New Rule?

[Joykill]

A democratic team

No.

[Suarez]

A democratic team

No.

Are you saying 9 people of varying ranks all giving their input into one decision isn't democratic? Because that's exactly what democracy is.

Members that took part in the decision process: Me, Soul, Turtle, Hitman, Audacter, Falcao, Pear, Tomo and Ivan.

[Joykill]

A democratic team

No.

Are you saying 9 people of varying ranks all giving their input into one decision isn't democratic? Because that's exactly what democracy is.

Members that took part in the decision process: Me, Soul, Turtle, Hitman, Audacter, Falcao, Pear, Tomo and Ivan.

I see nowhere I can vote who should represent me in the administrative team. As such, it's not a democratic process.

The point here is that you say "varying ranks". Matter of the fact is that all of these "varying ranks" were people specifically chosen to be promoted by the administrative team, making it fundamentally undemocratic.

[aDisabledDeer]

A democratic team

No.

Are you saying 9 people of varying ranks all giving their input into one decision isn't democratic? Because that's exactly what democracy is.

Members that took part in the decision process: Me, Soul, Turtle, Hitman, Audacter, Falcao, Pear, Tomo and Ivan.

I see nowhere I can vote who should represent me in the administrative team. As such, it's not a democratic process.

Democracy can be broken down into 2 definitions;

Appointed legitimacy and Voted legitimacy.

When someone is voted to a position they have democratic legitimacy because that individual, in most cases, has the highest vote share.

When somone is appointed they still have democratic legitimacy, for exampled the Queen is still democratically legitimate because the majority of people want her to be there, just like the members of the staff team. They were not elected, but they have legitimacy.

EDIT: The one thing that makes their legitimacy shaky is the fact that there isn't really a process to remove them - for example there cannot be a server wide referendum to remove them from their position

[Joykill]

A democratic team

No.

Are you saying 9 people of varying ranks all giving their input into one decision isn't democratic? Because that's exactly what democracy is.

Members that took part in the decision process: Me, Soul, Turtle, Hitman, Audacter, Falcao, Pear, Tomo and Ivan.

I see nowhere I can vote who should represent me in the administrative team. As such, it's not a democratic process.

Democracy can be broken down into 2 definitions;

Appointed legitimacy and Voted legitimacy.

When someone is voted to a position they have democratic legitimacy because that individual, in most cases, has the highest vote share.

When somone is appointed they still have democratic legitimacy, for exampled the Queen is still democratically legitimate because the majority of people want her to be there, just like the members of the staff team. They were not elected, but they have legitimacy.

EDIT: The one thing that makes their legitimacy shaky is the fact that there isn't really a process to remove them - for example there cannot be a server wide referendum to remove them from their position

There is no outlet for discussion of how things are run. Usually such threads discussing this are closed, usually with no reasoning outside of admin disrespect of going off topic. Admins can't be demoted outside of admin abuse cases - and mind you, those are decided by the admins themselves. In the real world, not being able to remove somebody from power through democratic processes is a dictatorship; a non-democratic country.
Who gets to become admin and who doesn't is decided by a central group, therefore not democratic. Democratic means governed by the people. Full stop. 

There's no vote on who gets to become an admin in the first place, and there's no democratic process of retracting their power. Whether 51% agrees with somebody being an administrator is absolutely irrelevant.

[aDisabledDeer]

No.

Are you saying 9 people of varying ranks all giving their input into one decision isn't democratic? Because that's exactly what democracy is.

Members that took part in the decision process: Me, Soul, Turtle, Hitman, Audacter, Falcao, Pear, Tomo and Ivan.

I see nowhere I can vote who should represent me in the administrative team. As such, it's not a democratic process.

Democracy can be broken down into 2 definitions;

Appointed legitimacy and Voted legitimacy.

When someone is voted to a position they have democratic legitimacy because that individual, in most cases, has the highest vote share.

When somone is appointed they still have democratic legitimacy, for exampled the Queen is still democratically legitimate because the majority of people want her to be there, just like the members of the staff team. They were not elected, but they have legitimacy.

EDIT: The one thing that makes their legitimacy shaky is the fact that there isn't really a process to remove them - for example there cannot be a server wide referendum to remove them from their position

There is no outlet for discussion of how things are run. Usually such threads discussing this are closed, usually with no reasoning outside of admin disrespect of going off topic. Admins can't be demoted outside of admin abuse cases - and mind you, those are decided by the admins themselves. In the real world, not being able to remove somebody from power through democratic processes is a dictatorship; a non-democratic country.
Who gets to become admin and who doesn't is decided by a central group, therefore not democratic. Democratic means governed by the people. Full stop. 

There's no vote on who gets to become an admin in the first place, and there's no democratic process of retracting their power. Whether 51% agrees with somebody being an administrator is absolutely irrelevant.

This is what your post reminded me of

[Greed^]

Democratic or not... Chill it's a game server...

[Audacter]

Alright let me sum it up for everyone who is saying "He meant it as a joke".
So, most of the Fearless Moderation was involved in this case, Mike made the statement and we all discussed for some time. We talked about the ToS and Mike himself, we came to the conclusion that it was likely to be a joke due to Mike's profession and personality. So as Suarez said, we did a diplomatic vote with a couple of options, and obviously staff members had an option to abstain. Beforehand we talked to Turtle and SoulRipper, we had could've went to a permanent suspension. Instead we gave Mike a choice, he could be banned for a week and be on his last chance, or he could be banned permanently. The last chance statement was given due to the nature of the rule violation as it was against Fearless Terms of Service.
However my question is DVN, why do you believe it necessary to bring such matters up, isn't it staff members or the people directly involved who should worry about bans am I not correct? I'm sure Mike doesn't want too much attention brought to it, I'm sure he is more than capable than dealing with it himself. I am confused on how you think you make a difference in such matters. Put it this way, we could've permanently banned him, this was the next best thing.

[Ali]

Alright let me sum it up for everyone who is saying "He meant it as a joke".
So, most of the Fearless Moderation was involved in this case, Mike made the statement and we all discussed for some time. We talked about the ToS and Mike himself, we came to the conclusion that it was likely to be a joke due to Mike's profession and personality. So as Suarez said, we did a diplomatic vote with a couple of options, and obviously staff members had an option to abstain. Beforehand we talked to Turtle and SoulRipper, we had could've went to a permanent suspension. Instead we gave Mike a choice, he could be banned for a week and be on his last chance, or he could be banned permanently. The last chance statement was given due to the nature of the rule violation as it was against Fearless Terms of Service.
However my question is DVN, why do you believe it necessary to bring such matters up, isn't it staff members or the people directly involved who should worry about bans am I not correct? I'm sure Mike doesn't want too much attention brought to it, I'm sure he is more than capable than dealing with it himself. I am confused on how you think you make a difference in such matters. Put it this way, we could've permanently banned him, this was the next best thing.

"DVN, why do you believe it necessary to bring such matters up, isn't it staff members or the people directly involved who should worry about bans am I not correct?"

You cant actually see why someone would question a case that they don't see fair. It isn't our problem that Syrians are needing a country to take refugee in, its their problem, why should we care. Same deal, we care about our fellow FL players and DVN seems to care about Mike and his ban request.

"we came to the conclusion that it was likely to be a joke due to Mike's profession and personality."

If you came to the conclusion that what he said was a joke why would he be punished so harshly for it? I can understand getting serious at the situation but if he was only joking and you guys realized that why punish him in this way?

[Audacter]

Alright let me sum it up for everyone who is saying "He meant it as a joke".
So, most of the Fearless Moderation was involved in this case, Mike made the statement and we all discussed for some time. We talked about the ToS and Mike himself, we came to the conclusion that it was likely to be a joke due to Mike's profession and personality. So as Suarez said, we did a diplomatic vote with a couple of options, and obviously staff members had an option to abstain. Beforehand we talked to Turtle and SoulRipper, we had could've went to a permanent suspension. Instead we gave Mike a choice, he could be banned for a week and be on his last chance, or he could be banned permanently. The last chance statement was given due to the nature of the rule violation as it was against Fearless Terms of Service.
However my question is DVN, why do you believe it necessary to bring such matters up, isn't it staff members or the people directly involved who should worry about bans am I not correct? I'm sure Mike doesn't want too much attention brought to it, I'm sure he is more than capable than dealing with it himself. I am confused on how you think you make a difference in such matters. Put it this way, we could've permanently banned him, this was the next best thing.

"DVN, why do you believe it necessary to bring such matters up, isn't it staff members or the people directly involved who should worry about bans am I not correct?"

You cant actually see why someone would question a case that they don't see fair. It isn't our problem that Syrians are needing a country to take refugee in, its their problem, why should we care. Same deal, we care about our fellow FL players and DVN seems to care about Mike and his ban request.

"we came to the conclusion that it was likely to be a joke due to Mike's profession and personality."

If you came to the conclusion that what he said was a joke why would he be punished so harshly for it? I can understand getting serious at the situation but if he was only joking and you guys realized that why punish him in this way?

I understand members of this community will try and stand up for what they believe in and try and protect their friends, that's what humans do. But I just find it strange that there are complaints for this punishment. The initial vote was to permanently ban Mike, we all knew we had to administer some sort of punishment for the ToS violation as it is not taken lightly. But we didn't want him to be permanently banned, we knew that he did his best to make his RP's enjoyable for the majority of the sever. So we took this into consideration and we reduced the ban from permanent to a week, which is a massive leap. The final warning was to make up for the short suspension, although is the majority of the votes I abstained I think it is fair. If Mike was to have said the statement with less serious context and in more of a joking tone of voice then maybe it might've not gotten to this point.
As for your second statement Zerdrick, we all knew we had to administer some sort of punishment for the nature of the topic. The week was implemented to show Mike the seriousness of the matter, as if we basicly give a theoretical slap on the wrist and say "Now you're on your last chance, next punishment is permanent" it might not get the same effect of actually punishing him, as he may not think nothing of it. Mike has every right to appeal, and DVN's points could've been brought to light in a more professional manner via the courthouse. I just think that Mike is lucky, some people may not get this type of treatment. I hope you can all understand this.

Off topic: I'm quite stressed at the moment on an out of internet basis so I apologize if my previous statement came across finger pointy and personal, but I am just trying to express the Fearless Staff members feelings on this.