Protect the flock! From JP and Hachette!
MDW Constitution
You read that right. Crazy and blasphemous, ain't it? Still, it seams reasonable-a set of rules for the moderators to go by, based on the opinions of the people who their boss is trying to please.
Now, don't get me wrong-I have no problem with countries without Constitutions. I hail from England, which has an, "unwritten," constitution. I just find that, if given the choice, I'd prefer to have one.
Now, what would get added to the constitution? I'm not saying we should say things like, "Don't ban any anti's ever." I'm thinking more along the lines of, "When you ban someone, send them an email so they know for what reason and for how long," as well as, "Don't ban someone because you think they might be an Anti who's been banned." I'm sure you've had, "Friends," who've been banned before-even if those, "Friends," never confirmed that they were actually you.
And yes, I'm aware that the moderators probably won't care. Still, if any of them think that our requests are reasonable, that would do us a world of good. Fact is, we aren't protected by anything. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You may think that this idea is stupid. You may think that I'm stupid and arrogant for suggesting it. You may think that it's hopeless. And you'd be right. But we have to try, don't we?
On to business. Question one: Is this a good idea, or doomed for failure? Question two. What should we put on said constitution?
Now, don't get me wrong-I have no problem with countries without Constitutions. I hail from England, which has an, "unwritten," constitution. I just find that, if given the choice, I'd prefer to have one.
Now, what would get added to the constitution? I'm not saying we should say things like, "Don't ban any anti's ever." I'm thinking more along the lines of, "When you ban someone, send them an email so they know for what reason and for how long," as well as, "Don't ban someone because you think they might be an Anti who's been banned." I'm sure you've had, "Friends," who've been banned before-even if those, "Friends," never confirmed that they were actually you.
And yes, I'm aware that the moderators probably won't care. Still, if any of them think that our requests are reasonable, that would do us a world of good. Fact is, we aren't protected by anything. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You may think that this idea is stupid. You may think that I'm stupid and arrogant for suggesting it. You may think that it's hopeless. And you'd be right. But we have to try, don't we?
On to business. Question one: Is this a good idea, or doomed for failure? Question two. What should we put on said constitution?
Views: 9
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Captain 'EgWa' Terror on
-
Same goes for me.
-
Permalink Reply by Kayte on
-
>.> Am I the only one who remembers the constitution I wrote? It's practically the reason I got banned, ever since I wrote that the "site owner" had been after me, just waiting for the opportune moment. Or so ModKaty told me...
-
Permalink Reply by Megan (Fishy) on
-
No, I remember it. *hug*
-
Permalink Reply by RantingSidekick on
-
It was wonderful.
*group hug*
-
Permalink Reply by Brandybuck on
-
Not to crush your spirits, but when I tried essentially the same thing, 70+ people joined the group supporting it, and then Hatchette sent the group a message literraly saying, 'If you don't like it, go somewhere else.' The mods don't listen to us because they don't have to.
-
Permalink Reply by EndOfTheEarth on
-
Very much so.
The first constitution had tons of support. No agreement though.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Z.
Powered by
