The Ideal Bzp
Entry posted by Kevin Owens
1,050 views
Repost of my last entry minus communism.
Been thinking since my last entry about the ideal BZP. I present to you Utopia BZP
First the whole entire class structure on BZP would have to be reworked. Everybody would have moderator powers. When you would first join, you wouldn't have any. After a month of being on and (hopefully) learning the ropes, the member would be given moderator powers. In order to prevent power abuse, I would have some sort of proposal system for the powers. The members could propose things to do to a topic (Close it, delete it, edit the post etc.) The members would then vote on whether or not that change would happen. If five members were to say yes to closing a topic, then the topic would be closed. Twenty-Five for topic deletion, and ten for edits. If at any time 25% of the votes are no, the change is discarded and nothing could be done. This would allow for lightening fast responses on enforcing the rules.
Now there would be two classes above the standard member, the moderator and the admin who would be elected by the members. The Moderator would work just like the ones we have now do. They wouldn't need to have aproval for their proposed changes and could go ahead and make them. Admins would be the same as moderators except they would have the power to suspend the moderator powers from those who abuse it. In order to prevent brand new users who don't know the rules from becoming a Moderator or admin, you would have to be a member for six months to run for Moderator and a year to run for Admin.
Now here's how we would elect people to run for Moderator and Admin. Mods would have an election every quarter and Admins every half. Members who have been here for a month and have no bad marks in that time will have one admin recomendation and three moderator recomendations. You would then nominate who you would want to run for Moderator and Admin. Obviously, you can not nominate yourself. In order to be put in the running, you would have to have thirty recomendations for Admin and fifteen for Moderator. When everybody had been elected, we would have a system on who you wanted to be Moderator/Admin from best to worse. Depending on how you rank that person would depend on how many electoral votes he/she would get. The ones with the most points get the position. In order to prevent discrimination, who you voted for would not be announced. The number of Mods/Admins we would have would be dependent on the active membership. The more activity we have, the more mods and Admins we would need and have.
Now then, I have no doubt that some users would abuse this system. If for some reason a member believes that a user is abusing his power, a member can attempt to freeze the abusers account by proposing so. Twenty-Five votes for yes and his account is frozen from all moderator abilities and his account brought to the attention of the Admins. The Admins review the case and vote on whether or not his account should be deprived of moderator abilities. Once again, Moderators can bypass this ability by instantly freezing someones account and forwarding the case to the Admins.
Now there might be Mods/Admins who abuse their powers. If this is so, a member can protest the Moderator/admin and a case is opened. Fifty votes for yes on a Moderator and his account is frozen and the case brought before the admins. A hundered votes for an Admin in order for his account to be frozen and brought before the other Admins. Once again voting determines whether or not the Moderator/Admin keeps his position.
The main changes that his would bring about would be a more democratic BZP. Unpopular staff would be weeded out and more popular ones installed. This would also help prevent against power abuse from the mods. The moderator-members would allow for instant reaction towards rule-breakers and free up the time of the staff for more important things. Of course the time are all tempormental, we haven't seen this system in action so times/votes would need to be increased/decreased depending on what works.
Now let's go over some rules I would change for the Utopia BZP. With the new system in place, flame wars could be deftly stopped if they arose. Second, Avatars would be bumped up to 100X100. Staff would not be allowed bigger avatars (that means you Omi. 
) There would be no hard and fast size limit for sigs, they would have to be kept in reason (e.g. no 600X600 sigs.) IF need be we would implement a 450X250 limit. If the dial up users have a problem with this, they have the option of getting rid of avatars and sig images right now. The definition of flaming would be a little less harsh and spamming would be dealt with more harshly.
Now then some people have expressed concern that a dictator might attempt to upsurp the Utopia and install himself as a dictator. First, the chance of this happening is much more likely to happen in this current system than the proposed. Second, let me introduce to my little friend. I like to call him Bruce, but you can call him IPB Admin. Basically he works as a back door to the whole site. If the admins get hacked or an admin goes rogue, they use this account to set everything back to normal.
So what do you think of the Utopia BZP?
44 Comments
Recommended Comments