Should Beast be an Admin?

I'm gonna say no unless someone can outline some sort of timeframe, and what he needs to to do redeem himself

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

And I respectfully re-submit the motion for NO CONFIDENCE in the ability of this current ADMIN BODY to oversee ArmchairGM.

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.

"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.

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???

And that, my friends, is a comment of the year nominee!

Josh's Pete Rose comment, by the way. Priceless

Joshkross and others:http://www.a...ce_adminship