Democratic Community

SCG does that in their admin meetings.

 

Yeah we definitely had moments where that could happen, but the core staff was pretty tight and we cracked down on those issues pretty fast. It was towards the end of the community when most stopped caring that that started happening, and people got less involved after a big map change went sour. At that point I sort of became the tyrant and took over the community to host Half-Life: Consequences, it was pretty easy since I paid the bills and no one was upset about it (those that were around were mostly happy about it as I recall).

 

If people elected representative(s) that they could also unelect at any time should they fuck up the server then in my opinion it will go fine. If they do fuck up the server, or the majority of players vote them in purely to fuck up the server, then that is still was the MAIN playerbase wants, and is what should really be given. If it's clearly becoming fubar then management could step in and fix it.

Bare in mind it wouldn't be possible for a bunch of people to join purely to vote someone in since you could easily add a system that requires a certain amount of posts/playing hours/dedication to vote for a representative, then even more so to run as a representative.

 

Essentially what should be done for community acceptance is going down the line.

Owner announces a choice needing to be done via from suggestions by community and Administration vote on the choice being cast aside of discussed. Once that is done, it's brought back into the playerbase for a more in-depth discussion.

In my opinion this is the only acceptable way of having the political system in any sort of gaming community. It won't be the best for some people but it's probably the most acceptable and easiest form of making decisions.

Any other form of politics in a community tends to be more tedious or complex to deal with on a normal basis.