armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

Should Beast be an Admin?


Based off the post here [2] and the responses, combined with the Itchy Ban-Trigger finger the other day, I'd like to propose that Beast lose his admin rights, at least temporarily. I just feel like he's got too much of a sense of ownership to a site that belongs to ALL of us.

In deference to FP, here's what I propose. It is removed as of today, July 13th. On the 20th, he is eligible to ask for reinstatement, by posting a locker room we all vote on, like any other candidate. After 24 hours of voting, which every way wins, goes.

Alternatively, we could just have a thumbs up/ thumbs down vote now.

Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
False ProphetAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 0+-
I'm gonna say no unless someone can outline some sort of timeframe, and what he needs to to do redeem himself
Permalink | Reply
False ProphetAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 0+-
to your proposal, not to beast being an admin
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score -1+-
No to admin status? No to removing it? which way? I personally would remove it permanently becuase I think he's shown recklessness. If you want to do temporarily, I would say, do it for a week, and then put it for a vote if he gets it back. He should have to reapply, like other folks have.
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score -1+-
I've added a more finite proposal, per your request.
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 0+-
no to removing it, but I know he's got good intentions, and if we can give some set of guidelines for him to meet before reapplying, I'd reconsider my vote
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
I think the guideline is simple. There's no checklist. He's just got to show enough maturity to the other users, that the other users think he should get it back.
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 2+-
i'd be ok with that.
Permalink
Sergeant ArmchairWaterboy
876 days ago
Score -2+-
Don't you scumbags have better thans to do than decide who's penis you are gonna play with? Who gives a rat ass WHO is gonna be an admin or not?
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 7+-
"Serious" Tyrone here speaking. First of all, I have tremendous respect for Josh Kross. I also have respect for this entire community. Philosophically, especially within a Wiki-type community, I am opposed to any individual whether an admin, founder or regular contributor to have absolute authority or power over any other individual here at the 'Chair REGARDLESS (yes, yes I know all caps) of whatever "Code" is agreed upon. The fault for the existence of these "absolute powers" does NOT rest upon any individual admin. Yes, that includes Joe Davis (aka username BEAST). It is the ArmchairGM SYSTEM itself that, IMO, erroneously permits ANY individual the above said admin powers in the first place. Now, an argument could be made for "responsible use" of these said powers, but then again - WHO singularly determines "fair" from "unfair" when these control "powers" are enforced by an admin? Nobody here has the right to be "King Solomon" residing over the rest of the community. Especially when there is no "Code" to follow in the first place with the exception of the general wiki guidelines (as previously linked by False Prophet). To me, a "Code" is not executable when only in a drafting stage and not even agreed upon by general consensus of this community. Now, I firmly believe that ALL and ANY MEMBER here at the 'Chair deserves DUE PROCESS when situations such as these arise. I ask the FOUNDERS of this website: WHERE ARE THE GUIDELINES FOR THE COMMUNITY TO FOLLOW? Examples - what are the concrete guidelines for admins to follow? What is the process of selecting an admin? Who selected the current admins we have here now? What is the process of removing an admin? Why are these protocols non-existent or put on the developmental back burner? Why are situations always apparently managed AD HOC rather than by due prorcess? Is it not more important to set in place FIRST when establishing a community such as the 'Chair. I firmly believe that the REMOVAL of JOE DAVIS (aka BEAST) is not the answer to this GROWING PROBLEM of ADMIN PRIVILEGE ABUSE. The gap between the ADMINS and REGULAR CONTRIBUTORS is dividing further and further apart. May I propose to ALL MEMBERS HERE that a VOTE OF NON-CONFIDENCE towards the ENTIRE ADMIN TEAM be put on the table. And by no way is this a PERSONAL REFLECTION UPON ANYBODY. But rather a sensible "start-over" in principle for the 'Chair to help right the ship before it sinks. How would this work: FIRST - TEMPORARILY ELIMINATE ADMINS. SECOND - DRAFT ADMIN GUIDELINES (end this single admin "all power" concept). THIRD - ELECT NEW ADMIN COMMITTEE. FOURTH - MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS 'CODE' DRAFT PROCESS. FIFTH - GROW THE COMMUNITY & HAVE FUN! And to any admin that "fears" this proposal, remember if it solely due to loss of "power" then you never really had "power" in the first place. It is a privilege and not a right to be an admin. Thanks for your time and attention.
Permalink | Reply
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
If only I could edit that and add paragraphs. I can't even read it.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 2+-
Josh - Feel free to copy and paste my comment and edit it into your post with correct paragraph structure.
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
876 days ago
Score 2+-
I'll vote no-confidence I agree with TB in most...except maybe the method, but that can be discussed further...
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 2+-
Heh, if it gets to that point I will.
Permalink
DNLLegend
876 days ago
Score 5+-
I think the code that Beast posted was supposed to be, or at least, should have been, a draft of what you're looking for. And I think it's important, and should include what it takes to become, or lose, adminship.

For what it's worth, we had a rudimentary page here describing the latter, but as the site has grown both in community size and features, that's become fallow.

There are many people here with many really good ideas. Now it's time to listen and cobble them together into something workable.
Permalink
Awrigh01All-Star
876 days ago
Score 5+-
Tyrone - we the founders are just other members of the community. We think that the community as a whole should develop the guidelines. If you think that there should be a system of due process, then work with fellow community members to develop a system where there is due process.

Absolving all admins is not a wise solution, because admins do boring, but important work like moving pages and deleting spam. However, your second point drafting admin guidelines is something that we the founders have been hoping the community as a whole develops for quite awhile.

This is our collective site. We are a community and like any other community, to grow, we need to develop fair and just ways to deal with our problems.
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
876 days ago
Score 2+-
Aaron...I think his point was that the founders were only to serve as a temporary solution and/or placeholder while the rest gets sorted out... but, like i said, the method needs to be discussed...I do think a step by step process is ideal however...
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
I agree, and Admins can't be admins for life. There has to be some process that when someone is abusive or does something wrong, they are removed.
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 2+-
admins, untill recently, were determined by the founders. THere was never any need for that type of stuff. For a while, everything here will be ad hoc, if only because we have no idea what will work.

Next, the elimination of admins is a bad idea, even if temporarily. It just is, as would be eliminating any power structure.

Abuse is happening because we have no guidlines for admins because in the past few months, the site activity has exploded. IT used to be a small community where everyone knew who everyone else was, and was cool with everyone (minus someone).

IF an admin f**ks up, then we can vote to revoke their power. But, I suggest we stay on course with what wikipedia did originally, which was the people Jimbo (the found) appointed to power stayed in power untill they screwed up.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 0+-
The system is either non-existent or ignored by a contingent of the admins. I am not blaming anybody for this occurrence. But yes, I am proposing a VOTE of NO CONFIDENCE to the ADMIN BODY.
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
876 days ago
Score 3+-
I've also got to say this...and i think its the right forum...but: I used to play an online game...a loooong time ago...and you could become an admin, however you had to be 18...at the time, i completely disagreed with this...shall we say, discrimination...however looking at it now the difference in maturity between those in their early or mid teens is different then the late...and for that matter your 20s...on top of that...work (a real job!) also changes your maturity level...I think this should be a factor IMO...
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 3+-
the system isn't broken entirely, Tyrone. There may be problems, but that doesn't mean we should revolt. Bush sucks as President, but we don't propose throwing out the system as a whole, we just want him gone.
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Right, FP. And likewise, Admins should be impeachable :)
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
876 days ago
Score 2+-
FP...seriously, you need to get to college...Numerous people have proposed this...shit, George Washington said it was a bad idea to begin with...
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
DNL is right on several points. And gang - this does not have to be that complicated. Afterall, we are not re-creating the constitution of the US or anything like that. But precise guidelines on these issues must be addressed. The consequence is a growing dividing gap between admins and non-admins.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Unfortunately the point is that there is no set system in place, False Prophet. You just wrote that a lot of the admin details are "ad hoc". And that is causing abuse of admin privileges. There is a growing contingent of contributors here that are dissatisfied with this admin arrangement.
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 1+-
starting the whole process over is not the way to do this, Tyrone. Impeaching admins works, not just blowing the whole thing up and starting over
Permalink
RoblefkoLegend
876 days ago
Score 4+-
Starting the whole process over doesn't make sense. Suppose we do, and we elect new admins from scratch. Now suppose a year from now, we go through this whole chaos again, and we have users complinging about certain admins. Do we once again remove admin rights from everyone and start from scratch? We can't create that precedent.
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
876 days ago
Score 1+-
You know FP, i was just explaining that there is more out there...take a look at both sides...Like i said...Tyrone's point is valid...but you and Aaron are right...we can't just remove admins like that *Snap*...y'all do a lot of good... Perhaps the best mode may be to move forward with this and leave the old "system" in place until a new full one is available?
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 0+-
And please show the community the guidelines set forth to "impeach" an admin? And for the record, if this results in another ad-hoc kangaroo court of an ArmchairGM member, I sincerely volunteer to officially defend Joe Davis (BEAST). Everybody deserves due process. Blaming the fault of the system is not fair to Joe. And preserving the set forth system only prolongs the inevitable for an overhaul of admin related matters. Now, a VOTE of NON-CONFIDENCE readily seems to be most necessary.
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
876 days ago
Score 2+-
good point rob... btw, I've been manipulating a 20 MB spreadsheet for the past 4 hours...its easier than this AGM admin thing...christ
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
I don't think we should nuke ALL the admins. I just think we need to be able to remove one who isn't working out. In this case, the Beast
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Rob - unfortunately this website has people that hold admin positions without real understanding of what is including in the job description. And blaming one admin for "abuse" of this position is not fair when another admin just freely admitted in writing here that decisions are made "ad hoc". This seems to contradict the nature of a true Wiki community.
Permalink
PeanMajor Leaguer
876 days ago
Score 3+-
Tyrone - excellent post btw To me it seems like the biggest problem is how/when to ban someone. From a vandalism standpoint, its pretty straightforward. If someone (or an IP) is contiually defacing pages, the pages can be reverted by an admin, and that person can also be banned. However, since this site kinda bends the mold of the traditional wiki, there are tons of other ways that users can contribute. Comments are a gray area, bc some people find things offensive that others don't. Maybe banning users over comments requires more than one admin (NOT involved in the discussion)? I don't really have the answer, just throwing it out there
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
I respectfully request that any admin please direct this membership to the guidelines set forth to the process of removal for an existing admin. Thank you.
Permalink
PeanMajor Leaguer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
but yes, officially outlining everything would be a GREAT first step :)
Permalink
RoblefkoLegend
876 days ago
Score 1+-
I didn't say we shouldn't create guideline for REMOVING admins. We can and should do that, and I encourage you (and the rest of the community) to begin drafting guidelines for it.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Thank you for your comment Rob. IMO - we are witnessing the negative results of providing individuals "powers" over other members without any real guidelines or consequences for "abuse". How can a general membership (or any body of people) even accept "control" by a select group that operate at more or less "free will"? Perhaps the VOTE of NO CONFIDENCE should be directed solely towards immediate relinguishing of admin powers relating to restricting/monitoring member "behavior" (which cannot even be determined as "right" or "wrong" since no "Code" exists at this moment) while preserving admin responsibilities relating solely to website maintenance (expressed earlier as a concern)?
Permalink
EroosterMajor Leaguer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
OMG, I agree with something that Tyrone has said. Except, I don't think that a vote of NO CONFIDENCE is the right thing to do.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 3+-
What if you're the one who f'ed up, FP? Shouldn't you then do the right thing and voluntarily suspend yourself for a period of time?

The point here is too many admins lead to too many people having authority who shouldn't have it. I have submitted a proposal, privately, that puts the decision making process on the four co-founders, where it should be.

If Beast, or False Prophet, or Alex, or any other admin feels an article, comment, picture, etc, is inappropriate or out of line, they do not communicate with the user who posted it. They communicate to one of the co-founders, who then make a quorum decision on what, if anything, should be done. If Dan feels there should be 500 users and 499 admins here so be it, but there should be a limit to each's individual responsibilities based on their contributions to the site, the length of time they have been here, and so on.

I vote for Beast to be removed as an Admin, and his reinstatement to be a community decision. With no campaigning on Beast's part. If he's gone a week or forever, deal with the bed you made. Like a man.
Permalink | Reply
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 0+-
Nailed it!
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 0+-
when I f*cked up, I had no idea what the hell was happening, and thought it was just an inlfux of trolls. I admitted that, and apologized. You've done nothing but try and provoke myself and the Beast for an elongated period of time
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 0+-
FP, but you just said something telling. You said "I admitted that, and apologized." Beast did not, and was actively defiant. Kelsdad has been pretty reasonable from what I've seen, as have you, almost all of the time.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Thank you for your comment. I believe the correct historical record concerning this issue is in fact that JOE DAVIS (aka BEAST) did resign with a post of "leaving" ArmchairGM. And the record of events documented here at ArmchairGM will show that Beast "banned" himself indefinitely. It was FALSE PROPHET who "unbanned" Beast and publically urged Beast to return to the community. And shortly thereafter, arose this next incident involving Beast. Does not False Prophet need to address and defend his action relating to Beast's reinstatement as a member?
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 0+-
he banned himself. I urged him to come back because he admitted to screwing up, and he had good intentions
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 0+-
I think there was a lot of over-reacting there in a short period of time. I think there's only admin who has shown a continuing pattern of snap-judgments and immaturity. I may not agree with FP's actions completely, but I think only Beasts actions have been questionable often enough to remove the status, as of this point.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
But who unilaterally here has the right to determine "good intentions"? Not you? Not me? The community does as a community. And if Beast is singled-out for "abuse" and made to re-sign, then so should you since it was YOU who unilaterally (rather than the community) restored all of Beast's privileges as a member and as an admin. The current responsibility of Beast as an admin is upon your shoulders and nobody else. And now the community deserves an explanation of why? Again - VOTE of NO CONFIDENCE to the ADMINS is on the floor.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 1+-
You've done nothing but try and provoke myself and the Beast for an elongated period of time

You're full of shit, you punk wiseass. I've acknowledged your aplogy, I've defended you, and now you're accusing me of provoking you? This is 'exactly why this discussion has come up, admins who are too immature to know how to handle responsibility, regardless of how small that is.

An apology is in order, FP.
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 0+-
Beast is only back at ArmchairgM because False Prophet took it upon himself to lift the self-imposed (by Beast) indefinite ban and unilaterally restored Beast as an admin.
Permalink
DNLLegend
876 days ago
Score 2+-
For what it's worth: By banning himself, Beast didn't de-admin himself -- they're two different actions. Also, because Beast didn't de-admin himself, he could have just unblocked himself. But I don't think he realized that.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Dan, Beast indefinitley blocked himself from this website. Now how on earth are we as a community supposed to accept the notion that a blocked member still have the right to govern and administrate as an admin? Beast is only currently able to execute admin powers and responsibilites because False Prophet unblocked him, thus making FP responsible for Beast being here, right now, in the first place. And now (see above), False Prophet "is okay" under certain provisions to having Beast stripped of admin status while bearing no blame or responsibility upon himself for restoring Beast here. In my neighborhood, that is called "hanging a brother out to dry" and I think we as a community deserve an explanation for this action by False Prophet.
Permalink | Reply
DNLLegend
876 days ago
Score 1+-
I wasn't disagreeing (or, for that matter, agreeing) -- just pointing out the technological side of it, which you should probably know about before figuring out the rules :)
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Dan, it appears the admins are unable to provide a link to the guidelines concerning adding or removing admins. Could you please provide that information to us here on this page as it will be necessary and vital information to help prepare a defense of Joe Davis. I firmly believe everybody deserves due process and an opportunity for defense prior to the rendering of any judgement. Thanks.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score -1+-
And I respectfully re-submit the motion for NO CONFIDENCE in the ability of this current ADMIN BODY to oversee ArmchairGM.
Permalink | Reply
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 0+-
I don't think we need to go this far. I think the first step is to settle grievances with individuals. I don't think I've heard any complaints about any admins other than Beast and FP.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 0+-
Josh, again I respect you and your opinion. But it is apparent that whatever system is set in place is inadequate to provide due process to its membership. And to prevent this chaos from happening again, a resignation of all the admins will allow the website to correct this oversite and then a new admin panel can be re-established to fairly execute out their setforth guidelines. This is actually the FAIREST and KINDEST proposal for the current admin body to consider. Afterall, it should only be fair that these people understand and know exactly what they are agreeing to do here before accepting the positions. Let's fix the system first, implement the regulatory panel second, and talk sports (finally!) third!
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 0+-
I would amend your suggestion the following. Leave the admins alone, start the process for new ones and when the new ones are selected, remove the old ones that will not remain. You need to have admins in the interim.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
With all due respect to Josh, a VOTE of NO CONFIDENCE is the fairest situation for both members and admins. How do we as a group determine "who stays" or "who goes" while those people still maintain current admin duty? What is to prevent one admin rolling over another just to preserve status? the simple fact that a blocked admin (ie. Joe Davis aka BEAST blocking himself indefinitely) was unilaterally unblocked by another admin (FALSE PROPHET) with no other admin stepping into that disputed situation warrants responsibility for lack of action across the board. No action was taken other than these two individual admins who admitted not knowing what the guidelines warranted. And it is most evident that due to the lack of guideline understanding, a gap between admins and contributors is growing to the detrimental welfare of ArmchairGM. By VOTING NO CONFIDENCE, this admin panel can be effectively dismissed and restored by a new elected body with set guidelines (including consequences for proven abuse after due process is rendered) already understood and accepted. And keep in mind - the reality is that most of the current admin body will be restored via democratic elective process. Thank you.
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 0+-
We can do that if people agree, but at a minimum, we'd have to leave DNL and the founders in control of the ship so to speak... BUt like I said, I don't have the same level of concern as you. I just wan't to oust a bad apple.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Josh, in light of further comments made (while I took a timeout here), I've reconsidered this position. See below for further comment. And thanks for being a sensible voice here.
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
The attitude that beast shows here [1] proves most of my point about maturity. You don't get to make threats just because you are an admin.
Permalink | Reply
The BeastAAA-er
876 days ago
Score -2+-
"just think we need to be able to remove one who isn't working out. In this case, the Beast." Who says I am not working out. Look Joshkross. I have been a contributor at ArmchairGM for an entire year now. I have edited over 3,000 pages, helped new users, tried to recruit new guys, had over 100 posts promoted to the front page. I have made the mistake in banning Clayton and undergoing a 2 hour retirement. I wrote a locker room post saying that I was sorry. I didn't know it was a movie clip quote today. I just asked him not to use personal attacks because from a guy who obviousley didn't see the movie it seemed like an attack to me. The user is new to the site and am trying to not engage in troll wars. I have gone over backwards this week to apologize to people, HBVgamer and Tyrone Briggs. For someone who has been a contributor for over a year now and has been an admin for at least eight months I think it would be unfair to have my adminship revoked for an incident in which I have truly apologized for with the ones offended and put it in the past. Joshkross you weren't hurt by the ban. In fact, you had nothing to do with it and weren't involved with it so let me handle that business with the ones offended (Tyrone, HBVGamer, and Clayton) and Dan.
Permalink | Reply
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
I was offended by the ban, and your subsequent childish tantrum, and refusal to admit mistakes. It was only until several people yelled at you that you came around. And your "I am an admin" comment today cements it. I don't think you are fit to have banning responsibilities. I think many other people agree, including many you did not list. It's very very simple.
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Oh, and your stats mean diddly, if your behavior is inappropriate. Ask Pete Rose.
Permalink
The BeastAAA-er
876 days ago
Score -1+-
You don't understand. I have spent many, many hours working on this site. I want it to grow and become a great sports community. I have seen my fair share of troll wars and despise them. We have had users leave because they have felt threatened. I think you keep referring to one childish mistake that I have fully admitted and apologized, immediately. I apologized to the witnesses in a locker room post first thing upon my return. I then apologized to Clayton first thing. It took me a day later to explain my position to Tyrone and I then apologized. I also apologized to HBVGamer and sent that I meant no harm.
Permalink
The BeastAAA-er
876 days ago
Score -1+-
Stats mean I have at least contributed. The work that you put in is considered when you are made an admin. A bunch of users, The Bolt, dodgersfan1, etc., are always on good behavior. Oh, but don't have great stats. It's because they rarely contribute. The mistake I made was wrong, but I have done many, many good things that are deserving of being an admin.
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
No, you don't understand. Your behavior TODAY continued the passion. If you care so much about the site, step down.
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
It's not just one childish mistake. It's continued childish behavior.
Permalink
The BeastAAA-er
876 days ago
Score 0+-
Like what? Continued childish mistakes?
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
I have a deal for you. If you really think you deserve your admin status, Put it to the users. Ask for a vote. Let US decide if we think you deserve, like I proposed above. Step Down and submit to the will of the users of the site.
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 0+-
Exactly continued childish mistakes. Two in the Post linked above. First your threat using an UNFINISHED honor code. Second your "I am an Admin" statement that comes off as a stomping 3 year old.
Permalink
The BeastAAA-er
876 days ago
Score -2+-
Look, you probably haven't heard of User:Leslie Monteiro. If you have great. He was a longtime contributor, but was ran out of town but constant trollers. There were so many personal attacks made against him. I am trying my best to improve the current situation on troll wars and personal attacks. So, I have gone out of my way, spending two hours on Tuesday afternoon writing the first draft of the Honor Code. I don't see you or very many users who are really trying to improve the situation. Instead we get guys like you who are overly concerned with my adminship. Does it really matter to you, besides the fact that you hate me (see here). Instead of worrying about these little power struggles, lets move on. I have already done so, apologized to the offended, and am working on other things. Its childish to keep raising a dead issue.
Permalink
The BeastAAA-er
876 days ago
Score -2+-
I only warned against personal attacks. I didn't threaten to ban him, but just said this is a warning. I only responded, "I am an admin," to comment that called me out. So what if you didn't like the response. Since when does the comment: "I am an admin, " determine whether I am elgible to be an admin. Oh, and I also think it's childish to go behind other people's backs and call them a putz, jerk, etc. If you have a problem with me talk to me on my user page.
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 2+-
I have and I know what happened. I also know that it sure seems like a lot of users here agree with me about your level of maturity, or lack thereof.

What are you afraid of Beast? If you think you deserve it, step down and submit to a vote. I promise to shut up if people vote you back as an admin.

I've got to go pick up my real toddler from day care, so I'm out. But don't respond immediately Beastie. Think about honor. Think about what other users think is best for the site that you so obviously care about. Think about it from the other perspectives shown in here. Remember even FP said he could go for a time out an a vote, and he supports you.
Permalink
JoshkrossDraft Pick
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Grasping at straws. You WERE being a jerk and a putz. And either way, two wrongs don't make anyone fly a plane.
Permalink
RoblefkoLegend
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Tyrone, I don't know if you realize this, but the current admins WERE selected by a set of guidelines. Every time a user asked to be made an admin, Aaron, Dan, and Dave and I discussed and took votes to determine whether the person should be made admin. Now that the site is much bigger and we have enough users, we can as a community set a more thorough and specific set of guidelines. And by all means go ahead and start drafting them.

But to say that all admins should be stripped of their duty just like that is to say that the guidelines they were selected under were bad, not fair, etc.. and that is far from the truth...

Further, according to you, the new guidelines will be meaningless. If you can strip admins of their duties right now (even though they were selected under guidelines), why won't be able to strip them of their duties under the new set of guidelines???
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Thank you for you comments Rob. Dan appears not to be present but perhaps you can direct us to the guidelines for Admin removal processes? Thanks so much.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 2+-
And that, my friends, is a comment of the year nominee!
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Josh's Pete Rose comment, by the way. Priceless
Permalink | Reply
The BeastAAA-er
876 days ago
Score 0+-
Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, by the way. However, that is a debate for another day.
Permalink
The BeastAAA-er
876 days ago
Score -1+-
Pete Rose gambled as a manager, not as a player. He deserves to be in for what he accomplished on the field as a player. It is said that players must have good character. Than what about Ty Cobb? He was a racist. What about all the guys on steroids? Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a pleyer, not as a manager. He didn't bet as a player.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
876 days ago
Score 2+-
Joe (The Beast), after taking a timeout from this situation myself and re-reading the thoughts, suggestions, and comments of the community including yours, perhaps it does serve you well to relinquish admin duties at the current moment. I'm sure this membership fully appreciates your past efforts and will accept such resignation without further comment on today's incident. Just friendly advice from someone who has tried to provide some type of defense on your behalf and prevent another kangaroo court proceeding here at ArmchairGM.
Permalink
The BeastAAA-er
876 days ago
Score 1+-
Joshkross and others:http://www.a...ce_adminship
Permalink | Reply
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free


Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Should_Beast_be_an_Admin%3F"

This page was last modified 01:25, 27 February 2008. Content is available under the GFDL.

Contribute

ArmchairGM's pages can be edited.
Is this page incomplete? Is there anything wrong?
Change it!

Edit this page Discuss this page Page history

Recent contributors to this page

The following people recently contributed to this article.

Embed this on your site

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise