Admins abilities

[Pyraxis]

It's the wine. I've just read a couple of your other recent posts. 

I figure even endless controversy is better than a dead board. And besides, if we got our hands on some more real controversy, it would be easy enough to put aside a half-assed attempt at controversy like this issue.

[purposefulinsanity]

It's the wine. I've just read a couple of your other recent posts. 

I figure even endless controversy is better than a dead board. And besides, if we got our hands on some more real controversy, it would be easy enough to put aside a half-assed attempt at controversy like this issue.

Do you see it as just an attempt at controversy then rather than an issue that actually concerns someone?

[Pyraxis]

Ouch.

Yes - I was thinking that no one could be that seriously bothered by it. I mean, I'm sure Nomaken meant what he said in his original post, and didn't just post it for shits. But I figured surely there were bigger things in the world to be worried about.

I'm open to being proved wrong, though.

[ozymandias]

It's the wine. I've just read a couple of your other recent posts. 

I figure even endless controversy is better than a dead board. And besides, if we got our hands on some more real controversy, it would be easy enough to put aside a half-assed attempt at controversy like this issue.

Well the wine wore off, so your making sense!  As for the other posts, thats my brain going into overdrive and partially post-whoreishness!

[Nomaken]

I am trying to limit your abilities because they aren't fair.  What good is freedom unless all people are free equally?  Oh, so i'm free to do what I want, but your more free to do what you want than I am because youre an admin?  All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.  There are only 2 ways to make it fair.  Either make everyone admins, or prevent admins from having that freedom.

[Pyraxis]

Actually, that makes some sense.

By the way, I'm not an admin here. (Am I? I was in the world council for a while, but that got dissolved and I don't think anyone ever gave me admin access.)

[El]

I think that, in a practical sense, admins need to have the ABILITY to effect these changes in case there is like a kiddie porn link or something, and, as a result, they will always be fucking around with member's information whether they are "supposed to" or not, under the guise that it is the "spirit of intesnity."  I voted that they need this admin access because I can't imagine all ofthem adhering to a nonenforced rule for all of eternity.

[McGiver]

i would like a show of hands from the people who have been abused by any person from the administration team and that were outright offended by it.

[El]

Not I, and I didn't mean to imply that I had.  I just have some doubt in your impulse-control issues as far as not tweaking the admiin stuff here and there even if it's "forbidden."

[Nomaken]

I think a rule could be made that allows admins to makes absolutely necessary changes but restricts them from making superlative changes.  I think it is perfectly reasonable if there is just an option in their profile that they could select which would prohibit admins from making superlative changes just as a matter of respect, but necessary changes wouldn't be restricted.

[ozymandias]

I could see giving the admin, the ability to get rid of links (as PMSElle pointed out) to porn or kiddie porn!  But, I'm not going to lose any sleep about this issue either!

[McGiver]

I think a rule could be made that allows admins to makes absolutely necessary changes but restricts them from making superlative changes.? I think it is perfectly reasonable if there is just an option in their profile that they could select which would prohibit admins from making superlative changes just as a matter of respect, but necessary changes wouldn't be restricted.

I would like to impose a rule about gang bullying people who demonstrate AS traits, but i won't.
i think it is also important that we? write several rules in fact which tells you all exactly how you are allowed to act.
It would also be important to figure out exactly what any one person has as an ability that no one else has and limit them.? after all, we just want a level playing field.? and i want these limited especially when there is no evidence that these people have abused their special ability.
matter of fact, since we are on the subject of limiting, lets make sweeping changes and limit everybodies freedoms here, since no one has abused them yet.? we just want to make sure that no one will.

[purposefulinsanity]

I would like to impose a rule about gang bullying people who demonstrate AS traits, but i won't.

Since most of the people on here show AS traits if you actually look how do you decide who needs 'protecting'??

[McGiver]

i didn't say that i'd decide who needs 'protecting.'

i said that id like to impose a rule against gang bullying.

i also stated that i wouldn't.  the mob may bully anybody that they choose, and they do.  ANd it seems like it is a survival of the fittest also.  the weaker members are the ones who seem to get gang bullied.  or the members who show the most defined AS traits.  or even the most dillusional seem to get gang bullied.
mostly its the ones with the least amount of communication ability.  as the mob works its way up, from the bottom of the pecking order (or social ability), i would suspect that my time would be soon.
therefore i want to stop it before it happens to me.

see.

[McGiver]

but i must justify why.

i think that as long as we are imposing rules, why stop at the corrupt elite who obviously are running amok.  the mob is the same.  they must be stopped.
so as long as everybody is agredd that we need to start imposing rules, i say, "lets be even more excessive and impose a shitload of em."