First proposal of amended rules - please vote

how come that only 24 people voted? There are at least a big hundred people visiting the site daily. I though that the community was a little more involved in this site

I have to make a small point here... with everyone complaining about EG and the fact that Andrew picked him... please read this

At this time, everyone wanted him. Oh, great choice Andrew. (except that first post by Jackal) No one was mad because there was no vote... everyone was happy. Now that people dislike him... it's all Andrew's fault for picking him. And if I remember correctly a normal member nominated him in another thread (if I find it I will post it).

I'm not saying this would happen with Tales - I agree he would make an excellent mod. However, I think you see my point.

Thing is we were under the impression EG was pretty normal.

He was a good poster etc etc.

Alas, when he was in a position of power, he went a bit cuckoo on us. We had imagined he would pretty much stay the same, one of us. Nah, he transformed into Super Mod.

We can't foresee the future, thus we didn't know what was coming.

I didn't blame Andrew for picking EG, I blamed Andrew because I thought he supported EG in all the decisions he made.

I understand Jackal - believe me, I wasn't trying to pick on you in particular. Obviously no one can predict the future, but still.. it wasn't ONLY Andrew making this decision.

Again, not directed at you Jackal, or even anyone - just trying to show that you never know what is going to happen, ie decisions that seem good for the community may turn out bad (also this isn't my opinion EG) so you have to take everything with a grain of salt.

I told Andrew not to have EG be a mod because I thought what happened might happen....but what Psycho said is true, I figured he'd be a good mod because he cares a lot about the site and was/is a good poster...so it was 50/50. I know there were some others that warned Andrew as well. It's a 50/50 chance with anyone when people get a position of "power."

But yeah, Camazing, damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Because folks don't say it on the forum, doesn't mean folks didnt ask Andrew not to name EG to mod.

Ofcourse I wasn't going to downplay him on the forum, that would make Andrew uncomfortable, but yeah..I asked him not to name EG to mod on MSN.

That's why it would be Andrew picking the 5 cantidates, this way he's still got a say + he approves of all of them. (I don't think he'd get one of those types that get all their friends to vote.)

Well...there...nah, nevermind.

That would defeat the purpose of letting the users choose no?

Copy dotorg (and I'm loathe to admit, the French) and have a runoff. Anyone that wants in gets in. You have a initial vote and you eliminate candidates until one gets a majority. Not a plurality, a majority.

We had seven candidates in ours and only two got any support. Two candidates got zero votes, PJ got one, Jamal got two and Nat picked up three. Barnsey was campaigning for David, but still picked up twelve votes. David won the majority with twenty-six votes or 59% so we didn't need to do a run-off.

Now had Barnsey not been campaigning for David he clearly had a solid base to run on and probably could've taken Nat's support and some of David's. It could've been much closer had Barnsey really wanted it.

Nobody hijacked their way to the office like people are worrying about. It's a risk you have to take. What's to say someone we consider more civilized wouldn't take "extreme" measures to become a moderator?

One failsafe is that moderator could be a temporary, six months (maybe even three), position. At which time people could vote for keeping or dismissing the moderator. If he's kept, no problem, carry on. If he's dismissed then another full blown modlection would be carried out. And he would be able to put his name back in the hat. For about 90% of moderators they would easily win re-election in the first vote.

We originally had that last rule (and technically we still do) but David moved up to take over the site and became an Admin. He's been telling me for the last three months we need another mod so we would re-institute the original rules for the next one. Open run-off, then in three months a re-affirmation.

You're not going to get tons of people voting anyway though unless you really made it a big deal. If 5% of the users vote you'd be lucky. Any vote I would take as an effective mandate since at least 85-90% of the users won't ever interact with mod.

BTW, I actually voted No on the rules as well (Quiet! I'm pretending my say is important!). I'm not going to fisk the rules again though after being told to shut up about it in the past.

And, staying consistant with my position of six months ago, I do not advocate the firing of EG.

Copy dotorg (and I'm loathe to admit, the French) and have a runoff

We're gonna try to not copy "dotorg"...seeing the critcism (unwarranted, imo) we recieved from your staff member(s) when we even CONSIDERED an IDEA that you had ALLEDEGLY implimented on your site.

Even if I had approved of the way they showed their disdain for the idea, this is different.

Look, if you still don't want my ideas just say so, but whining because someone brought up that it seemed similar to something on dotorg. People here wanted it then there was no reason to not implement it even if two people complained.

People were trying to figure out how a voting system would work, I explained how it worked for us and how it could work here. That kinda has a implied blessing to use the idea. Especially since I admitted I copied it from the French.

But let's be "constructive" here. If you have a real geniune reason to deny users a say in affairs then post it. Just don't bring up how two people complained so you backed out of an idea.

And don't say "ALLEDEGLY" we did impliment it.

News to me...i didnt know what you had on your site to be honest. For whatever it's worth...my ignorance to that fact is now rectified.

And i dont have a problem with suggestions..thats the theme nowadays..by all means..suggest away.

There you go saying "seem" again...which means you don't know. If you don't read them, how do you know if there were just "minor" changes? It's uninformed voting...which is bad in anything, not just politics.

I'm just curious why you're even voting if you don't even care enough to say why you don't like the rules or to read the "new" rules even if the changes were, for the most part, minor. If you don't care, why screw up the voting stats? Just wondering...

You are correct.. I didn't read them.. which is the problem.. They are long and boring.. when the average person that visits this site is a boy aged between 13-18 you really expect them to read all that let alone understand it all? It is not uniformed voting.. if the rules are long and boring and are not going to be read then they are not good are they. So I voted no. There may as well be no rules. Same problem with the old rules. They were long and boring.. nobody read them.. so they were not followed.. seriously.. keep it simple people..

Oh.. and I do care.. I never said I didn't care? If I didn't care I wouldn't have voted..

Not everyone thinks the rules are "long and boring". One has to have an attention span that is able to fascilitate and retain that amount of information at one time. If they dont....then they will get in trouble and probably shouldn't be posting here since they lack the intelligence to do so. That's just my opinion though.

In my opinion the rules almost don't have to be read to be followed.

If you just follow your common sense and act by it you will not break any rules.
Only technical issues as sig size etc is what you need to know.
Other then that, just use your common sense

If you feel that you don't have any common sense you should read the rules

Thats a good point slam harder.. which again is why the rules should be changed from being so long and boring.. I mean if I did want to find out what sig size etc I could have trying to read through all that is a pain in the ass..

Not everyone thinks the rules are "long and boring". One has to have an attention span that is able to fascilitate and retain that amount of information at one time. If they dont....then they will get in trouble and probably shouldn't be posting here since they lack the intelligence to do so. That's just my opinion though.

That attitude sucks man.. this is a NBA Live game site.. for the kids.. its sposed to be fun.. not an intellectual discussion forum.. though there is no reason why those can't happen too.. but how many intellectual discussions do you see in the forum compared to all the other posts?
If the mods of this forum can't even see what this site is ment to be for then that is the biggest problem at the NLSC.. and no amount of changing rules will fix the problem. I give up.. you guys just don't get it.. enjoy your "intellectual" forum.. as I find the rules long and boring I obviously "lack the intelligence" to post here . Anyone who just wants to discuss NBA Live and have fun is welcome to come post at nbalive.org.

bye..

wow...again with the plugging of nbalive.org....feeling proud? Putting it in your sig, avatar and mentioning it in every one of your posts just wasn't enough was it?

Anyway, we weren't discussing what the "site is supposed to be for"..we were discussing the rules. MY simple point was that those who dont even have the attention span to read the rules..muchless follow them...shouldn't post here(once again..just an opinion). It's a fair comment because rules govern almost every facet of society including message boards and the ever-plugged nbalive.org. seen?

Anyone who just wants to discuss NBA Live and have fun is welcome to come post at nbalive.org.

You obviously dont "just want to discuss nba live and have fun"..since you constantly provide a barrage of posts over here at the NLSC...so why should other people?

In my opinion the rules almost don't have to be read to be followed.

Read to much rules shit at this site today, head hurts. *Crawls into a corner and curls up into the fetal position*

Sounds good amigos.

I understand the point of the rules being long and perhaps a little too detailed. The reason I left the rules somewhat long-winded is to provide an explanation for why they are in place. I can guarantee, if I simply made a list of rules, Dos and Do Nots, there would be complaints ("Why are these rules in place?", "These rules are too black and white" etc).

Perhaps it would be better if we had a list of concise rules, then a more lengthy explanation underneath for anyone who wanted to know why a certain rule was in place, the limitations and exceptions, and the consequences for breaking the rule, etc. That way, you wouldn't have to read much to understand the basic rules, yet they would still be explained in detail for those who were willing to read it.