Драко
Auto-translated
Dear sirs!
I have read the thread! I liked it. I want to join.
But... there is one big but! It seems to me that the concept of the thread does not imply having a leader for the Community.
Rather, there is a Responsible person here. Let's call him that. Responsible for the "wall of shame," ensuring that the Community represents unity and develops. His difference from a leader is that he cannot impose sanctions or demand fulfillment of duties, etc. The responsible person only coordinates the activities of the Community members. Leadership implies much more rights than those of an ordinary member. In addition, leadership implies some formality, which should be avoided.
I see the Community as an informal(!) and unofficial movement. There are many examples: this could be a community of gamers, a community of housewives, etc. They are not united, but they know what their responsibilities and rights are. In this regard, the question arises: do we even need to introduce a list of members? In my opinion, no - anyone who behaves respectfully is a member of the Community, even if they don't realize it; anyone who steps in to resolve a dispute (battle, war) is a member of the Community. All that needs to happen is that they know there is a "wall of shame" and someone responsible for it.
Note that the only goal pursued by the Community is respect on the forum, which leads to honesty and a desire to solve problems peacefully, etc. And sometimes, arguing is exactly what is needed.
Thus, the Community should be an informal community of gamers whose goal is to establish respectful relationships between forum visitors.
And the issue of leadership is pointless. What advantages can be gained here? Anticipating the answer, if any can be gained, then they simply need to be eliminated. Then the principle of voluntariness will be fully preserved :)
I have read the thread! I liked it. I want to join.
But... there is one big but! It seems to me that the concept of the thread does not imply having a leader for the Community.
Rather, there is a Responsible person here. Let's call him that. Responsible for the "wall of shame," ensuring that the Community represents unity and develops. His difference from a leader is that he cannot impose sanctions or demand fulfillment of duties, etc. The responsible person only coordinates the activities of the Community members. Leadership implies much more rights than those of an ordinary member. In addition, leadership implies some formality, which should be avoided.
I see the Community as an informal(!) and unofficial movement. There are many examples: this could be a community of gamers, a community of housewives, etc. They are not united, but they know what their responsibilities and rights are. In this regard, the question arises: do we even need to introduce a list of members? In my opinion, no - anyone who behaves respectfully is a member of the Community, even if they don't realize it; anyone who steps in to resolve a dispute (battle, war) is a member of the Community. All that needs to happen is that they know there is a "wall of shame" and someone responsible for it.
Note that the only goal pursued by the Community is respect on the forum, which leads to honesty and a desire to solve problems peacefully, etc. And sometimes, arguing is exactly what is needed.
Thus, the Community should be an informal community of gamers whose goal is to establish respectful relationships between forum visitors.
And the issue of leadership is pointless. What advantages can be gained here? Anticipating the answer, if any can be gained, then they simply need to be eliminated. Then the principle of voluntariness will be fully preserved :)
