The DDO presidency should be abolished

Hi everybody! Thanks to everyone who reads this debate. Thanks to my partner, airmax, for helping me with this, and I'm glad we have bluesteel and Mikal as our opponents. They're fine debaters and well-respected debaters. I'm sure this will be a great debate. That said, let's get into this!FrameworkThis is, as our opponents note, a shared BoP debate, a comparison between having and not having a presidency. In R2, our opponents did not give readers any benefit to there not being a presidency. It seems they feel if they can convince us there isn't value in the presidency, the notion of its abolishment should be supported. We reject this paradigm; this is a shared BoP debate. They must provide reasons why an absence of a presidency is a good thing in its own right.B1) A Site Without a President?The point of the presidency is to have someone elected by the community. This sets us apart from many other online communities, where there's ONLY moderation, and what the moderators choose to do is uncontestable. Without an election there is no central voice of the community at large, nor is anyone directly responsible to the community for the direction of the site. There's no process to contest moderator action and no clear way for the community to put initiatives they want into practice. The trial system was not kiboshed by moderation, it fizzled because the administration which was its greatest champion fizzled. A site without a president gives no voice to the community. What Pro advocates is for a site where what the mods say goes, without reference to what the community wants being necessary. And you have two mods opposing it! The presidency is about influencing Juggle towards things not necessarily moderation related. The point is that a motivated and responsible president can do good things based on the role provided them, regardless of being a moderator and that while any member can work to improve the site, they often don't. Members have great ideas, but the President should inherently feel a sense of responsibility towards making the most of them, and most do.R1) HistoryThe history of politics on DDO is fascinating. But it's largely irrelevant to this discussion. We're debating the presidency as it exists now.R2) Moderators are the real presidents?Moderators can't run. Airmax believes there's value in keeping the roles of president and moderator distinct specifically because of the value he feels the presidency has. It tends to confuse the roles otherwise. Bladerunner concurs. This is a rule coming from the moderation side.It's not true that only moderators can contact Juggle directly. The president and the moderators BOTH have the ability to contact and petition Juggle. The president brings things to Juggle that he or she was elected to bring. The community has expressed their wishes through their vote. A recent example is TUF's presidency. When TUF was president, he was able to push through several major site updates, including the winner-takes-all voting system and the additional gender options. In times of greater Juggle involvement the membership President plays an important and crucial role in offering member feedback to Juggle in a simplified and coherent way.Our opponents believe that the "real" presidents are the moderators. We feel they think that because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the role of the president is. As bladerunner noted during his tenure, the presidency is an advocacy and diplomatic position more than it is one of direct authority. The notion that "everything in advance has to be ran [sic] through the moderators" is false. Is it true that to get moderator support for an initiative, contacting them in advance is a good idea? Of course it is. Is it also true that many initiatives require mod assistance to pull off? Also true! But that's because they have different roles. Not everything requires moderation approval. Our opponents list the three things that they feel are the role of the presidency:(a) communicate with Juggle(b) improve the community(c) push site updatesWe've changed the phrasing on their version of (b) slightly and would also like to add (d) a conduit to moderation. and (e) diplomat for the siteThe President plays an important role in allowing the moderators to gauge public opinion of moderator actions, helping individual members respond to or contest moderation, and plays a role in welcoming new members, helping them understand the community. As a result of the implosion of the elected administration from January, airmax has picked up some of the proverbial slack. But airmax is unelected. The community did not get a voice in choosing him, and can't use their votes to influence his position.The value of a president is directly related to how good they are at their job. A good president can use their advocacy and diplomatic position well. A bad or unlucky one flounders. But that's not a problem of the position, that's a problem of that administration.Pro says we should get rid of the presidency before we're left with untenable candidates. This whole argument is problematic. First, because former mods can run (for example, Ore_ele). Second because it ignores the fact that we get productive and intelligent new users all the time. Third because it's not appropriate to single out a member as lacking value. Fourth because there is not an infinite number of moderator positions. This entire argument is simply invalid.R3) No real power?Many professional organizations don't have "real" power. Organizations like the National Registry of EMTs and the American Board of Radiology certify people and are recognized by most, yet have no "real" power to enforce their recommendations. Their power stems from the respect they've earned as agencies and how they reflect the will of their members. The power of the DDO presidency is similar. The role of president is elected. While another member can do this by being actively involved, being elected by the membership gives greater weight to the voice of the president. The President is inclined by responsibility and by the mandate of the membership to be involved and to improve the site. Any member can be welcoming to other members, but the president feels a responsibility to be. This extends to actively attempting to find solutions to problems and working with Juggle or moderation to improve the site.B2) On Voting and Site EffortGiven that I (bladerunner) didn't have presidential responsibilties, when my wife went into the hospital I took a hiatus from pretty much the whole site. I intended to take a short break from regular voting because I wasn't obligated to any more--that break was longer because of personal stuff. My wife's health is of more importance to me than a voting intiative on DDO, and I'm not going to make apologies for that. However, I don't see this as a failure of the position of president. Had I been president, then 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. When they are not obligations the moral calculus becomes much simpler. That is true generally of other members, as well. How many tournaments that aren't "official" flounder? How many ideas wind up fizzling out? The value of the presidency is in organizing these efforts, and taking on the responsibility of ensuring follow-through. B3) Multiple PositionsPro suggests abolishing the presidency and having positions for each of the things the president does. There's no reason to do this and reason not to. Having multiple elections certainly wouldn't solve any of the drama issues regarding site politics. But Pro doesn't tell us that there would be elections; they use both the notion of elections AND appointments. But who would do the appointing? Pro doesn't tell us, and it seems Pro wants us to just accept this idea as better without looking at how it would be implemented. This is an ill-formed alternative.Right now the president is elected, and can appoint based on the presumption that they have the mandate. The accountability that Pro seeks is present exactly as much as Pro calls for--a poor or absent Tournament Director can be removed from the position. An elected Tournament Director would need to be recalled or voted out of office. An appointed one would be the moderator's choice, rather than the community's. This solves nothing. R4) Unnecessary DramaWhether the drama is unnecessary is rather the point of this debate. Politics is always messy, whether it's national, local, or a website on the internet. To a certain extent it's a feature rather than a bug, because the messiness comes from people having strong opinions on the path moving forward. B4) Presidential ScrutinyThe president is under additional scrutiny specifically because they've taken on responsibiltiies. Moderators come under scrutiny as well. The difference is that the scrutiny feels harsher to the president because the president is accountable to the membership. If a president acts poorly, the community questions whether they do not want that person as president. The community has the power. R5) The results are meaningless and undemocratic?The notion that the results of an election are undemocratic is absurd on its face. It's dismissive of new members and of what democracy is. We reject this argument as simply invalid. A discussion on qualifying criteria is important, but a distraction from the contention. ConclusionThe reality is that the presidency is all about influence. They are elected to influence the moderator and Juggle. Both are welcome to being influenced by the president more than any other individual based on their elected status. Their mandate from the community also makes them more likely to follow through on plans. The presidency can be tarnished, but the president can have a positive effect if the right person is in office.