Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

A fair system for the appointment of moderators.

Zer0/∞

Zer0/∞

Incelius Savage is The Godfather of Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 23, 2021
Posts
22,547
A fair system for the appointment of moderators
& the Justification for Why it Must Happen.

There should be a system where people past a certain age and status, left to an open discussion here, could nominate people before being left to a final election which will decide who will represent us and uphold the position's duty.

It has been observed when there are fair rules set and transparency, the decisions made by the many end up, on average, being most effective while making everyone feel adequately represented.

The more participants in a well-designed system, the more efficient it becomes.

The current system isn't working as many have voiced disagreements in instances moderators have made an incorrect or poorly thought out judgment; some of them don't even represent the forum and its members well at all, which may be a problem with controversial topics about race and socioeconomic status, an integral part of many people's identity and causes of their inceldom.

Read more here about this topic:

I promise, even though it won't fix everything, this would still be a good start planting us firmly on a path of change: I believe in you, the members of this great forum to do what's right as long as we continue to have a basic sense of solidarity and actively participate in every discussion we enter.
That is the essence of the democratic system I propose to you all here today.
The role of citizen in a democracy does not end with your vote.
 
Last edited:
Cope just make everyone mod and let us all ban each other, the previous jannies can be put on clean up duty to unban everyone 24/7
 
Why did they reject my suggestion?
Fucking jannies!:feels:
 
A fair system for the appointment of moderators
& the Justification for Why it Must Happen.

There should be a system where people past a certain age and status, left to an open discussion here, could nominate people before being left to a final election which will decide who will represent us and uphold the position's duty.

It has been observed when there are fair rules set and transparency, the decisions made by the many end up, on average, being most effective while making everyone feel adequately represented.

The more participants in a well-designed system, the more efficient it becomes.

The current system isn't working as many have voiced disagreements in instances moderators have made an incorrect or poorly thought out judgment; some of them don't even represent the forum and its members well at all, which may be a problem with controversial topics about race and socioeconomic status, an integral part of many people's identity and causes of their inceldom.

Read more here about this topic:




The role of citizen in a democracy does not end with your vote.
In general, I agree ! Though hammering out the details will take some time.
Sometimes yes, and othertimes no. It depends on the age and experience....
Read more here about this topic:


The role of citizen in a democracy does not end with your vote.
And...btw... Barack Obama was one of the only Presidents in modern/recent U.S. history who could make statments tantamount to total economic garbage, talk about nothing for an hour, smile charmingly, and people bought it. Democracy worked if a small group of rational people in power (Think:Boston Brahmins in big business and law) are behind the Government helping it to not make big mistakes. Then the people believe it is fair and it works. A controlling hierarchy rooted in tradition that works NEEDS to be present to help keep things in check. Democracy without that is an illusion.
 
Last edited:
Ah, yes, (((democracy))). Also known as rule of the majority. The major flaw of which is that the majority of humans are incredibly stupid and self-serving.
 
Ah, yes, (((democracy))). Also known as rule of the majority. The major flaw of which is that the majority of humans are incredibly stupid and self-serving.
The admins are no better. :society:
 
And...btw... Barack Obama was one of the only Presidents in modern/recent U.S. history who could make statments tantamount to total economic garbage, talk about nothing for an hour, smile charmingly, and people bought it. Democracy worked if a small group of rational people in power (Think:Boston Brahmins in big business and law) are behind the Government helping it to not make big mistakes. Then the people believe it is fair and it works. A controlling hierarchy rooted in tradition that works NEEDS to be present to help keep things in check. Democracy without that is an illusion.
You, my friend, hit the right spot :hax:

Rule by elites is an inherent feature of large and complex organizations, which necessarily develop a class of individuals skilled in holding positions of power and conducting its business.

Direct democracy is not a counter to this fact because it is an impossibly, no pure direct democracy can ever exist outside of very small groups. Representatives will always need to be appointed in order to conduct, otherwise it is physically impossible for everyone to give their opinion and participate.

But even admitting it is, it would still be subject to popular ignorance and to the inequality of the people. Because of inequality of material resources and of personalities, there will always be a group of people who hold more power over the mass, either because they have more resources at their disposal or because they have stronger personalities/are more charismatic, and can, by means of misinformation campaings and/or manipulation of the means of communication, decide or influence the outcomes of elections and referendums.

Every organization os thus some kind of oligarchy.

The current staff may be bad, but "A fair system for the appointment of moderators" could be easily taken over by IT faggots, glowies or other retarded people :feelspuke:
 
You, my friend, hit the right spot :hax:

Rule by elites is an inherent feature of large and complex organizations, which necessarily develop a class of individuals skilled in holding positions of power and conducting its business.

Direct democracy is not a counter to this fact because it is an impossibly, no pure direct democracy can ever exist outside of very small groups. Representatives will always need to be appointed in order to conduct, otherwise it is physically impossible for everyone to give their opinion and participate.

But even admitting it is, it would still be subject to popular ignorance and to the inequality of the people. Because of inequality of material resources and of personalities, there will always be a group of people who hold more power over the mass, either because they have more resources at their disposal or because they have stronger personalities/are more charismatic, and can, by means of misinformation campaings and/or manipulation of the means of communication, decide or influence the outcomes of elections and referendums.

Every organization os thus some kind of oligarchy.

The current staff may be bad, but "A fair system for the appointment of moderators" could be easily taken over by IT faggots, glowies or other retarded people :feelspuke:
Precisely.

Normies can not be told that democracy by the common people is not what they think it is. They will spontaneously combust if you try to redpill them like this. :feelsgah:
 

Similar threads

CruxGammata
Replies
14
Views
512
based_meme
B
Destroyed lonely
Replies
4
Views
320
Emba
Emba
stalin22
Replies
7
Views
292
anonymous438
anonymous438
J
Replies
1
Views
118
solblue
solblue

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top