Mykhol 1 Posted January 2, 2012 I look through member submissions, member protests, ban protests, mod submissions, ban requests and all I see is people choosing sides. People +1'ing and -1'ing with reasons like "I LIKE HIM" or "NO HES FAT". Can we make Aegean's life worse (:D) and make a new rule about vouching, yes I know about the new vouching team thing; but can we have it so Acceptable: "+1 to mod; Good player, know's rules thoroughly, enforces rules even without power, active member on TS3 and servers." Not Acceptable: "+1 he gives me cupcakes" Not Acceptable: "-1 to mod; hes fat" Not acceptable: "-1 to member submission; never see him" Acceptable: "+1 to member submission; good player, active, knows rules, doesn't flame, doesn't cause problems" Acceptable: "+1 to removal from clan; Flames a lot, causes problems, disrespects members, troll's, makes xG look bad" Not acceptable: "-1 to removal from clan; i dont see him rage or flame, why ban him?" What if "Not acceptable" was not even COUNTED as a vote? and "acceptable' was? Wouldn't things be even slightly better? Obviously thing's would be judged acceptable or not acceptable by the forum admin currently on. Just a way to get more mature reactions and responses. Thought's? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Otherworldly 2 Posted January 2, 2012 Vouching committee is going into effect soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heisenberg 1 Posted January 2, 2012 I still have no clue why we're getting a vouching committee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NotKevinShady 1 Posted January 2, 2012 -1 to removal from clan; i dont see him rage or flame, why ban him?" DOnt know why this is a non acceptable.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeNBake 0 Posted January 2, 2012 -1 to removal from clan; i dont see him rage or flame, why ban him?" DOnt know why this is a non acceptable.. It's because just because you see someone for yourself doesn't justify not kicking. Unless you've been online literally every second they have been. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mykhol 1 Posted January 2, 2012 Kevin, if there was massive amounts of proof of flaming and trolling, and someone said that, you think that would be acceptable? and I still don't understand the vouching committee either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heisenberg 1 Posted January 2, 2012 Kevin, if there was massive amounts of proof of flaming and trolling, and someone said that, you think that would be acceptable? and I still don't understand the vouching committee either. I think its to create a elitist "inner circle" who thinks only thier voice should be heard. It's turning our true democracy into a repulic, by seizing power like tyrants. Soon they're going to conspire against us and make it so only the vouching committee can play on the servers. Then they're going to work thier way into the congress and revoke SOPA Just kidding XD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mykhol 1 Posted January 2, 2012 I think its to create a elitist "inner circle" who thinks only thier voice should be heard. It's turning our true democracy into a repulic, by seizing power like tyrants. Soon they're going to conspire against us and make it so only the vouching committee can play on the servers. Then they're going to work thier way into the congress and revoke SOPA I'm not kidding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Otherworldly 2 Posted January 2, 2012 Umm...you have the idea all wrong... It's a protection we are going to SEE IF IT WORKS FIRST by putting it into place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
serbiansnaga 9 Posted January 2, 2012 revoke sopa? but isnt that a good thing? as in, isnt it a good idea to revoke sopa even though it hasnt been passed yet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HighPlains 0 Posted January 2, 2012 -1 Penguin is fat Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aegean 849 Posted January 2, 2012 Why do people never read my threads or announcements? that's exactly how I read the vouches.... I don't count EVERY -1 unless they have a good reason, I count the +1's, but I might change it so only reasonable +1's get counted. WHY DO PEOPLE THINK WE ARE DERPS MY GAWDDDD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mykhol 1 Posted January 2, 2012 Hey now, it was 4 am when i posted this you think i would notice/remember something like that^?^^? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chickenlips 0 Posted January 2, 2012 I think when people vouch they should vouch based on proof and like legit reasoning. I mean like in member submissions it's like acceptable to say, oh hey I like him, but in ban requests and member protests I find it extremely stupid when someone says "-1 I like him etc etc". I agree with you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeNBake 0 Posted January 4, 2012 I dont really see how the committee will change anything. I mean, when you think about it, it's like we cloned aegean several times with slightly different opinions and made the group of them decide if people were going to join or not. As opposed to the one original aegean. If anything it turns our dictatorship that takes into consideration the general public opinion and turns it into an oligarchy that takes into consideration the general public opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites