S
SteveJohnson
Guest
I am going to ask a serious question and hope it provokes serious discussion.
Is AFF a democracy?
It seems that some people do not understand the nature of an internet forum like AFF. I am active on many other "fora" and see the same thing and it can cause problems and as we all know the best way to circumvent problems is to openly discuss the issue, with respect on all sides, and ensure there is clear understanding all around.
I will suggest that while the nature of AFF is not a "democracy" as we known it, because the members do not elect the leaders (Admin and Mods), it functions as what would accurately be called a "benevolent dictatorship".
Few people like the "D-word" but this is a technically accurate description of most websites and fora. People who participate in those sites and fora do so on a voluntary basis and accept the "rule of law" from the un-elected leaders, those being the sites owners and mods.
The "benevolent" side of things is that for the most part things are pretty open and easygoing, even when people don't agree with each other. The bigger the community the more chance of more vocal disagreements and people who rub someone up the wrong way, but everybody still stays "in the community" and accepts this is part of the social contract.
However one thing that does concern me is that there seems to be a policy on AFF of not questioning moderators, and questioning moderators leads to "infractions". I don't think that is "benevolent" at all.
Members should be allowed to openly question a moderator's decision without fear of being smacked down or handed an "infraction", because moderators should be able to clearly explain the reasons for their decisions based on known standards of acceptable behaviour.
If a mod can point to a section or ruling on AFF which shows their action is in accordance with that, then this is sufficient. But to operate under the basis that you are not permitted to question a moderator is akin to granting moderators a Papal degree of "infallibility" and also does nothing to help members themselves understand the community standards by which they should be operating.
Is this something we can discuss back and forth without anybody being handed an infraction because the very discussion involves questioning Admin and Mods despite that being done with no malice?
Is AFF a democracy?
It seems that some people do not understand the nature of an internet forum like AFF. I am active on many other "fora" and see the same thing and it can cause problems and as we all know the best way to circumvent problems is to openly discuss the issue, with respect on all sides, and ensure there is clear understanding all around.
I will suggest that while the nature of AFF is not a "democracy" as we known it, because the members do not elect the leaders (Admin and Mods), it functions as what would accurately be called a "benevolent dictatorship".
Few people like the "D-word" but this is a technically accurate description of most websites and fora. People who participate in those sites and fora do so on a voluntary basis and accept the "rule of law" from the un-elected leaders, those being the sites owners and mods.
The "benevolent" side of things is that for the most part things are pretty open and easygoing, even when people don't agree with each other. The bigger the community the more chance of more vocal disagreements and people who rub someone up the wrong way, but everybody still stays "in the community" and accepts this is part of the social contract.
However one thing that does concern me is that there seems to be a policy on AFF of not questioning moderators, and questioning moderators leads to "infractions". I don't think that is "benevolent" at all.
Members should be allowed to openly question a moderator's decision without fear of being smacked down or handed an "infraction", because moderators should be able to clearly explain the reasons for their decisions based on known standards of acceptable behaviour.
If a mod can point to a section or ruling on AFF which shows their action is in accordance with that, then this is sufficient. But to operate under the basis that you are not permitted to question a moderator is akin to granting moderators a Papal degree of "infallibility" and also does nothing to help members themselves understand the community standards by which they should be operating.
Is this something we can discuss back and forth without anybody being handed an infraction because the very discussion involves questioning Admin and Mods despite that being done with no malice?
