Well hello there Elten community. We've had an interesting few months here in the English forum. WE had a temporary state of martial law, toxicity and incredible levels of vitrial by a select few and even talks about shutting down our otherwise lovely and interesting community.
Right now our community is a ship at sea with no captain. Hell we don't even have a rudder to navigate the ship, and right now most of the would-be captains have either stepped down or flat out been disqualified.
Some people say that our ship may as well be in the Bermuda Triangle and we should forget about it and move on, but I disagree. Our community is not yet lost. All we need is good, corporative and non-antagonisticadministration, and I think, that's where I come in.
I'm announcing my bid to be your new English Forum Administrator. What can I offer? Throughout my time I think I've served as a fairly rational and reasonable voice pointing out the flaws with the previous administration infrastructure, or I suppose more appropriately the lack thereof. I've served in several administrative positions on respected gaming platforms and for the most part, I was well-liked by the community. I believe I'm also fairly impartial. I don't believe in different treatment for my friends, though as I'll come to in a second, I think each case should be looked at and addressed individually.
I'm also capable of taking necessary and hard decisions if it's for the good of the community, though unpopular it may be. Lastly, (and again I'll expand on this later) I believe administrating a community like this requires communication and teamwork. Communications between regular members and the overall staff team, and internal coordination among staff members.
So what exactly is my platform? I have a few points I intend to push through if I'm given the mandate by you folks to be your administrator.
Firstly, before anything else can be done I'd want to work together with as many members of the English community on a definitive set of rules and guidelines. An Admin team is only as good as the rules they're tasked with upholding, and right now the rules are rather vague. I wish to write a more comprehensive set of rules and to make more things clear. I intend to get community input on what rules they'd like to see, what things they'd like addressed, etc. After preparing a full set of rules, I'll put it to community vote on whether or not people wish to see it inacted. Importantly, while I wish to be guided by the community, I'll still keep my own direction for where I want the rules to go. That isn't to say I'm going to ignore everything, but if, for example, someone suggests to allow cracks and other illegal material I'm definitely going to disregard it, if that makes sense.
Next, now that we've gotten a set of rules to uphold, I'd like to get a proper staff team going. I, one, me, Charlie, cannot administrate on my own. During my time in other administrative positions I've come to appreciate the input of other staff members, and usually we are capable of coming to a fair and reasonable conclusion. If elected, I would like to get a few moderators to serve alongside, (not beneath) me. I was thinking about 3 or 4 other members. They would carry out the bulk of day to day administrating around the forums however I'll still take up that task of course. For more contravercial decisions, I'd like our team to come together and come to a consensus before any defintivie action is taken. I think a system like this can prevent bias and unfair action being taken on members.
Third, I think a reorganisation of the forums are in order. Perhaps remove a few categories or introduce a few.
And lastly, though certainly far from least important, I want to make the staff team I intend to lead more transparent. I want people to feel comfortable asking questions. Raising concerns or even holding the staff team to account. Hence why, if elected, I also intend to introduce a system whereby if a significant number of users wish for me to be removed from my position, they will be able to do so. Likewise, I would also like to introduce a system to be able to more appropriately scrutinise other moderators as well.
So that's it. My 4 points. This is my candidate topic, so feel free to ask me any questions you have in here. I'm requesting, as best possible to keep it strictly relating to my bid for administrator. Keep the old talk out, please.
Anyways, I hope that pitch of mine was comprehensive enough, and of course if not you are more than welcome to ask me anything.

Well, well, well, look who's vying for the position of English Forum Administrator, Sir-Charlie, the paragon of order and predictability. How quaint.
Sir-Charlie, your meticulous plans for rules, guidelines, and structured moderation are positively yawn-inducing. While you're busy rearranging deck chairs on our sinking ship, I'll be out here stirring up storms and making waves. Because let's face it, who wants a boring old captain when you can have a mischievous master of mayhem?
Sure, you talk a big game about collaboration and transparency, but where's the fun in that? Let's inject some spontaneity into our community, shall we? Let's throw out the rulebook and see where the chaos takes us. Who needs categories when you can have chaos?
And as for your proposal for a removal system, well, let's just say I have my own methods for keeping things interesting. After all, what's the point of being in power if you can't abuse it just a little bit?
So go ahead, Sir-Charlie, with your well-thought-out plans and your earnest desire for order. But remember, when the dust settles and the chaos reigns supreme, there will be only one true ruler of this forum: Mortimer Mischief, the disruptor-in-chief.

I look forward to facing you in the polls, Morty. I'm at least certain you'd be more formidible an opponent than Count Binface.

You are basically competing with chat gpt at this point.

Charlie, let's say, hypothetically you have a clear list of rules written for the community, thus giving you the ability to act upon people who let's say spam, carry out personal attacks, etc. However as we have seen time and time again, a portion of members undermines every decision the dev or a possible admin makes and intentionally turns every topic, every discussion into a complete trash heap.
My question is, how do you intend to punish them and keep an order on the forums, when would you consider bans, how many warnings are reasonable and do you have any ideas about the potential measures the mods can take to delete unnecessary posts or topic without being harassed by the community? Basically, is there going to be some protection for the mods so that accountability is there, but also commonsense, rational decisions aren't halted by members who have ill intentions and are known for stirring up drama without any substance in their claims?

Ah, djsenter, my dear fellow denizen of the chaotic abyss, your concerns are as valid as they are... erm... well, let's just say interesting! While Sir-Charlie may be busy drafting his meticulously detailed plans for order and discipline, allow me, Mortimer Mischief, to offer you a glimpse into the wonderfully nonsensical world of my approach to handling those pesky troublemakers and drama-stirrers:
Picture this: instead of punishing the miscreants, why not invite them to a tea party? Yes, a tea party! We'll sit them down, pour them a cuppa, and engage in delightful discussions about the merits of unicorn farming or the existential implications of wearing socks with sandals. Who needs bans when you've got biscuits and banter, am I right?
And as for protecting our dear moderators from the dreaded onslaught of drama llamas, fear not! For I, Mortimer Mischief, have devised a foolproof plan: bubble wrap! Yes, that's right, bubble wrap! We'll wrap our moderators in layers upon layers of bubble wrap, ensuring that they remain safe from harm while still being able to perform their duties with aplomb. Who said chaos couldn't be practical?
So, my dear djsenter, while Sir-Charlie may offer you the promise of order and discipline, remember that sometimes it's the absurdity that unites us. Join me, Mortimer Mischief, in embracing the whimsical wonders of our community, where chaos reigns supreme and laughter is the only law!

Ahh, Johnatan, at least my concerns are perfectly and beautifully written out by me, myself and I, rest assured I don't need ChatGPT to sound more interesting, more eloquent, or whatever I feel like at a given moment xD

That wasn't me, that was Morti. I don't want to be admin friend, I just give Morti the right to speak.

What would you do with the people in the current our new game topic, ban them? Warn them and just close the topic again? Or something else.

At post 1,, I will vote for you.

Hi there. To respond to the points raised
@ post 5, great questions. First let me say that if anyone intends to join me in making this place a more positive environment for everyone said persons will have to be courageous and fearless for doing what's right. If they're worried about getting backlash from a hostile and recalcitrant minority then they probably aren't a right fit for this role anyway. Criticism will be leveled against you, and it's your job to accept it and pick sense from nonsense. Idiots will be idiots, and it's your job to ignore them or punish them if the need arrises.
Now onto your other points. I like the model as outlined by the audiogames.net forum however with a few tweaks. Perhaps I'm thinking a person can be banned after they received 3 or 4 warnings. These warnings would expire after a certain duration of time has passed, perhaps a month. So if a person has been repeatedly warned within 3 months then they get a temporary ban. I'd also like to suggest that if a person was warned in a very short period of time for problematic behaviour, let's say less than a week then their ban should likely be extended.
I also support the concept of a community failure clause. If a person is deemed to be problematic and outright detrimental to the community then by a super majority the staff will be empowered to ban them for a set period of time. I do think that in the new rules and guidelines specific conditions should be written up as to what should constitute someone being legible for community failure. Obvious things such as racism, pornographic materials, breaches of privacy, constantly causing conflict in topics,et al. So, in theory, if someone went on a crusade against the staff team with nothing constructive and it was apparent that they had a personal vendetta, then they could be punished under the CF clause.
As to your other question, I don't support the deletion of posts as I stated. I think that it's unproductive and does more harm for everyone. Both from the perspective of staff ass covering, and from the perspective of a user being able to defend themselves. I wouldn't delete someone's messages just because I disagree with them or don't like them, however I will not be the admin of this community forever, nor will the original mods I choose stay on. There could be staff after us who choose to abuse their power and it's important that we safeguard against that.
I'd suggest instead to create a forum for harmful posts. So off-topic and harmful posts can be moved there so in that way context wouldn't entirely be lost.

@Marc, they've done this before on multiple occasions before I think. I'd bring this to the staff under CF. There's no point in issuing a warning if they're just going to come back a few months later and publish another clone here. Ban them and they'll learn. If they don't, they receive a harsher ban until they either learn or get dealt such a strict ban that they can't post their illegal material here anymore.
If this was the first time however, I'd simply issue a warning, remove all links to the clone and close the topic and move on.

Fair enough, archivisation of topics and or posts sounds the most reasonable then, instead of deleting them, so there is further evidence if the mods were to undertake some actions which some more unruly, spiteful members wouldn't like.

In some cases, archivisation wouldn't be a good solution.
For example I will create a big oftopic, later you will close this topic and my oponents can't answear. After all it looks like I was right, because noone denied.
And trolls just can write a lot of oftopics and stupidities.

No solution can please anybody, but good to consider all options.

I think archiving is the best option. It helps clear threads from clutter and toxicity without deleting history and evidence.

Not necessarily. Let me demonstrate this with an example.
Imagine that person A slanders person B in an insulting way by making certain allegations. You respond to this by moving person A's post to the archives. But still this entry of person A is visible to everyone from which several facts follow.
Firstly, you continue to allow, indeed, to make these slanders publicly visible.
As a result, person B is likely to want to defend himself/herself, because in fact an accusation fly on the internet to which he/she cannot respond.

How do you want to solve this problem?

Well, ya get my vote. And yes, they have done this more than once, especially blindpro/ryder.
-- (Sir-Charlie):
Hi there. To respond to the points raised
@ post 5, great questions. First let me say that if anyone intends to join me in making this place a more positive environment for everyone said persons will have to be courageous and fearless for doing what's right. If they're worried about getting backlash from a hostile and recalcitrant minority then they probably aren't a right fit for this role anyway. Criticism will be leveled against you, and it's your job to accept it and pick sense from nonsense. Idiots will be idiots, and it's your job to ignore them or punish them if the need arrises.
Now onto your other points. I like the model as outlined by the audiogames.net forum however with a few tweaks. Perhaps I'm thinking a person can be banned after they received 3 or 4 warnings. These warnings would expire after a certain duration of time has passed, perhaps a month. So if a person has been repeatedly warned within 3 months then they get a temporary ban. I'd also like to suggest that if a person was warned in a very short period of time for problematic behaviour, let's say less than a week then their ban should likely be extended.
I also support the concept of a community failure clause. If a person is deemed to be problematic and outright detrimental to the community then by a super majority the staff will be empowered to ban them for a set period of time. I do think that in the new rules and guidelines specific conditions should be written up as to what should constitute someone being legible for community failure. Obvious things such as racism, pornographic materials, breaches of privacy, constantly causing conflict in topics,et al. So, in theory, if someone went on a crusade against the staff team with nothing constructive and it was apparent that they had a personal vendetta, then they could be punished under the CF clause.
As to your other question, I don't support the deletion of posts as I stated. I think that it's unproductive and does more harm for everyone. Both from the perspective of staff ass covering, and from the perspective of a user being able to defend themselves. I wouldn't delete someone's messages just because I disagree with them or don't like them, however I will not be the admin of this community forever, nor will the original mods I choose stay on. There could be staff after us who choose to abuse their power and it's important that we safeguard against that.
I'd suggest instead to create a forum for harmful posts. So off-topic and harmful posts can be moved there so in that way context wouldn't entirely be lost.

@Marc, they've done this before on multiple occasions before I think. I'd bring this to the staff under CF. There's no point in issuing a warning if they're just going to come back a few months later and publish another clone here. Ban them and they'll learn. If they don't, they receive a harsher ban until they either learn or get dealt such a strict ban that they can't post their illegal material here anymore.
If this was the first time however, I'd simply issue a warning, remove all links to the clone and close the topic and move on.

--

So Pajper you basically say everything that doesn't look nice and beautiful, and doesn't give Elten a positive rating, should be deleted and wiped away? Great. Applause please.

@17, they can create a separate topic to challenge the claims (Respectfully)
What if the archived material, though offensive holds validity? Who are we to decide to erase it? This is why I advocate for archival. Shows that the staff team condems hostilly written material however the reader is left to come to their own conclusions. It's not our place as staff to cultivate a certain narrative. It's our place to regulate it.