Imgflip Logo Icon

In regards to my positions, and my proposal to solve it.

In regards to my positions, and my proposal to solve it. | I WOULD PROPOSE ESTABLISHING A RULE WHERE TO BAN SOMEBODY, ANY MODERATOR (NOT JUST THE OWNER), WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE A REASON FOR DOING SO. AND NOT JUST "I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS GOOD FOR THE STREAM"- A REAL REASON. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT IF CONGRESS VOTES TO UNBAN SOMEBODY, THEN THE OWNER SHOULD RESPECT THAT. THE LAST THING I WOULD PROPOSE IS AN AMENDMENT LIMITING THE POWER OF THE OWNER, AS OUR CURRENT CONSTITUTION IS VERY VAGUE ABOUT WHAT THE OWNER CAN AND CANNOT DO. UNCHECKED POWER ALWAYS LEADS TO A DICTATORSHIP, AND I HIGHLY DOUBT ANY OF THE STREAM'S CONSTITUENTS WANT THAT. | image tagged in blank white template | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
143 views • 11 upvotes • Made by USA_Patriot76 3 years ago in IMGFLIP_PRESIDENTS
blank white template
Blank White Template memeCaption this Meme
37 Comments
Captain_Scar M
8 ups, 3y,
3 replies
What would you consider a real reason then?
Slobama
5 ups, 3y,
2 replies
It’s crazy how many look at the banning of IG and conclude that there literally wasn’t a reason. I mean, you don’t have to agree with the reasons — but to not even acknowledge there were reasons, that is mind-boggling to me.
Captain_Scar M
3 ups, 3y
So true
USA_Patriot76 M
1 up, 3y
Okay, then what was the reason? Not the reason he was banned the first time, the reason he still continues to be banned. Please, I'd like to hear your/Scar's reasoning.
USA_Patriot76 M
3 ups, 3y
Breaking a stream law. Last I checked, IG didn't break any laws after the alt ban. And even then, lots of people have alts, so it sort of feels like selective prosecution.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
The stream owner has the inherent right to ban who they want. The flip side is, ban-happy stream owners will not have much of a stream if no one participates in it.
Captain_Scar M
4 ups, 3y
That's true
[deleted] M
7 ups, 3y,
1 reply
I understand your sentiment, but there’s really no way of actually enforcing that. Even the Common Sense Constitution could be thrown out if Scar set his mind to it, since he’s the owner and all.
USA_Patriot76 M
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Then this dream isn't actually a democracy. All I'm asking for is a rule that says that any moderator, owner or no, can't ban people on a whim. They have to have actually committed a crime first.
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y
<Then this dream isn't actually a democracy.> That's what "Role play" is.
EnvoyOfTheDeep M
6 ups, 3y,
2 replies
you have to understand you litteraly cannot regulate the owner.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
If there isn't a way to appeal to a super high level moderator it stops with the stream owner.
Slobama
5 ups, 3y,
1 reply
My understanding is the upper-level mods won’t interfere unless this stream turns into a place where TOS is routinely broken — uncensored porn, violent threats, other really bad stuff.

Or maybe if someone hijacked the stream, like what sometimes has happened on MSMG — where a rogue Owner goes and demods everyone and basically causes chaos.
[deleted] M
1 up, 3y
Correct. Only in the cases of extreme TOS violations or a stream hijacking would sitewide mods interfere with the ownership of a stream, and the second scenario really hasn’t happened outside of MSMG and hasn’t happened period since the implementation of the 5 owner limit. It’s also worth mentioning that one of those sitewide mods happens to be Captain_Scar, the guy that would have to be overthrown in order to gain control of the stream, so yeah, a change in ownership from the sitewide mods isn’t very likely.
USA_Patriot76 M
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Actually, we can. With a constitutional amendment limiting his power.
EnvoyOfTheDeep M
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
you cant enforce it
USA_Patriot76 M
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
How so?
EnvoyOfTheDeep M
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
there is no way to enforce restrictions on the owner. you have no power over them.
USA_Patriot76 M
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Then we need a new owner, one that will actually listen to what our representatives and elected leaders say.
EnvoyOfTheDeep M
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
again, not how that works. you dont have the authoirty to replace an owner. no one except global mods does.
USA_Patriot76 M
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
You do realize what you've just said, right?
EnvoyOfTheDeep M
2 ups, 3y,
6 replies
its the truth, whether you like it or not.
USA_Patriot76 M
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Okay, you don't.
EnvoyOfTheDeep M
3 ups, 3y
what do you think i said? you seem to not be able to grasp the simple concept that you do not have any power of the owner.

think of it this way, someone comes into a stream you own and tries to claim they rightfully own it because an imaginary congress voted so. What you're suggesting is ridiculous.
USA_Patriot76 M
1 up, 3y
"im sorry but you have to be stupid"

Sounds like projection...

Anyway, they put him into that position and they can just as easily take him out of it.
USA_Patriot76 M
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
And anyway, I'm sure it won't come to that as the only disagreement I have with Scar is that he (and you) keep unnecessarily banning people.
EnvoyOfTheDeep M
1 up, 3y
you are helpless lmao
USA_Patriot76 M
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Ironically, throne is the key word.
There are other global mods, though...
EnvoyOfTheDeep M
1 up, 3y
okay, im sorry but you have to be stupid, you think they're gonna remove scar as an owner from a stream after just putting faith in him my promoting him to community mod? seriously.
USA_Patriot76 M
0 ups, 3y
You bet ;)
USA_Patriot76 M
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
As you said, I don't, but the global mods do.
EnvoyOfTheDeep M
2 ups, 3y
scar is a community mod...why do you have such trouble understanding that you just can't dethrone scar?
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
SurlyKong69 M
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
You in 20 minutes when you get banned again.
SurlyKong69 M
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Incognito as I type this:
EnvoyOfTheDeep M
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Hehe
SurlyKong69 M
1 up, 3y
Got him!
Blank White Template memeCaption this Meme
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 1
  • Presidential Seal transparent
    • IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
    I WOULD PROPOSE ESTABLISHING A RULE WHERE TO BAN SOMEBODY, ANY MODERATOR (NOT JUST THE OWNER), WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE A REASON FOR DOING SO. AND NOT JUST "I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS GOOD FOR THE STREAM"- A REAL REASON. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT IF CONGRESS VOTES TO UNBAN SOMEBODY, THEN THE OWNER SHOULD RESPECT THAT. THE LAST THING I WOULD PROPOSE IS AN AMENDMENT LIMITING THE POWER OF THE OWNER, AS OUR CURRENT CONSTITUTION IS VERY VAGUE ABOUT WHAT THE OWNER CAN AND CANNOT DO. UNCHECKED POWER ALWAYS LEADS TO A DICTATORSHIP, AND I HIGHLY DOUBT ANY OF THE STREAM'S CONSTITUENTS WANT THAT.