Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

TTT: As far as the idea of "editor" goes, well, I can see this getting really out of hand really easily. It's too authoritarian and dictatorial for me to accept. And I don't think this group needs one. Saying we need an editor is like saying we can't trust each other to follow the rules. The honor system will work just fine, thanks. The rest of the stuff is just typical moderator's duties.




No sir. With all due respect, the honor system is not and has not worked for some time in these stories, as is well documented by the constant arguments in the talk threads. Were the honor system working, we would have never felt the need to make this proposal in the first place.

We need someone, preferably someone outside the group who is unbiased, to come in and make judgment calls on these sorts of things. Where to find this person, at present, I do not know.



Don't you think, though, that the main reason for all the constant arguments is simply because we didn't have any agreed-upon rules before? Most of the arguments in question seemed to be on the same old, tired subjects, anyway, which the guidelines cover.

How about this: We get the rules/guidelines in place, and then let's see how it works. If we fall back into the same old arguments, then we may need an editor. For now, though, let's try to trust each other's judgment. Call it a trial run, or something. I think it will show that we can use the "honor system" when we have established guidelines in place that we agree on. Any clarifications of the actual guidelines can be discussed as a group.




Oh, I see what you mean now. I must've misread what you said earlier.