I nominate Waterbourne, Aerith Gainsborough, and SorceressEdea7

I did forget to mention in the first post that staff members will not be allowed to challenge or bash other staff members. ^__^'

Originally Posted by Rhea

I personally do not have MSN or AIM access, and I will not for a while; at least not until I move out of this house later on this year. I share a computer with someone, and I'm not allowed to download messengers. If you do see him that often Koloth, I would appreciate it so much if you mentioned this to him. =]

I will do that for you then.

Also, for those of you who are nominated...we will seriously need you to put your emotions, and biases aside. Say Mitsuki is voted on, she must forget her grudge against Aztec in the past and everything, and look at the situation at hand. That was just an example that came to mind; hope no offense was taken by either Mitsuki or Aztec.

Unbiasness = important; very important.

I say saix. A one time, and most recent, admin gone smod gone member would be a great person to communicate to both member and staff.

EDIT: Though I doubt he'd do it, being how unnecessary and doomed to fail this convolution of how people complain to the higher ups is.

I nominate Aerith Gainsborough and you, Rhea. You obviously care enough about these forums to get this idea started, rather than just flaming Aztec, Riku, and Fields in the petition forum like everyone else was doing.

I dont think it'd be too difficult to mod the criticism thread either, just let it be known that people need to be mature and civil about things, if not their posts will be deleted, or something like that.

Rhea is staff so she, and all staff members, are exempt from nominations. we're still working out the rules, so bear with us as we keep adding more and letting out new info.

Thx ^__^

Maybe there should be some trial of some sort to put the nominees through or something. It doesn't fit well with me if one is just voted up to be one as a result of popularity. It wouldn't seem right. I'm sure other members have their doubts about some of the listed members...

I was thinking about that too, Derek.
Perhaps we should give these middle-men a specific term length. Perhaps 3 weeks at a time? Or longer?
At the end of each term, they could step down, or stay, and there would be an opportunity to elect a new middle man.

??

I think that maybe even two weeks is acceptable. But it maybe the longer, the better. It may give us an even more accurate feeling on how much they care for this position, and how they feel about everything and what they think. So I think three weeks would be a reasonable amount of time.