Contra Syntagma: a review

**Manji** · May 23, 2006, 01:04 PM

Syntagma, Constitution, voting, democratic and elective system... this all sounds bizarre and slightly RPG-ish to most hears, be them civitates or otherwise.... and why?

Because it is!

I've been around for a long time, sometimes very active and in others apparently dormant, just another lurker. If you dig deep down into TWC's history you will see that I once deleted a rather large portion of the forum in qualities' sake but my past actions are not the issue here, the issue is and will always be: are democratical institutions, on the digital world, feasible and practical?

The short answer: No.
Why?
Mainly the problems stem from two origins: ownership and moderation.

TWC is a forum, a website hosted in a machine somewhere on the world; what this means is that someone payed or is paying for it's hosting on that server machine and for the domain (the .net thingie). The owner, the person who pays the bills that keep the site up, is the de facto "ruler" of the site, entitled to deleting it or turning it into a gay portal or a porn site or a forum for game and history fans.
Supposing that the ownership of a given site is not only of one person but of four: that means that the owners are those 4 persons and that, in real life, they might use a democratic system to decide how things are handled on the site.
Any given site, upon achieving a certain "size" requires moderation, much more when that site is a forum; traditionally moderators earn their "positions" by nepotism (they are old time friends of the owner(s) or something similar) or by merit (they are devout members and as such catch the eye of the owner).

The whole problematic of a democratic system for a website is that democratically elected "rulers" are not defacto owners and at the same time democratically elected moderators have slim chances of being in friendly terms with the owner.
TWC is but a grain of sand in the miriad of websites and forums that exist but I can tell you one thing: great sites and forums with great traffic do use semi-democratical system to "elect" their moderators but the last word is always of the owner.
Overcomplicating the system only results in a bizarre mix of forum RPG + backstabbing issues which not only turn able posters into plotters and anti-plotters but also give the whole forum a bit of a "childish" stance in the eyes of any guest.

Keep in mind i'm not pointing fingers nor am I trying to rally people; this is my POV as a unaffiliated member of this forum.

Emphatically,
M.

**Perikles** · May 23, 2006, 01:09 PM

I agree, Porn site! :laughing:

Serioulsy though what you say is totally true and how it should be, can I sign?

Jp SiGnAtUrE!!111!!!!1

However as most of you know I still think the idea of electing moderators is a good one, and is one of the reasons that makes this site so unique. Democracy with the permission of the owner, as it is happening, is the way forward. Councils like then CDC and the one's Asterix has propsed are the way to go about it....

**Wulf** · May 23, 2006, 02:50 PM

I do like the meritocratic oligarchic experiment here. And the revolutions, every now and then, are quite amusing (yes, I never experienced one myself so I can come along afterwards and laugh at you all... thank you). In between them, the system seems to work. But then -- I am probably the lurker extraordinaire.

**HorseArcher** · May 23, 2006, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Manji

manji's post

..well maybe I was wrong then. Some people do get it.

**Wulf** · May 23, 2006, 03:05 PM

He's asking you to go dictator, man! Take the chance!

I know I'd go for the Dear Leadership.

Huzzah!

**Søren** · May 23, 2006, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Perikles

Serioulsy though what you say is totally true and how it should be, can I sign?

Jp SiGnAtUrE!!111!!!!1

Are you sure you agree?

Everything you'ver said before suggests entirly the opposite.

You also just contradicted yourself by the rest of the post, too.

So I'm not sure what you mean.

---

Predictably, I agree with Manji. I've always said this (except as a n00b Civitate

).

**Tom Paine** · May 23, 2006, 03:31 PM

I semi-agree... the owners, remember, aren't cutting a profit but can't really be running at a loss... they ahve advertising space for instance. And guess what, that advertisement price is gonna be dependant on site traffic; so as with all these things... they cn't do anything too outrageous that drives people away otherwise it'll cut them too. Just, makng a point.

**Mímirswell** · May 23, 2006, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Manji

TWC is but a grain of sand in the miriad of websites and forums that exist but I can tell you one thing: great sites and forums with great traffic do use semi-democratical system to "elect" their moderators but the last word is always of the owner.

This is exactly the process of the new Syntagma. There is an election but it's at the behest of the Imperator (who is ON staff).

**John I Tzimisces** · May 23, 2006, 08:01 PM

Signed...though I doubt that's necessary.

**Simetrical** · May 23, 2006, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Manji

TWC is a forum, a website hosted in a machine somewhere on the world; what this means is that someone payed or is paying for it's hosting on that server machine and for the domain (the .net thingie). The owner, the person who pays the bills that keep the site up, is the de facto "ruler" of the site, entitled to deleting it or turning it into a gay portal or a porn site or a forum for game and history fans.

You neglect the possibility that the site could be legally owned by a corporation, whose shareholders would be the members (or Civitates, or whoever). In such a case, only a decision by the whole would be able to overturn the democratic aspects; there would be no single owner who could legally do so. Since the corporation would be based in a country with a strong legal system, no single owner could effectively do so either. Administrators would be legally-appointed executive officers, no more capable of taking over the site from the members than Steve Jobs is capable of taking over Apple from its shareholders.

This has not, of course, ever happened, to my knowledge. It would, however, be quite feasible, as far as I can see.

**Aristocrat** · May 23, 2006, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Archer

Archer's post.

I think most people get it, but just find it so much more fun to pretend otherwise.

**Muizer** · May 24, 2006, 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by Manji

Syntagma, Constitution, voting, democratic and elective system... this all sounds bizarre and slightly RPG-ish to most hears, be them civitates or otherwise.... and why?

Because it is!

The thing I'm most curious about is what prompted you to post this. Last time I heard anyone advocating democracy was some activist type poster in the Consilium publicum/suggestus who claimed it worked on his own site. If the site owners, however, are prepared to allow a degree of self-governance concerning certain aspects of the site, then yes I do advocate a degree of democracy concerning those aspects. You may call that an RPG. That is fine by me, as long as its understood that games have rules and the participants are expected to stay "in character". In short, I prefer a democracy RPG over a dictatorial RPG.
The "problem area" is where both spheres meet. There has to be a clear boundary. At present there doesn't seem to be one and, I should add to that, the new syntagma does not address this matter. In fact it is a case of "reality" trying to impose itself through the "rules of the game": the syntagma. That is wrong. To obtain a clear separation of spheres, the room permitted by ON for site members to govern themselves should be in a separate document from the one stating how the members choose to use it (the syntagma).

**Obi Wan Asterix** · May 24, 2006, 03:22 AM

A shovel of Praetorian Rep for Manji

Any chance you want to become more friendly with the staff? :original:

**Manji** · May 24, 2006, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Asterix

Any chance you want to become more friendly with the staff? :original:

Nope. :wink:

Originally Posted by Muizer

The thing I'm most curious about is what prompted you to post this.

The truth? Boredom brought on by seeing so many threads and posts about what seems, to me, a senseless & pointless discussion. Nothing personal, never personal, I just don't care enough to bear grudges against A or B it's just a matter of seeing intelligent posters spending their time on what seems, to me, a futile enterprise.
Also, my reference to the Syntagma isn't focused on this Syntagma but on the very existence of a Syntagma.

Originally Posted by Simetrical

You neglect the possibility that the site could be legally owned by a corporation,....

I don't neglect that possibility I just think that it makes no sense; seeing this in perspective, TWC is a forum for fans of the TW series and users who want to talk about other topics, nothing more nothing less; TWC isn't a mega corporation spanning several continents and employing thousands hence why I think a "pseudo-feudalistic" approach is the best for any site/community.

@all: I'm not "rallying the troops"; my very neutrality in terms of civitateship/family/whatever was, in itself, a mean to achieve a neutral spot where I can freely criticise without being accused of partisan hackery.

**Obi Wan Asterix** · May 24, 2006, 07:32 AM

Do you my fine friend Dr.Manji (Gynecology University of Milan) believe in the Council's proposal tbf in the Prothalamos?

**Perikles** · May 24, 2006, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by The Burgundian Noble

Are you sure you agree?

Everything you'ver said before suggests entirly the opposite.

You also just contradicted yourself by the rest of the post, too.

So I'm not sure what you mean.

I didn't think my post made sense either, but after re-reading it, it does....

What I was trying to say was that while ON obviously are the supremes rulers of the site, the fact that they let us control somethings should be encouraged as it makes this site quite unique. The CDC etc. are way of achieving this.

**Tacticalwithdrawal** · May 29, 2006, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Manji

The truth? Boredom brought on by seeing so many threads and posts about what seems, to me, a senseless & pointless discussion. Nothing personal, never personal, I just don't care enough to bear grudges against A or B it's just a matter of seeing intelligent posters spending their time on what seems, to me, a futile enterprise.

which was actually one of my main drivers behind supporting the new syntagma. We have a lot of very good people on this site who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time in the politics (eg. what exactly could a UL moderate). Likewise, a lot of staff got dragged into the debate (some not exactly kicking and screaming).

The whole idea behind this is that the running of the site can be kept separate from the life of the site.

Hopefully it'll mean people start to focus on more productive (in my view) things such as looking at how tto make TWC a better place to be and posting interesting threads.