[Suggestion] Can we have our own NB congress ?

[Mypower]

Instead giving Moderators a final say we should have a checks and balances system so we curb the restrictions of the mods and make the base a nonpartisan.

We can divide into the parties Premium and non-premium members both parties will have exactly 8 members. The purpose of the parties would be to sanction the actions of a Moderator(s) so before giving someone the ban hammer we will all to have vote and if the majority(2/3) agrees the Mod may proceed the action.

The Congress can also review certain situations that might've been unfair the individual such as a permanent ban, perhaps provide unbanning of that said individual.

Share your thoughts and ideas too if you like

Edit : This is something that will help the NB community to have a platform with Admin and Mods.

 

[-immortal-]

Like thats Gone happen lol

 

[Sakura Bunny]

bunny for president 2017

 

[Defence]

I doubt they would want to share power.

 

[Hàdes1]

Like thats Gone happen lol

It happened with IB .

 

[Project Tyskuomi]

I'm new so I'm kinda confused.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Nah this ain't a ****ing democracy.

 

[Hàdes1]

Instead giving Moderators a final say we should have a checks and balances system so we curb the restrictions of the mods and make the base a nonpartisan.

We can divide into the parties Premium and non-premium members both parties will have exactly 8 members. The purpose of the parties would be to sanction the actions of a Moderator(s) so before giving someone the ban hammer we will all to have vote and if the majority(2/3) agrees the Mod may proceed the action.

The Congress can also review certain situations that might've been unfair the individual such as a permanent ban, perhaps provide unbanning of that said individual.

Share your thoughts and ideas too if you like

Also if you want that happen your gonna need people

But most of what you said is never gonna happen but i know ways we can have little powers

 

[Mypower]

Waiting for the Mods they have the final say.

 

[Flakez]

We can divide into the parties Premium and non-premium members both parties will have exactly 8 members. The purpose of the parties would be to sanction the actions of a Moderator(s) so before giving someone the ban hammer we will all to have vote and if the majority(2/3) agrees the Mod may proceed the action.

This is something that will never happen. What if the majority decides that they don't want that person banned, regardless if he broke a rule or not? So if someone deserves a ban, but the majority doesn't want him/her to get banned he won't get banned. You see the problem here? The mod's job is to judge if said person deserves the infraction/ban or whatever. If the said person does not agree with the way a mod handled said situation he/she can always contact a global mod or admin or post in the Q&A section.

The Congress can also review certain situations that might've been unfair the individual such as a permanent ban, perhaps provide unbanning of that said individual.

What I said above.

Having members judge the faith of a member is not going to work. As the decision will always have bias in it.

 

[Power Bottom]

This isn't going to happen for multiple reasons. Most are obvious.

 

[Mypower]

This is something that will never happen. What if the majority decides that they don't want that person banned, regardless if he broke a rule or not? So if someone deserves a ban, but the majority doesn't want him/her to get banned he won't get banned. You see the problem here? The mod's job is to judge if said person deserves the infraction/ban or whatever. If the said person does not agree with the way a mod handled said situation he/she can always contact a global mod or admin or post in the Q&A section.

Obviously. I was just giving out a vague description of it. The members in the congress will have to list a legimate reason to do this action if they don't it would be invalid and the power will go back to the Moderator.

What I said above.

Having members judge the faith of a member is not going to work. As the decision will always have bias in it.

Read the post above. It's not faith-based it's based on the rules(constitution) and a rational decision making process.

 

[Desanto]

This is something that will never happen. What if the majority decides that they don't want that person banned, regardless if he broke a rule or not? So if someone deserves a ban, but the majority doesn't want him/her to get banned he won't get banned. You see the problem here? The mod's job is to judge if said person deserves the infraction/ban or whatever. If the said person does not agree with the way a mod handled said situation he/she can always contact a global mod or admin or post in the Q&A section.



What I said above.

Having members judge the faith of a member is not going to work. As the decision will always have bias in it.

But your judgement is biased and not always correct.

 

[9bi]

This probably won't happen

 

[Zise]

V together with the rest of the admins have created rules for members to follow and we have created rules for moderators to follow and guidelines of how they should do their tasks, just like on any other job or company. Just because you go shopping in a store does not give you the right to tell the owners what prices to set to their products. You can however suggest something and if it's considered good it will be used.

So.. no we're not gonna make that. Ever. We'll keep picking our 'congress' called the moderators as we've always been doing.