Moderator: Clan Directors
grifftron wrote:Man VOL. Its really important to you to push for people elected mods. What if it does happen someday and those mods end up being people that you don't like once again... than what?
They are not going to change the system because 2-3 people don't like the current mods.
-griff
angola wrote:You think The Pack is apart of insider politics in relation to the CDs? Are you new to the clan scene?
grifftron wrote:For the record, I don't know, or talk to any of the current CD's...
So your talking about making false statements... there is no "inside" clan world.. its all in your head bhra.. its a risk gaming site, we come here to play games. If there is by chance, a 5-6 people scene of a so called "insider politics", I don't see how this will effect wars, and it for sure wont effect how your dice roll in a game... time to move on
edit: opps hold on.. i see your in the CDF... THAT WOULD BE THE INSIDE CLAN WORLD... your more inside than me my friend.
-griff
TheMissionary wrote:Look at the American government. Everyday people are complaining about Congress, the President, Laws, Bills, ect. The people elected these people, and then as soon as it doesn't go their way, the are the first ones to point the finger. The majority rarely takes the time to research their votes. They just expect things to be 'different'. The only way things change is when people come together and address things as a whole. Let your opinion out, and a seed is planted. This doesn't mean it will be in effect over night. Just like a tree, an idea has to grow. As things grow they change, adapt to their surroundings. This site has been around for a while, there is still a lot of growing to do. So I say, instead of lashing out at the imperfections(that will always be there), put forth the effort to change things. Sitting around complaining and lashing out, at a system that does it's best to find a median for everyone, isn't going to solve anything.
ViperOverLord wrote:TheMissionary wrote:Look at the American government. Everyday people are complaining about Congress, the President, Laws, Bills, ect. The people elected these people, and then as soon as it doesn't go their way, the are the first ones to point the finger. The majority rarely takes the time to research their votes. They just expect things to be 'different'. The only way things change is when people come together and address things as a whole. Let your opinion out, and a seed is planted. This doesn't mean it will be in effect over night. Just like a tree, an idea has to grow. As things grow they change, adapt to their surroundings. This site has been around for a while, there is still a lot of growing to do. So I say, instead of lashing out at the imperfections(that will always be there), put forth the effort to change things. Sitting around complaining and lashing out, at a system that does it's best to find a median for everyone, isn't going to solve anything.
This is a nice flowery speech. But, realistically, it's not an argument for or against elections per se. My view on elections is not that it makes everything better or perfect; merely that it's the right step in the right direction.
TheMissionary wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:I am not saying I am for, or against elections. I am simply stating that elections do not change things, people do. This isn't a totalitarian system, why fight against it? Everyone's considerations are taken into account. You can't please all the people, all the time, but you can please some of the people, some of the time.
TheMissionary wrote:CC4 is a thing of the past, CDs are only human. Isn't the CDF designed to offer equal sway for each and every clan?
ViperOverLord wrote:TheMissionary wrote:You can't please all the people, all the time, but you can please some of the people, some of the time.
If you setup the system to be as fair as possible from the outset; then the inevitable problems are minimized later. Systems without proper rigors are destined for chaos. So, frankly, I find your well intentioned rhetoric to be apathetic and misguided.
grifftron wrote:VOL bhra... you don't agree with anything anyone says... maybe its you?
just a thought from a friend.
-griff
TheMissionary wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:TheMissionary wrote:You can't please all the people, all the time, but you can please some of the people, some of the time.
If you setup the system to be as fair as possible from the outset; then the inevitable problems are minimized later. Systems without proper rigors are destined for chaos. So, frankly, I find your well intentioned rhetoric to be apathetic and misguided.
This is what this debate is over isn't it? We have a handful of people, within the masses, who feel they are discriminated against by a so called "inner circle". Therefore they want an election of 'power' (which in reality is delegated to volunteers), to be distributed to people who could potentially be of the same resolve. Makes sense to you I guess, but I'm not sure I can understand your logic.
Edit: Maybe it is just a way to give you verification of what you will point your finger at next. Knowing something exists as opposed to assuming, doesn't make any situation easier to resolve..
ViperOverLord wrote:TheMissionary wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:TheMissionary wrote:You can't please all the people, all the time, but you can please some of the people, some of the time.
If you setup the system to be as fair as possible from the outset; then the inevitable problems are minimized later. Systems without proper rigors are destined for chaos. So, frankly, I find your well intentioned rhetoric to be apathetic and misguided.
This is what this debate is over isn't it? We have a handful of people, within the masses, who feel they are discriminated against by a so called "inner circle". Therefore they want an election of 'power' (which in reality is delegated to volunteers), to be distributed to people who could potentially be of the same resolve. Makes sense to you I guess, but I'm not sure I can understand your logic.
Why would you assume that whoever is delegated and whoever is elected would be of the same caliber? And frankly, even if they are the same, better, or worse; at least the clans get their equal say. That's all I can rightfully ask for in anything. Personally, though, I think it's a mistake to minimize this debate to a matter of margins on the performance of potential CDs. The community as a whole that gets to vote for who represents them on important matters, gets respect out of the gate.
TheMissionary wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:TheMissionary wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:TheMissionary wrote:You can't please all the people, all the time, but you can please some of the people, some of the time.
If you setup the system to be as fair as possible from the outset; then the inevitable problems are minimized later. Systems without proper rigors are destined for chaos. So, frankly, I find your well intentioned rhetoric to be apathetic and misguided.
This is what this debate is over isn't it? We have a handful of people, within the masses, who feel they are discriminated against by a so called "inner circle". Therefore they want an election of 'power' (which in reality is delegated to volunteers), to be distributed to people who could potentially be of the same resolve. Makes sense to you I guess, but I'm not sure I can understand your logic.
Why would you assume that whoever is delegated and whoever is elected would be of the same caliber? And frankly, even if they are the same, better, or worse; at least the clans get their equal say. That's all I can rightfully ask for in anything. Personally, though, I think it's a mistake to minimize this debate to a matter of margins on the performance of potential CDs. The community as a whole that gets to vote for who represents them on important matters, gets respect out of the gate.
I believe that just killed your own argument. You are taking the margins of performance away from people who are trying to volunteer, for an elected group who may, or may not have, the same dedication to providing a solid effort to the community.
Edit: Is someone appointed to a position really going to put in as much effort per-say, as a person who is willing to give up their own time willingly?
ViperOverLord wrote:I've killed nothing. You tried to give a hypothetical of an elected volunteer doing worse than an appointed volunteer. And I really don't get your point. I believe that the clan leaders are more than capable of selecting adequate CDs. Hence, my point that there's no need to focus upon the "margins."
And whether elected or appointed, CDs will still be volunteers. Elected CDs will not have less dedication. And if they're bad, then that's the beauty of the system. We can replace them. If a CD is bad now, we have no such recourse.
"Edit: Is someone appointed to a position really going to put in as much effort per-say, as a person who is willing to give up their own time willingly?" WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. ARE YOU DRUNK? An appointed person gives up their time willingly. An elected person gives up their time willingly. You keep going off the rails like that. So, time for me to take a break.
ViperOverLord wrote:I think it's a mistake to minimize this debate to a matter of margins on the performance of potential CDs. The community as a whole that gets to vote for who represents them on important matters, gets respect out of the gate and that sets a proper tone.
greenoaks wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:I think it's a mistake to minimize this debate to a matter of margins on the performance of potential CDs. The community as a whole that gets to vote for who represents them on important matters, gets respect out of the gate and that sets a proper tone.
Clans already get to vote on who represents them. thats the CDF.
CC gets to choose who represents them & they have delegated that role to the current CD leader.
TheMissionary wrote:greenoaks wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:I think it's a mistake to minimize this debate to a matter of margins on the performance of potential CDs. The community as a whole that gets to vote for who represents them on important matters, gets respect out of the gate and that sets a proper tone.
Clans already get to vote on who represents them. thats the CDF.
CC gets to choose who represents them & they have delegated that role to the current CD leader.
I think he knows this, as it has been rebutted in every argument he makes. It's beginning to sound like a broken record.
chapcrap wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:Leehar wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:instead of an elite group of people
I think it was asked earlier, but what exactly defines us as elite Viper?
Instead of digging in the dirt, which is what you presumably want to do with this question; how about you actually give your position on elections?
I think that what Viper may have been referencing was the presumed fact that a lot of CD's have come from higher ranked clans.
I remember this being discussed in some other thread previously. Some people might want a little CD love from the lower ranked clans.
TheMissionary wrote:
Edit: Is someone appointed to a position really going to put in as much effort per-say, as a person who is willing to give up their own time willingly?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users