Regarding Our Community

[TheDoc]

Which is why I've already said numerous times that the community should just not take these people seriously.

Pretty much this. Come on, guys, this is life. You think throughout your entire life, you'll never be bullied? Every community has its fair share of bad apples, but if you ignore them, they aren't going to track you down and kill you in your sleep. If you act as if these guys are better than you, you can bet they will take advantage of that.

[Rozark]

In short, Skype just needs to stop directly having an impact on the community.

Nah, just point fingers at the mean people and ask them to be more polite.

Or ban Skype.

I can't even begin to wrap my mind around this post.


Oh, and this:

(click to show/hide)

Cutstuff isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship. Not an evil type of dictatorship

We choose to listen to what you, the people think and suggest, but we don't have to

(click to show/hide)

HOLD IT!
Dictatorships are always evil and you seldom think over our voices. I present the evidence of google search "Define: Dictatorship", the second definition.

2. A person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere.

Now let's "Define: autocratic"

2.Taking no account of other people's wishes or opinions; domineering.

"Taking no account of other people's wishes" conflicts with this quote:

We choose to listen to what you, the people think and suggest, but we don't have to

Then there's the "choose" and "we don't have to". You should've used consider and not choose (assuming word syntax would be fixed). The way it's stated here says to us  that "You choose to not do anything we suggest"

To conclude, in a topic such as this, you need to word things more clearly and know the definitions of them.

[Ivory]

1.
a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
2.
absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
3.
the office or position held by a dictator.

1.
a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
2.
(in ancient Rome) a person invested with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met.
3.
a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.
4.
a person who dictates,  as to a secretary.

1.
to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference: She chose Sunday for her departure.
2.
to prefer or decide (to do something): He chose to run for election.
3.
to want; desire.
4.
(especially in children's games) to contend with (an opponent) to decide, as by odd or even, who will do something: I'll choose you to see who gets to bat first.

Try again next time.

[Rozark]

Just more sleepy logic. I'll see if it makes sense tommorrow, but feel free to do whatever is needed to it.

(click to show/hide)

HOLD IT!

1.
a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

2.
to prefer or decide (to do something): He chose to run for election.

You choose to run this as though you were a dictator. You can quite easily do whatever you please, and have a reasonable excuse of why you did it. However, in cases where new important positions are needed such as moderators, (which concerns all of us in the long run), you can/should choose to have the community's input about the candidates first to learn things about them that you didn't know, thus clearing your judgement and selecting better people for the position. Why, what would happen if you chose someone who was completely nice/seemed fit to you, but was really seen as unfit/cruel to everyone else? Oh wait that's..

Here, I'll relate it to something. Let's say a boy and a girl like each other, and think they know everything about each other. (metaphorically Ivory and the candidate) Now, I'm sure you know that the friends (everyone else in the community) of any relationship can determine from the outside of the relationship if it's good or bad, happy or sad, etc based on the motives/actions/minds of the couple. USUALLY if the friends see that the couple is happy, they're happy, everybody is happy. However, if they see the relationship is unhappy, they'll try to inform the one who they think is being used/happiest/they just know who. Yet that person won't listen to the outside because they're too busy seeing the inside, thus in the long run it becomes a wreck and (now out of Metaphor-land) big threads like these are made to confront the issues, (Now back in Metaphor-land) as the friends must get together to fix everything so everyone can be happy once more.

Of course you have that one shy kid who secretly likes the boy/girl (would be more fit for the job), and then those bullies harass the friends.. but that's a metaphor for another time/when I'm not sleepy.

[Mr. X]

There's a large number of problems with letting the community help choose mods/providing feedback on choices.  Let me just list a few off the top of my head.

1)  The community will pick their favorite person, not the one best for the job: see also, brotoad.

2)  Those best suited to lead may not be liked in the community for the exact reasons that they'd be fit to lead:  speaking from what I've seen, people on Cutstuff tend to hate authority and try to avoid having to play by others rules at all costs.  You know, hence part of the entire thing discussed in this thread.  This was shown brilliantly when long ago, there was a server issue and Mike basically gave everybody one day to do whatever they wanted.  The forum quickly devolved into what can best be described as virtual monkeys throwing virtual feces at each other.  Simply put, someone who would be suited to enforce rules would have to be somewhat strict, and people generally don't like strict people.

3)  The entire problem being discussed in this thread revolves around groups of people being jerks.  If someone they don't like gets brought up, they'll likely say anything just to shoot their chances of getting selected down, even if it's not true.

4)  The community will likely want to pick someone they see as very lackluster:  one of them, who won't bother trying to come down on anybody too hard.

5)  The community can't agree on anything.  Basically, such a discussion would devolve into what this chat already is:  yelling back and forth with no forward progress

I had more when I started, but I got distracted so that's it for now.

[Ivory]

Actually, this thread had its chance, but it's time to say good bye.

It's clear to me at this point in time that KD has no real argument in this matter. Even if there is some misconduct occurring on the skype chats, it's perfectly clear that there is no way for the Cutstuff Staff or anyone to actually do anything about it. Not to mention that Skype isn't even an official part of Cutstuff, it's the equivalent of an out of school hang out spot. Can your principle or teachers punish you for misbehaving off school grounds? Typically, no.

I've seen many members of the community bring up some good points, some not so good points and all that middle ground in between. Which leads to my next reason. Another flaw with what KD is trying to say is that the community is 'dying' due to one cause. Would something as complex as a social organism like Cutstuff really be dying because of one factor? No, there would be more than one root, and simply trying to abolish Skype Chats isn't going to fix anything. If we really want our community to grow and expand, then all these roots have to be cut. It's not a linear problem that can be solved by one solution. It would take far more than just one solution, believe me.

This thread has turned into a heated argument, individuals having their own stance, but it wasn't even going anywhere. It was just back and forth bantering over a topic that never had any rational sense to begin with. I kept this thread open to give KD a chance to restructure his thoughts and present himself in a more organized and coherent fashion. It never occurred, he continued to ramble his various points no matter how hypocritical or nonsensical it really was.

Rozark- If you wanted to make a case about Llama, you should have done it (like everyone else), in the promotion thread when it occurred. I've already given my reasoning to why I chose Llama and the only thing I ask is that the community of Cutstuff give Llama a chance to prove what I see in him. Korby and I already spent months on and off taking all the main names in the community into consideration. People aren't static entities, people change. Even Llama. If Llama is truly not suited for being a moderator, then I'll demote him. He's not superglued to the position, nor is Korby, nor is Sora, nor even myself.

In any case, good bye Regarding Our Community and thanks for all the onions.