Democracy on brawl

Well, the moderator knows when someone is hated by the community. I must say that the community liking you has big effects. I've argued about something like this before as well, although I saw it being shot down because you can do +1s and -1s on their profile pages, as well as on the votes. It's just up to the moderator to check their profile page and use what players wrote and apply it to them.

For my own idea (not relating Brawl), I thought up of 2 stages. First 1 players decide, then the second stage moderators decide. But not sure if it will work in this scenario.

 

Nice thread m8

 

Meh, people are going to vote for their friends and won't consider how the person would actually be as a mod. If we make moderators voted by players it'll turn into a popularity contest. Someone may be popular with the community but would make a terrible mod, and would still get voted in because of popularity.

Having player votes could work to show how the community feels about the player, but ultimately the decision should come down to the mods.

 

I would deny EVERYBODY
Just to watch the world burn.

 

Popularity has no effect on me, because being good at a game is all I want, but the main reason people come here is because they want to have fun.

 

there's no place for democracy in a privately owned organization

 

I feel as though the community votes, if given more power in decision making (promotion wise), would be somewhat biased however moderators are more likely to make fair judgement as a whole. You are able to share your view through PM or a simple response on the users profile aswell as leaving a rating on the application itself. Perhaps on applications there could be a second separate comment section allowing the community to forward their views by leaving a response. Players would be limited to one comment on each application and inappropriate or off-topic use of this feature could end in a loss of this particular privilege. Just a thought.

 

You never fail to give me a good laugh Admiral! *Salutes admiral*

Back on topic...

 

Wouldn't be bad for the um... Ahem... Corruption going on here. Sorry guys, I'm a theorist

 

Michael Cane

 

I actually think this could work. Like what was said already, it should be players choice and then staff/moderator choice. The moderator choice is necessary since it is very possible someone will be picked by the players and then turn out to be horrible at moderating or like I've seen it happen to some- it kinda changes them and they get power obsessed and enjoy abusing it (I've never engaged larger server staff problems but I've seen this happen to the smaller ones and other games/communities once someones voted in and they immediately begin abusing their powers).

It's possible it could also be player choice, and then limited abilities for whoever that chosen person is for a few weeks and for staff/mods to monitor their behavior and actions. If they fail being a good staff/mod then they should be demoted back down. Its also possible to hold a second vote of the players after that person has been staff for a bit to vote on if they did it efficiently or not, if you felt their power was abused, not helpful enough, were lazy, ect.

Also to remove the "popularity" part of it, you should still be able to apply and not have player recommendation first.

And another thing, to avoid loads of players being added into mod/jmod all at once because of people voting, there should be something held every few months for players to send in what person they think would make a good staff member. Sure, people may vote for their friends but at the same time not everyone does this and I'm pretty sure the whole community isn't as immature as that.

 

Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree with this post in its entirety.

However, agreeing with Phanta, there is no call for "Democracy" in Brawl.

When it comes to Brawl, delegated authority held in staff members is much more effective than leaving such a discretion up to the people, because sometimes, we could get scared of their decisions... Ultimately, rendering them inaccurate and unreliable. Although people are important in influencing the swing of future accepted staff members, they- I feel -are not a crucial element in this process.
The community can very well support an applicant, and a moderator can as well- but the only flaw here is that;
- the applicants' themselves are responsible for what they write, how they act, and how they respond.

I have witnessed this upon several occasions. Such being where I think someone should really be a Staff member, but they simply don't meet basic requirements- and I agree, it sucks. But something that a lot of people don't seem to fathom is that our we have legitimate reasons for saying yes or no to applicants. I know for sure that Cuddled gets a lot of stuff thrown in her face because a person wanted someone else to become staff, but the other person didn't make it.
It happens all the time.

If you feel strongly about an applicant, feel free to express it. We like to see that kind of stuff (just don't express it in an inappropriate or rude way :l)

Then, addressing the "Abusing Power" section of your statement,
- I am very well aware of rumors that spread around of staff members abusing- sometimes to those rumors are attached the name, and I don't really enjoy hearing them. It's something you can come talk to any of us about, and we will point you in the right direction at least I know I will :l
but unless you can provide concrete proof (not a screenshot) of a staff member abusing, there isn't much we can do to start laying punishment on the table for said staff member. Just when you do report a staff member, be respectful, be straightforward. I know a lot of times people will waltz into "Support Needed" swearing like a sailor about a staff member "abusing". Although it raises some red flags, it's sometimes disregarded because of how the player was reacting (it makes them sounds like they are
over-exaggerating.)
I'm not going to lie, I've witnessed abuse in the past (as both a player and a staff member) so I know exactly where you guys are coming from.

- This also applies to democracy in Brawl... Who is to say that a staff member voted upon by the people doesn't completely abuse their rank? Who is to say that this person even wants to be staff? There are just so many different scenarios, that the outcome would be unpredictable. I'm not saying we want it to be predictable, but we just don't want absolute chaos.

So in the end, TL;DR,
Democracy in Brawl is unnecessary. The system we have now is working just fine.
Remember, when we respond to applications- we lay it as it is. If your application doesn't have details? We tell you. You aren't on Teamspeak, or you are really mean in-game? We will tell you.
As I said,
"- the applicants' themselves are responsible for what they write, how they act, and how they respond."

If you have any further question, please feel free to PM me via my signature... I'd be happy to answer any of your questions
and no I am not telling you who abused, so please don't ask lol

 

Well, this got dark pretty quick .-.

 

my cocaine*

 

#Sammyformod2k16

 

didnt bother going through the discussion, but its simple.. if you have a dictator at the top and hes not forced to share his power why the **** would he

 

Sorry but we are extremely rude, corrupt and hateful people who want nothing but to ruin your lives. We use the power we have for nothing but abuse and changing "class" to "kit". No way are we sharing this power with the community. All bow down to the mighty dictator running this pixelated block multiplayer game!

No democracy for you.

 

@Chilled_92 4 president?!