Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-25995065-20150317063943/@comment-5510093-20150317185036

Mishkaiel wrote: Loney 97 wrote:

Mishkaiel wrote:

Nehpets7000 wrote: Oppose, dang it. Admins are the most trusted users here and I hate just taking away all the influence they have. Gosh, I really do not like our community or the way it thinks anymore, which is why I think our admins have to have more "power" than the average user here. Well, in real life when one person or one group of people takes more power for themselves, it turns into a dictatorship and turns the people against the leadership. The "ideal" form of government, and the government America once had, is a government in which the people had the ultimate power. The people elected the leaders, and had the power to remove the leaders by electing different leaders when it came time to vote again. There should be a balance of power between the people and the leaders.

Now, in regards to the wiki, I agree that the admins shouldn't be able to just veto something they don't like if the community votes on something which gets a majority vote; however, what if the community votes on something rediculous or uneccesary? The admins should be able to vote against something like that. Therefore, what about having the policy of not removing the part where the admins vote something down, but adding in a policy of where the admins tell the community why they struck it down, and then giving the community a second chance to vote. If the mods explain why it would be rediculous or uncessesary, then the community might change their vote based on that explanation.

In short, the admins can vote it down, but then they explain why, and the community has another chance to pass it again.

Hope this all makes sense. =P

=l America has never had a government where the people had absolute power. That is referred to as a direct democracy, which many of America's founders were strongly against including John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He said that ""Pure (direct) democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." That statement is one of the reasons I am strongly against what Obi has been doing lately, taking this place away from being a representative democracy and turning it into a direct democracy. I know that, America had quite a good system back in the day. =P

Well, if the admins block a vote, then they'd be excersicing their powers, however, the community would get to hear their reasoning and possibly change their minds. A balance of power, basically. But yes, the admins should be able to prevent stuff that the community would otherwise get away with, etc.

=l Oh okay, I misread you there; thought you were saying that any form of government with a leader would be considered a dictatorship in a negative sense.