Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
More harm than good was the phrase used to justify closing Smoke J's BSG Blog thread. The very thing that set the ball rolling for Dark's no longer being head admin. Under this clause, he could have been silenced altogether before his revelation gathered momentum. Just promising you wont abuse it doesn't do anything to change its nature. All it takes is a dominant head admin surrounded by weaker yes men for the checks and balances to be rendered useless. I understand why voting on admins is problematic, but how about a vote on whether or not clause 10 should stand. After all, it's a clause the forum has done without for over 10 years. So it obviously isn't a vital ingredient to make the place run smoothly. I mean, has anyone actually ever done any of the behaviour it's supposed to prevent? That is, have you had someone who hung around for years behaving in a destructive way that the concrete rules couldn't deal with?
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
