I nominate Bling for mod of Science of the Damned

[DaGuru]

If someone's been a quality poster, I'll notice it. Or the staff will. Either one.

Your continuous refusal to resolve or even address the problems that Zek/Equanamity brings to the table says otherwise.

[Σ]

Retarded could technically be considered an emotion

No its a state of being. One can "feel" retarded but that feeling is really only shame mixed with stupidity and not actual retardation.

[Slave of the Beast]

So you'd ignore a valid, userbase-selected, candidate purely on a matter of principle?

If someone's been a quality poster, I'll notice it. Or the staff will. Either one.

So too, presumably, will the userbase. And as you are well aware, the userbase would not have selected Equanimity. Drama aside, she is poster of very average quality. Which suggests the decision will not ultimately come down to a question of quality, but to whom you personally approve of. And you have already demonstrated a very stringent attitude towards people's character re: being modded, that is at odds with the attitudes of the userbase. From this disparity stems the drama which you find so tiresome. The political conclusion would be to allow the userbase to select, again, within reason, their own mods. If that mod fails and is removed, it is a failure of the userbase, not you. They would then have little ground on which to stand against you, if you replaced a failed user-mod with your selection.

Do you think this a fair and reasoned statement?

I've finally finished them. Now, keep in mind, these aren't the new rules YET. This is the time now to discuss them before we put them in for good.

but you got all mad cause we didn't want to use yours

You're darn right I was! I put a lot of work into that logo.

Besides that though, pretty much everyone in that thread said they didn't want a logo at all. Pretty clear to me what everyone wanted.

Why limit the discussion to the staff?

Because this is not a democracy.

And this is contradictory; you've demonstrated a willingness to both canvass peoples' opinions and abide by the will of the majority, yet state Sanctuary is not a democracy. Could you please clarify this? Is Sanctuary a part-time dictatorship, part-time democracy, or something else, specifically when it comes to selecting mods?

I'm not looking for a particular answer, only that the answer is consistent with your actions.

[kroz]

Kroz, you're just dumb and naive. You've never had an experience with the paranormal, your brain just can't grasp reality.

lol I know im dumb and naïve that's why I like the paranormal. oohh.. I see what you kinda did there..

[RisiR]

Kroz, you're just dumb and naive. You've never had an experience with the paranormal, your brain just can't grasp reality.

lol I know im dumb and naïve that's why I like the paranormal. oohh.. I see what you kinda did there..

[bling bling]

encounters of the 1st kind

ebcounter of the second time

and encounters of the third kind

[kroz]

anyone here seen the movie return of the rise of the dawn of planet of the apes part six?

[Arnox]

So too, presumably, will the userbase. And as you are well aware, the userbase would not have selected Equanimity. Drama aside, she is poster of very average quality. Which suggests the decision will not ultimately come down to a question of quality, but to whom you personally approve of. And you have already demonstrated a very stringent attitude towards people's character re: being modded, that is at odds with the attitudes of the userbase. From this disparity stems the drama which you find so tiresome. The political conclusion would be to allow the userbase to select, again, within reason, their own mods. If that mod fails and is removed, it is a failure of the userbase, not you. They would then have little ground on which to stand against you, if you replaced a failed user-mod with your selection.

Do you think this a fair and reasoned statement?

I've finally finished them. Now, keep in mind, these aren't the new rules YET. This is the time now to discuss them before we put them in for good.

but you got all mad cause we didn't want to use yours

You're darn right I was! I put a lot of work into that logo.

Besides that though, pretty much everyone in that thread said they didn't want a logo at all. Pretty clear to me what everyone wanted.

Why limit the discussion to the staff?

Because this is not a democracy.

And this is contradictory; you've demonstrated a willingness to both canvass peoples' opinions and abide by the will of the majority, yet state Sanctuary is not a democracy. Could you please clarify this? Is Sanctuary a part-time dictatorship, part-time democracy, or something else, specifically when it comes to selecting mods?

I'm not looking for a particular answer, only that the answer is consistent with your actions.

This is actually a great post. I approve.

Ultimately though, having the userbase select their own mods and hoping they're smart enough to choose the right ones seems very inefficient to me. Sure it avoids drama but the staff's decisions aren't based around what will cause the least drama. Also, sometimes a userbase can be so divided on who they feel would make a good mod that they may never actually be able to make a decision by themselves. Then we're back to where we were. Having the staff choose.

As to this site being a democracy, I admit for some decisions, I like to involve the community completely. For more important decisions though, I like to keep it confined to staff.

[Suicidal Fish]

I nominate Bling for mod for the trashcan

[Zanick]

What about a user vote with the admin having the right to veto?