It has come to my painful realization that the forumz lack a, hmm ... democratic? system of governance. It really seems to amount more to a feudal system with no mechanism in place for the downtrodden serfs to express opinions or be a part of decisions, especially in terms of moderation, which are all handled in secret behind the curtain. For that matter, it would seem as though the forumz even lack the basic right to be tried by a jury of peers.
It occurs to me that this scenario can easily lead to an abuse of powers. I do not yet claim that any such abuse has been made, but I have come to question if it is not so.
If this is the choice from on high of how things should be run, so be it. It is not mine to run. While I thought things were being done fairly well, I had my hopes that it would not become a problem.
I have lost such hopes. I must say that I am not impressed, and I am in fact quite concerned about the lack of checks and balances in place here.
I am not, as of yet, taking any strong sides on any particular issues. I would like to remain fair and balanced as much as possible.
But it occurs to me that once I had reason to start questioning things, I found that I had no path in this that I could trust, nor voice that I could raise safely, without fear of recourse.
That is not well.
I would make a suggestion for change, but at present I do not have a fair idea of what to change, or how. All that I can do reasonably at this point is express my discontent with the current state of governance and hope that someone on high actually cares. Preferably, cares enough to converse openly about how this matter can be improved so that we can find a way.
I was never of the opinion that secret discussions performed by persons appointed to power without an election was a proper medium for distributing the power to lock threads, ban users, block IP addresses (which is a horrible practice in itself), and so forth. But now that I have reason to question the altruism of the holders of said power, I raise my voice.
I am concerned.
It occurs to me that this scenario can easily lead to an abuse of powers. I do not yet claim that any such abuse has been made, but I have come to question if it is not so.
If this is the choice from on high of how things should be run, so be it. It is not mine to run. While I thought things were being done fairly well, I had my hopes that it would not become a problem.
I have lost such hopes. I must say that I am not impressed, and I am in fact quite concerned about the lack of checks and balances in place here.
I am not, as of yet, taking any strong sides on any particular issues. I would like to remain fair and balanced as much as possible.
But it occurs to me that once I had reason to start questioning things, I found that I had no path in this that I could trust, nor voice that I could raise safely, without fear of recourse.
That is not well.
I would make a suggestion for change, but at present I do not have a fair idea of what to change, or how. All that I can do reasonably at this point is express my discontent with the current state of governance and hope that someone on high actually cares. Preferably, cares enough to converse openly about how this matter can be improved so that we can find a way.
I was never of the opinion that secret discussions performed by persons appointed to power without an election was a proper medium for distributing the power to lock threads, ban users, block IP addresses (which is a horrible practice in itself), and so forth. But now that I have reason to question the altruism of the holders of said power, I raise my voice.
I am concerned.