuming anyone has that much time).

So, as someone who's already an admin, what's your opinion? Cos, of course, if i was elected, i would not be working alone.

Black_Cross wrote:

This is only a problem if there is no post minimum for voting, which we have in place for this election, and that should be in place (if it isn't already [thought it was]) for policy enactment. And even so, if they have that much time on their hands, they can still get around even this (but this is assuming anyone has that much time).

So, as someone who's already an admin, what's your opinion? Cos, of course, if i was elected, i would not be working alone.

The problem is that actually the minimum-amount of posts required can be easily overcome.

Unless I had hacking skills, which I lack, I don't see a feasible way to defend this site's democraticity.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

This is only a problem if there is no post minimum for voting, which we have in place for this election, and that should be in place (if it isn't already [thought it was]) for policy enactment. And even so, if they have that much time on their hands, they can still get around even this (but this is assuming anyone has that much time).

So, as someone who's already an admin, what's your opinion? Cos, of course, if i was elected, i would not be working alone.

The problem is that actually the minimum-amount of posts required can be easily overcome.

Unless I had hacking skills, which I lack, I don't see a feasible way to defend this site's democraticity.

But surely you don't consider abandoning it? Even if it's made more difficult by a couple troll accounts here and there, doesn't mean it can't work in a way that is, or at least resembles, functioning democracy. Even in real politics, there's always going to be the chance of fraudulent voting.

Black_Cross wrote:

But surely you don't consider abandoning it? Even if it's made more difficult by a couple troll accounts here and there, doesn't mean it can't work in a way that is, or at least resembles, functioning democracy. Even in real politics, there's always going to be the chance of fraudulent voting.

I definitely don't want to abandon it, I just think it's nearly impossible so long as the trolls are not effectively controlled.

Actually I happen to think that Democracy is far more plausible in real life than here.

i vote Black_Cross! because he is a suited canditate for this sites future intress. and because he got a good logo now.

I don't know if BlackCross would be a good Admin, because of his lack of ability to go on the site.

Liche wrote:

I don't know if BlackCross would be a good Admin, because of his lack of ability to go on the site.

Yet somehow he's one of the top 10 posters...

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

I don't know if BlackCross would be a good Admin, because of his lack of ability to go on the site.

Yet somehow he's one of the top 10 posters...

Some one tells me he had his own computer then.

BC is the fucking man. I support him.

i support bc!

oh look like I Screwed myself over.

AGAIN



oh well their is still hope.

Liche wrote:

oh look like I Screwed myself over.

AGAIN



oh well their is still hope.

Why did you screwed yourself over?

well you are the one that pointed that out to me, Marnix my man.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

I don't know if BlackCross would be a good Admin, because of his lack of ability to go on the site.

Yet somehow he's one of the top 10 posters...

And is on almost everyday.

Liche wrote:

Some one tells me he had his own computer then.

Lies! Never owned a computer in my life.

I assure everyone this won't impede my ability to access the site, cos i've always gone to the library to use the internet, cos that's where i get my news. C'mon, you know i don't trust the corporate media as far as i can throw it (And that's not far!). And i can sift through articles for a good three hours, especially now that i've freed myself from video games.

I can offer 24 hours a day.

Black_Cross wrote:

Disregard the title, it means nothing. I do, however, believe i'm suited for administration.

- I've administrated three forumotion sites (two currently), so i've had experience running the administration panel.

- I've been on this site for quite some time, and am familiar with the people here.

- I believe i've proven my objectivity (it wouldn't be very objective if i was the judge of this, so decide for yourself).

- I try my best to be on once a day, so i'll likely be up on any "current events" on WR, which is necessary to make an informed decision.

- I think the amount of bans that are given out are far too many, so i'll do my best to get those reduced.

- I will always do my best to reflect what the members want as far as reforms to the site go, because i really believe this site can function democratically if the users are given a legitimate, functioning platform to voice their concerns. For example, CKX has suggested a form of council administration, in which administrators would be able to hear out a broader array of public opinion before making their decision.

Do you pledge to be especially "troublesome"?

Question.

If you,an admin, wants to ban someone, will you do it without discussing with the other admins?
If no, will you begin a vote between the admins and if only one of the admins does not agree you will discuss it in place of majorty counts?

I throw my full support behind you.