Board Thread:Chat Discussion/@comment-4883034-20141027162128/@comment-4883034-20141105141201

Steam Phoenix wrote:

Honestly, I'd be content with this council idea if it could be ensured that the members found were really not biased and this idea didn't have the capability of easily blowing back up in our faces.

But, to be honest. Put an idea in play and demote the mods, the mods who get demoted will complain. Don't put an idea in, users will complain about bad mods. Put the idea in play, and eventually it won't matter - the mods we do select will eventually be singled out as "bad mods" by some user or another for some particular reason. If there was a way to break the cycle of complaining and drama, I'd be all for it. I'd love that just as much as you would, but the only thing I can say is we'd have some strict rules in place for the council. As for them being biased or not, we'd go with the opinion of the masses. Let me give you an example. I'd say overall, a large portion of of chat would say Nick is un-biased. He tells things as they are (and he's proven he can handle power, too). I can see a voting poll maybe, for his admission. Every support would be welcomed, and all oppositions would be looked into.

But for users who maybe haven't handled power before, we can run a trial. Make them mod for a week. Closely watch them. See if they change, ect.

As for your second point... Well yeah, users will always find reasons to complain. But we'd take the criticism as best we could, talk it over, and try and improve as best as we could. There's no way to guarantee 100% success, or success at all, but if humanity kept that mindset, we'd never go anywhere. we'd just stay in little clans and die out.