What is meritocracy?

[Neike Taika-Tessaro]

We need a fairly rigid definition of this, as legalese as possible. Also very, very interesting, perhaps far more so: How do we - or can we, even - map the meritocracy to phpBB levels? Meaning, who gets to be admin around here, who gets to be moderator, and so on and so forth?

[Neike Taika-Tessaro]

Okay, my attempt:

Meritocracy in practise shall be an authoritarian hierarchy, wherein all individuals acknowledge their imperfection (but not equality), and therewith acknowledge that one's most important traits are

(1) to listen to subordinates who have concerns of political nature, specifically: to open oneself to rational debates of these subjects, to take the time to listen patiently and attentively, and to give reasons as to why the concerns have been accepted or denied in either case,
(2) to provide constructive and researched criticism and discussion to their superior, or none at all.

Change within the hierarchy occurs when a subordinate surpasses their leader in their knowledge and actions, and the leader acknowledges this and steps down (testament to the fact that they were adhering to their subordinates thoughts more than vice versa, and thus ranking themselves lower in natural hierarchy).

If a superior does not adhere to the rules stated above, by ignoring rational arguments from their subordinates - defined as either strongly restricting the subordinate in their time of speech to times wherein they cannot be realistically expected to present their views, or the nonproviding of a response, or the insuffient providing of a response wherein rational thought is absent - a replacement may be instated for this position without consent of the replaced, providing this is a repeat offence, gleanable as a pattern not with the subordinate, but the superior.

[Neike Taika-Tessaro]

Meritocracy on the forum:

Administrator is only the Archon of Dark Arcadia, aswell as a party they deem neutral to oversee the non-abuse of the Archon's position to sustain the same. Latter party may only interfere in clear cases which require intervention for the upholding of the constitution on this forum. Latter party may never be vice Archon (answering directly to the Archon), nor take the position of Archon on intervention. Once they have assigned administrator status to the new Archon in case of intervention, they accept to lose their position as administrator in favour of the new neutral party. An Archon who's rule over the forum was intervened upon may have their Citizenship forcibly removed by their successor. A neutral party harrassing or forcing the new Archon to keep them in their position against the Archon's decision, or otherwise acting against the Archon's decisions in fashions not designated to their status, may have their Citizenship forcibly removed, providing they are Citizen - if they are not Citizen of Dark Arcadia, they may be banned.

Moderators to the forum are those whom the Archon deems suitable for the position. They acknowledge they have no right to this claim and will not harrass, much less force, a new Archon to keep them in their position against the Archon's decision. On violation of this, they may have their Citizenship forcibly removed along with their Moderator status.

[Neike Taika-Tessaro]

And if you need a fun / fancy quote to go with a pledge or somesuch, how about this -

"For I/we acknowledge democracy is a poison catering to the uninformed,
and dictatorship, however benevolent, a sigil of stagnation."

[BLusk]

[Neike Taika-Tessaro]

[BLusk]

Of course I picked on the one thing that isn't serious! Everything else was basically workable, assuming you can overcome the nature of people to seek for power.

Now, the discussion of whether you can accomplish the same...

Brian

[Whit Porter]

[BLusk]

I propose you model the Moderator status after the overall government. I have made some suggestions in the Constitution thread, but the debate needs to take place before they can be even considered.

Brian