I was going to make a post for us to continue our conversation, which, I'll admit, was cold towards each other because we didn't all agree, but I digress, but I found it pointless, because the posts are now gone, there's no way for me to retrieve them, and it's fucking ridiculous we're at this point.
So you know what? Screw it. I'm restarting the conversation.
Short version: I said Charlie would make a fine admin, Kahmian or however you spell it, I apologize I'm using a British synth so I could be wrong, and Jonathan both said that they dislike Sir Charlie's tone, and my response to this was that if you disliked people as admin for tones you didn't like, then you'd have no applicants, and my takeaway was that they have personal bias towards him. Does that about cover it, you two?

Yep it covers it. And for clarification before Pajper sais this again, neither i have anything against CrittaPup(which i probably also misspelled, i am using a german synth), neither do i think he has personal problems with me because we rarely ever interacted before. And yes, the discussion was summed up pretty good.

I think it does, and tbh, I think we, the whole community over all want the same.
And I am fed up of saying sirCharlie this, sirCharlie that, it goes for months now! And I dubt now 100% that this vote will be fair and uninfluenced, but you know what? Just asign the role to him and see whats happening, I mean can it get more warse than now? Obvioursly, not really I guess.

I will say, Sir Charlie won't delete posts because he's holding this community up to arbitrary standards he set in comparison to another community none of us use.

k, so can you move these posts maybe this time into this new topic? I don't understand your point and what it should change, but that would be very friendly.

It would be fantastic if we could get the posts back for clarity's sake, that lead to this entire shitstorm.

Man I don't even know (or care) enough about this community to formulate an idea of who is and isn't going to be admin, but hopefully the eventual candidate proves to be a better fit than Pajber and their authoritarian views that have done nothing but run this forum further into stupidity.

P.S.: Pajber, your signature has the potential to be insulting to some; can you please delete the #StandWithUkraine part? I don't think it's appropriate for you to showcase and promote a bias based on current political trends and issues.

I don't even think there's anything else for me to say. It was all said. Before. In posts that got deleted. Because of reasons. Reasons that are unclear. And reason that seem to be the second time this has happened today, because it appears a whole conversation happened before that was also deleted. So like... what's the point now?

@7 This post is not refering to SirCharlies aplication. Another prove you(pajper) not even caring about what you are reading.

if a post gets deleted you can't restore it anymore, the admin also can't that.
-- (CritterPup):
It would be fantastic if we could get the posts back for clarity's sake, that lead to this entire shitstorm.

--

omg, on this point this all is just a mess, agree to critter, there is no point anymore really.

Yep, so... you know... Why bother having any kind of conversation here if it can just get deleted at this guy's discretion?
I'll reiterate. I've seen Charlie work and I've seen this guy's work. I can't spell his name. Charlie won't just delete posts because he feels like he can. Charlie may not have a tone you like, but at least he's fair in most cases. This guy will just silence you.
Personal bias? Perhaps. But this has happened twice today. He's shown this to be something he just... does. And he's shown he has the ability to clone parts of a topic and put it as a new one so that should've been step one.

I think that Charlie definitely deserves a chance to be an admin, at least as a trial. He hasn't been an admin in the past and putting aside personal opinions, biases and rivalries, it's an option to consider, which at this point is already something great, isn't it? It's not like we have many options on how to deal with this community apart from getting a new, somewhat harsher to some, but a critically thinking, reasonable admin, who will help us deal with all this mess.

Personally, I agree with @djsenter. From what I read, this is the most sensible option. I don't know the man, but he writes most sensibly and clearly has some vision for this community.
I will continue to follow the discussion, but completely subjectively, I think it makes the most sense.

To whoever left the feedback "Order. Minimize stupidity", is it OK if I use that as my Motto going forward?

Absolutely.
-- (Sir-Charlie):
To whoever left the feedback "Order. Minimize stupidity", is it OK if I use that as my Motto going forward?

--

@Sir-Charlie, I have a few questions to you.
1 If we have a thread where is first 5 posts to the point, but 6th and 7th are insulting, next 20 posts is about these 2 insulting posts, what will you do?
2 Do you want to create more recommended groups like we have in polish community? This group has almost 30000 posts, maybe it's time to devide it.
3 How many mods do you want to have and do you know who will be them?
4 Do you want to change a english community rules, if yes, what will you change?

that are good questions. would be interested on the answers.

@17 I'll answer you backwards because I think it's more sensible to do so.

4. Yes. I would like the rules first of all to be made more easily available. I think the only rules we have now is the official elten ToS which seems more like a convoluted legal contract rather than rules for real people to be able to understand and follow.
My main priority would be procedural stuff. So protocol surrounding bans, warnings, punishments etc. That's a big issue with a lot of online platforms, I think. They have rules but no proper guideline to enforce said rules.
I hoped to get more community involvement as I said in my initial bid to be admin thread, rather than writing a set of rules on my own.

3. I was thinking no greater than 4. Why 4? Because it makes mathematical calculations easier. A ban won't be able to be instituted unless you get at least 2 mods and myself to agree to it for example. I also think a team of 5 is sufficiently large enough to adequately be able to cover the forum at different points of the day so issues such as pointed out in question 1 (which I'll get to in a moment) won't really be able to happen.
In addition to that, a team of 5 is also in my opinion large enough to have sufficiently differing viewpoints, which leads to overall fairer and more balanced decisions being taken. On the flip side 5 is also managible enough to not result in deadlock. I've been the administrator on different platforms before, and I like working with moderately sized teams like this one. It's better for everyone.
As to who I had in mind or how they'd be chosen? I wasn't intending on calling up people and asking them. My intension was having a forum where interested persons could put their applications and I'd choose the 4 persons who I felt would be the best fit to help me administrate. But if I had to make a short list, at the very tippitty tippy top would be djsenter. I think we can all agree he's shown himself to be level headed, fair and calm in any discussion he engages in.
Next, I think you all saw this coming, Fernando. Again, he's shown himself to be very much level headed, logical and fair in any discussion he partisipates in.
At this point I can't really think of anyone else off the top of my head, perhaps theblack or Marc though I suppose I'm more apprehensive on the latter.

2. I suppose I don't really understand this question? Do you mean make new forums on here? Then not really no. I was thinking a specific forum could be added for programming and another for audio production/music. But other than that not really. I think the present forums we have are fine, however they need clearer naming and better descriptions.

1. Now this is an interesting question. AS I said earlier, I wish to get at least 4 other moderators to help me out, so in an ideal world something like this wouldn't be able to happen. But let's say that it did. My initial analysis would be to look at post 6 and 7 to see if their jabs crossed the line to warrent me taking any administrative action. If yes, they'd be given a warning or whatever punative measure I felt warrented. Nextly depending on how hot the thread got, I'd either close it or make a request to get the thread on topic again. If it devolves after my request, I'd bring the matter to the team to see if they felt that the person who redevolved the thread deserved any action. My suggestion would be a warning at best. Never the less the thread would be closed either way, however.
I am strongly, strongly strongly against deleting posts, and won't do so.
Hopefully that answers your questions.

I'm afraid you're writing a bit idyllic.
Suppose there is an post in which John Smith is accused. By not deleting this entry, regardless of your intentions:
1. John Smith wants, of course, to answer with his defence,
2. John Smith's friends want to defend their friend,
3. If you forbid them to do this, they will immediately be accused of dictatorship and that you favor John Smith's enemies,
4. But if you let it, the thread will turn into garbage that no one wants to read.