The DDO presidency should be abolished

Thanks to our opponents for their response. FrameworkPro tries to claim that they don't have to show why not having a president is a good thing in its own right, and then pulls a Godwin by attempting a parallel between the presidency and Nazi Germany. Their obligation is not solely to show bad things about the presidency. They must show us that abolishing the presidency is a good thing.Their suggested alternative of a "direct democracy" is an attempt to do this, but the resolution was not "The DDO presidency should be abolished in favor of a direct democracy", and we object to this shifting. It makes it appear as though they recognize that merely abolishing the presidency would not be as good an outcome as they'd hoped, and are trying to change the terms of the debate midstream to favor themselves. Pro gives us no clear guideline as to the implementation of this "direct democracy". Without these details, the proposal is ill-formed. Suffice it to say: A direct democracy will not work, and is not on the table as an option. A site without a presidentThe president is elected by the membership. DDO is not a direct democracy and it's not possible for everyone to contact Juggle individually. Moderation is a private affair--airmax is not going to put every decision of his up for a public vote. Likewise, Juggle does not want to have to deal with the entire site every time they want to discuss a change. We never argued that without a president, no one would question moderation. Such a claim would be absurd, which is why we didn't make it. We argued that what the moderators do becomes uncontestable, and that it doesn't have any necessary reference to the community's desires. We argued this because it's true. The claim that bladerunner and TUF never questioned moderation during their tenure is false. That Mikal and bluesteel aren't aware of what questioning occurred is part of why it's important to have a president. Moderation, to repeat, is a private affair between the moderator, the member involved, and the president of the site, who acts as an intermediary and advocate where appropriate. Their election in that role is an indication of the community's trust in them FOR that role. Without the presidency, that role no longer exists. Pro claims that "Having a presidency does not ensure moderation will be subject to a critical eye, nor does the absence of the presidency prevent members from questioning moderation in the DDO Forum." Whether moderation is subject to a critical eye is up to the president in question. It's not a fault of the office if the occupant fails in their duty. As to the forum, while that's a place for discussion certainly, it does not impact final moderator decisions. As to the trial system, what we actually said was that "The trial system was not kiboshed by moderation, it fizzled because the administration which was its greatest champion fizzled." Pro seems to want us to forget that bluesteel was part of the Mikal administration, which is the very administration that imploded. Unrealistically expecting instant gratification may have contributed to that. Airmax has made it clear that he has reservations about a trial system. What would change that is having a detailed plan, and follow-through on that plan via a president and staff who are duly elected and perform their job. Airmax does not answer to the community, he answers to Juggle; which has been our point. There is no way to force a direct democracy on Airmax, nor would there be any person who could go "above his head" as there currently is. Pro's point 4 seems to be based on the idea that Juggle will never ever invest resources in the site again. Pro cannot say this with any certainty. Juggle's interest and willingness to invest resources has always waxed and waned. At present it has waned to its lowest point. But to abandon the system because of that harms our chances at getting them to invest again.HistoryWe maintain that the history is irrelevant.Moderators are all we need?1. Pro again makes sweeping claims without support. They claim that what motivated Juggle was that "bluesteel and many others were raising a huge stink". Pro has no grounds to assert this, largely because Pro hasn't had contact with Juggle. Airmax and bladerunner have. The president brought the changes to Juggle, including implementation, and Juggle acted on it because the president took it seriously. The presidency worked. Pro wants to claim that it was the efforts of the non-administration folks which got the update, while at the same time bemoaning the fact that the system wasn't implemented as those folks wanted. If it was their input which caused the change, then it would be their input that implemented the change as well. 2. Pro's bare assertions and attacks on other members simply don't have a place in this debate. There are plenty of fine candidates, and the number of moderator positions is not infinite. As such, it's perfectly reasonable that we will always have good candidates for the position. Pro's merely attempting to smear individual members and make an attempt at scare tactics here. 3. It would be more transparent to air everything to everyone at all times. It would also be unworkable. Pro doesn't address the privacy of moderation, nor does he outline why it's "more fair". We would argue it's less fair, in fact. It's not fair to air everyone's dirty laundry publicly, nor is it fair to hamstring honest responses by making them public to all. Pro suggests "perhaps adopt more formal ways to raise proposals on the DDO Forum". How would we implement this? Pro doesn't explain, they just expect us to accept it would be better. "Behind closed doors decisionmaking" is sometimes necessary, and is at times more productive. The president can balance transparency with privacy. Not having a president means we lose that balance. Pro's plan simply will not happen with airmax as moderator, because there are things that airmax will not air publicly. Pro claims direct democracy decreases bureaucracy. "You don’t have to convince a chief of staff ... who has to convince the president, who has to convince airmax, who has to convince Juggle. Abolishing the presidency cuts out two of those steps."Again, the president can contact Juggle, so one of these steps is nonexistent. Pro replaces convincing an administration with convincing the entire site, and then leaves the advocacy up to airmax, who has no obligation to listen. Additional point: Having a presidency also protects and helps minorities. When TUF pushed the gender options, it was a benefit to a minority of the site. But it was a good thing. He pushed it because he recognized it was a good thing. Even if a direct democracy was implemented, there's no guarantee that minorities would have any hope at getting their voice heard. The president represents us all. No real powerPro's arguments have already been addressed in our R2. We already acknowledged that a "regular member" could do many things. Pro fails to address the inherent respect and responsibility of the office of president, and ignores the power of the mandate. On voting and side effortsPro's failure to read our argument is frustrating. What I said was "what happened in my life would need to be balanced with the responsibilities I had taken on, because they would have been obligations that I took seriously". I would have continued my efforts, but certainly that would have had to be balanced against what my wife needed. Almost certainly, the efforts would have suffered, because of course they would! The point being made, that Pro seems to attempt to handwave away, is that the presidency is a responsibility and it comes with obligations. While general members may take individual obligations they've chosen seriously, the president is responsible for the site as a whole, not just the parts they prefer to focus on. C4)Pro wants to fold this into the not-fully-explained "direct democracy". Discussing whether or how a plan would have worked out is a rabbithole. The system which wound up being put in place was not precluded by the existence of the presidency--so if it truly is better, there was nothing stopping its implementation. But without a president, the system I had proposed couldn't have been implemented. Unnecessary dramaIt's unfortunate that Pro felt the need to make this personal. We will not respond to the points about bluesteel's election conduct, except to say that's not a problem of the office of president. People are responsible for their own actions. Pro claims the "scrutiny and attack threads usually just end up being personal". That wasn't the case in previous administrations. How his administration conducted itself, and the response it got, was largely their own choice. Pro seems to not understand that their behavior in "non-presidential activities on the site" still reflects on them as president of the site. There are no "non-presidential activities" on the site for the president. Undemocratic?Pro seems to argue that Mikal chose a route that "so easily swayed" the election "by unknowledgeable voters". Here it seems they would like us to hold the position responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, such an objection does not hold, particularly given that they also demonstrated that such tactics aren't really tenable long term. Pro fails to recognize that the same issues would be present in their own proposed "direct democracy". It is a feature of democracy that people get to choose, not a bug. As we said before, while the qualifying criteria is an important discussion, it's not relevant to the motion. ConclusionPro's objections fail. Simply abolishing the presidency would make the site worse off than it is now, and even if we accept Pro's proposal of a wholly new alternative system to replace it, it's unworkable and unlikely to be implemented. The presidency has done good, and can continue to do so. The DDO presidency should remain. Thank you.