Moderators currently over moderate. So by influencing them to moderate less, you lessen the amount of moderation.
Whether the influence be from persuasion or from New policies.
"Influencing" moderator decisions, and "lessening" moderation are not the same. And as 3RU7AL has already informed you, his platform is clearly spelled-out. If his platform provides you little to no confidence in his prospects, then by all means, it is your prerogative to choose someone else. Good luck with that.
You are so focused on being right
that you stubbornly argue semantics
as if they change the outcome of "presidents can influence moderation decisions". That is 100% true.
If you don't see that you are just willfully ignorant of reality or disconnected to it.
3RU7AL didn't say he intended to do nothing. 3RU7AL has repeatedly stated that he intends to insure that moderator decisions are based on quantifiable and transparent rules. What does this mean? He intends to advise moderators against exercising their authority when based on their own ARBITRARY QUALIFICATIONS as opposed to QUANTIFIABLE (DEMONSTRABLE) violations of TRANSPARENT (CLEARLY SPELLED-OUT) rules. He intends to advise moderators to exercise their authority uniformly and consistently (e.g. Person A who demonstrably violates Rule B in section C and Person D who demonstrably violates Rule B in section E ought to face a UNIFORM response.) The scope of his platform is universal. That is the reason you were being prompted to provide something specific. 3RU7AL has expressed and demonstrated that he's willing to address a specific proposal, and delineate to you how the platform which he argues would incorporate such a case.
Even in the real world, there are lapses in precise quantifiability in law, it's why judges are humans and not robots, so that they can adjust sentences to the severity of violation and judge the sort of character of the criminal and how likely they are to reoffend vs rehabilitate.
and this is the primary vector for corruption of the legal system
and this is the primary vector for corruption of the legal system
and this is the primary vector for corruption of the legal systemThe reason case law is used in civilized countries is because you can get pretty absurd, trying to precisely define things.
By Kate Shaw, Ars Technica Between the courtroom antics of lawyers, witnesses and jurors, reason doesn’t always prevail in our legal system. But judges are trained to be impartial, consistent and rational, and make deliberate decisions based on the case in front of them, right? Actually no, according to a new study in PNAS,
Even if you could possibly do so, the amount of research needed to create a perfect law would take billions of dollars, when you can just get perfection through trial and error
Why are you quoting texts that are not quantifiable and up for interpretation?
way to take the conversation in a completely different direction at random
Between Airmax and myself, who is it you think you will support and why?
I want to thank you and 3RU7AL for not dropping out
it let me get out of this acidic drama pool
and able to help a candidate I think is best for the website (Airmax1227).
I think your cause is basically like saying you won't use the President's seat of power for anything it can do but to each their own.
An acidic drama pool which you in part helped create.
3RU7AL intends to use the president's "seat of power" within its capacity to execute his platform.
Brutal's platform is in post 1.I have read his other threads and that is the maximum effort 3ru7al puts in.I think we can get an ideal of what type of effort he will put into the presidency. One of his most recent threads he posts links to YouTube with no explanation and hours long in length. LoL
Sure, if you want to play semantics, absolutely all voters and candidates who posted during this time helped create it but some far more than others.
This is untrue, 3RU7AL thinks the capacity of the seat is solely to sit there and do nothing while softly advising something to mods.
The seat of power can be used to host community events, directly veto mod actions and be a massive boost to the site's image.
The main reason for this is that any permanent bans based on some of the more ludicrous rules (hate speech, for example) would be vetoed.the "Presidential-Veto" can be over-ruled by a consensus of moderatorsand since bans are already agreed upon by a consensus of moderators, i'm not sure the "Presidential-Veto" will be particularly effective
--> @3RU7ALI'd disagree. In fact I think it would be effective that moderation look back onto a ban a president vetoed and see if it is truly ban worth.I do not support a Mesmer ban at all and I think if the president makes a good case, it would convince the team to vote to unban Mesmer
@3RU7AL:the "Presidential-Veto" can be over-ruled by a consensus of moderatorsand since bans are already agreed upon by a consensus of moderators, i'm not sure the "Presidential-Veto" will be particularly effectiveVery well-put. When SupaDudz delineated the capacity of the office, it's as though many overlooked the fine-print.@SupaDudz:I'd disagree. In fact I think it would be effective that moderation look back onto a ban a president vetoed and see if it is truly ban worth.I do not support a Mesmer ban at all and I think if the president makes a good case, it would convince the team to vote to unban MesmerBut the veto's efficacy doesn't stand against the consensus of your moderation team, which serves as basis for a ban's proposal and implementation. The president can attempt to convince the moderation team against a decision that was previously made, but that's NOT a veto, much less a reflection of a veto's effectiveness.
--> @AthiasBut the veto's efficacy doesn't stand against the consensus of your moderation team, which serves as basis for a ban's proposal and implementation. The president can attempt to convince the moderation team against a decision that was previously made, but that's NOT a veto, much less a reflection of a veto's effectiveness.It is still a veto of the ban. Just like in the real congress, they may overturn a veto with a super majority vote
--> @SupaDudzTo be clear, I was not the one who made the document but I did have a say into what was in the documentI would presume as much.It is still a veto of the ban. Just like in the real congress, they may overturn a veto with a super majority voteYes, but unlike real congress, the implementation of a proposal doesn't require a super majority vote. So, let's for argument's sake, entertain the notion that you and your moderation team are considering a ban. You bring forth this proposal to the president after a majority of you have already made your considerations one way or the other on said ban. The president decides to exercise his or her veto. What does the veto actually do? If the majority of the moderation team proceed with their considerations in favor of banning, then what has the veto in essence done? I suppose one could argue that the veto in effect provides a temporary stay allowing the president the attempt to have you and your team reconsider, but this is already a function of his or her office, i.e. to "advise" you. In effect, the veto is more superficial than effective.
Once again, you are grossly overestimating the capacity of this office, RationalMadman. And I know of no better member who can bolster the image of this site image than one who demonstrated integrity, decorum, respectfulness, and the initiative to cooperate with others--3RU7AL.
Once again, 3RU7AL intends to offer counsel and target the moderators' capacity fundamentally--i.e. their ARBITRARY QUALIFICATIONS. This is not as "flashy" as boasting something which he can't do.
No. Not all voters and candidates who posted during that time helped create that "acidic drama pool." It was primarily you and Wylted, with some help from Lunatic.
You admitted else where that you indulged pretenses all for the sake of this election
No. Not all voters and candidates who posted during that time helped create that "acidic drama pool." It was primarily you and Wylted, with some help from Lunatic
