[Bolas]

Originally Posted by sv1cec

It's not very difficult to do what you want, AWS is not very far from what you are asking, the main differences are:

- everybody can vote against everybody. This can be considered the same as everybody being capable of issuing warnings.
- in which case, obviously the warning points required for a ban should be much higher.

So, in reality, with some changes at who can vote (warn), some adjustements of the existing parameters and some additional parameters (like for example how many times a member can warn another member), a system like the one you describe is possible.

Or, you can add another level above the whole hack, where users are really voting for a particular warning which the admins have decided to issue against a particular member, and the results of these votes decide if the warning is issued or not. This is getting too "democratic" for my taste, and too much democracy easily leads to anarchy.

I am not sure if the above make sense, too late in the evening and too many things in my mind, so sorry if they sound like a drunk man's words (I swear, no drinks).

Rgds

The idea is the following: anybody can vote the ban proposal and once the quorum has been reached, the ban proposal is sent to the moderator of such forum. This way, the users of a forum can bring up the need for a change towards that person but only one of the moderators can approve it (or an administrator)

Is this true Democracy or a way to prevent unwanted people? :devious: