I vote for Andrew or Sir Silly

 

@ Andrew ...there's no one magic question you could ask them to test?
are you going to turn rogue in the forseeable future?...hang on let me think...ermm yes...oh shit!

EDIT: i know this is probably going too far and i couldbe way off in my guessing here, but using Bentham's (I think) laws of ethics, beyond a benevolent dictator, the most suited to the job might actually be the one who doesn't really want to do it..
that way you know they are already acting out of a sense of obligation.

 

Last edited: Oct 4, 2015

You can test how they react under stress or when being spat upon.
As for me, there's no benefit in turning rogue ever. It only breaks your credibility and trustworthiness. As for rant aimed towards my person, I haven't really experienced such thing, but I'm sure it won't turn me into the dark side. Nothing ever did on AudioSEX so far (for 4 years now).

 

That's how I got it, I didn't wanted it, I was right, I sucked at it

 

Andrew, maybe I am being naive, but what and how do you define rogue when used as a description of Catalyst? It sounds so...dramatic and spy thriller-esque.

 

I see absolutely NO reason why someone who is good at their job, be it mod or admin, or indeed anywhere outside of the internet for that matter should be told they can only do a job for a certain time. Surely the whole point of assigning these roles to people is for the good of the site, and if they are deemed to be doing a good job, then by definition, removing them is counter-productive. No?

 

When someone insulted him or made a little rant on his part, or just disagreed with him on bigger scale, he went on calling that person "shitbrains", deleting his/her content, banning or increasing warning level.
Otherwise he was rather stable, as far as I know

 

People who are elected to rule other people are democratically elected , when their assignment is done,they are replaced,it doesn t mean they did thei work bad.If they covered their role until the end of their days it would be called monarchy

 

Wow, three whole pages of discussion with opposing views, and all the while the decorum remains civil and respectful... how refreshing!!

 

i just say a simple thing, let SAiNT decide

 

He is and this isn't even an official thing, we are just talking and brainstorming, it's up to him to listen to anything and he will do whatever he wants, like always

 

I'm sorry but what you are talking about is the complete opposite of the spectrum. Running a country for example is not the same as being a mod/ admin by any stretch of the imagination.
For one, both the sites belong to Saint so ultimately it is his decision who stays and who goes thus making the dynamics of the election process totally different, and two, when you have elected officials in government positions, you have the whole country to choose from.

Those are two contributory factors off the top of my head, however,there probably are plenty of others.

Lets look at a football club scenario ( English Football seeing as I'm English)

You have the owner
then you have the manager
then the players.

If the players are losing games, who is the one who gets blamed? Sure the players get a hard time but it's the manager who loses his job. (EDIT: Brendon Rodgers @ Liverpool is the latest casualty I found out about 5 minutes ago)

All this is leading to my question.

When the club is winning do they EVER get rid of the manager? It has NEVER happened before and never will, because nobody in their right mind would change a winning team. Using my example. Saint being The Owner, Things in his eyes were going wrong, so he got rid of the manager, or in this case, a mod /admin (or maybe more) but if they were doing the job to his specification, is he going to remove someone purely because they've been in the job a while?

Well you will have to ask him that question, but I would very much doubt it.

 

Last edited: Oct 5, 2015

u forget a thing: the manager has a contract that states how long he will be managing the team.The contract can be broken if the manager doesn t achieve the hoped results, or if there are other reasons. If there are no reasons, the manager will lead the team until the expiration of the contract,and at that point there will be two posible scenarios: the contract will be renewed for another term,or the manager will move somehwere else.Consider that on this site the mods a re volunteers, no money involved, they do it on their own will to help people,so if their job finished tomorrow they wouldn t lose anything.I don t see why someone thinks it s a personal thing against moderators,it s not.
Besides i still think that limiting moderator privileges in a certain amount of time, would actually shut up some morons who claw on everything to diss the mods,reccomentadions,nepotism and so on.take away a toy from the hands of a troll and he will go to bang his head against the wall to pass time

 

Last edited: Oct 5, 2015

That's true! Especially for the last half year or so.
I also remember that he was indeed very friendly at the beginning, when he wasn't a moderator.
Hence some people cannot manage it so good to have too much power & control or many tasks to do,
while others remain calm, friendly and understanding. We don't have to forget about the circumstances
and environment of "real life" in which a person is living. That's a main difficulty with all the new
Internet forum "Jobs": one has to be constantly present, reachable, have open ears and eyes there & there...
...you have to have a real thick armor to maintain your inner stability and balance.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

I'm not saying in your response you aren't making one or two valid points, because you are, but, Ok let me try a different route.

let's say for example you open up a music store selling all the wonderful hardware synths mentioned on here from past and present. You hire a manager who, over the space of 2 years builds up a great reputation for your store with the public, and leaves you confident you can leave it in his hands when you go on your holidays. Are you honestly telling me because he's employment goes into the 3rd year, he's fired?

Hand on heart, I'm not trying to win the argument, I just want to understand the logic behind changing something that works (Of course, if it's not working then that's a different story) but why break something that isn't broken? Because I guarantee you, changing it could very easily break it.

 

No,but his work needs to be reviewed anyway,if he did good,his cotract will be prolonged,i don t see anythng strange in this

 

Finally, we agree lol. This is what I've been saying all along.

 

You see that's an oppressive statement, It closes off possibility of open minded dialogue.
Decisions are better reached through discussion and opinions of the chosen subject matter.
It's like telling people not to think and just follow!!

 

That would be true except he used the very important ' I ' at the beginning, which means he was only speaking for himself and not telling everyone to say the same.

I forgot to add, I really like your avatar

 

Sylenth.Will.Fall

Yeah you're right enough there oops!

Cheers I like it myself I thought it was rather funny