What does the president do?

Who can participate?

1. Any OT member who is included in OT!Eras 2024 can vote, including GMTs, electoral candidates, and current parliament members.
2. Any non-GMT member who is included in OT!Eras 2024 can register to be a electoral candidate. The reason why GMTs are NOT included is because they're already part of the gov. So having a GMT be a president would just cause a dictatorship, as no separation of powers between gov and gmt would exist.
3. Self voting is allowed, as honestly it wouldn't change much, the metagame would be just to not vote if you can't vote for yourself and I don't like that so self-voting allowed everyone votes for themselves it's like we didn't have a vote to begin with.
4. If you're a GMT but aren’t part of OT!Eras 2024, you can't vote.

Phase One:

Phase Two:

Phase Three:

Other general rules

Patatitta wrote:

I am the former president, I like the changes I did, and I would like them for those changes to stay another year, and the best way to do that is to run myself again

sametdze wrote:

because i want to

Scyla wrote:

"I Am Running", that time it was raining and I was running

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

At the beginning of the candidate registration, when I saw the 3 first candidate, which none convinced me, I felt like I have to do something, that why I'm running for president. I won't go for why I don't want some candidate to be president, we're not here for personal attacks.

I also want to know exactly what do people want, giving them the power to change OT, not just a group of person.

Wimpy Cursed wrote:

I got bored

Reffty_gag wrote:

just for fun

igorsprite wrote:

because now i can

IAMACROBA wrote:

Because I care about OT and think it has the potential to be better than it is now. There’s a lot of creativity and community here, but sometimes it gets buried under spam or a lack of direction. I want to encourage engagement, bring more structure without making things rigid, and make leadership something that actually listens and responds to the people here.

Patatitta wrote:

Not really no, I think ot is in a good state. If I wanted to do more chages, I would have done it by now, i've also not really seen many people during my term saying "Ohhhhhhh the government should do x and y", sure, you had people saying to revert the changes I did, but not to do extra, so I think this is the right choice

sametdze wrote:

not really

Scyla wrote:

no, stay natural

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

I have a few projects, maybe an OT!skin 2 or a new OT!Book project within more restricted context to avoid turning into chaos. But honestly I can do that without being president...

What I'd like and that I can do as president is to formalize the rules regarding the governement, such as writing a new constitution, define what's make a denizen on objective criteria, avoid confusing or not clear elements which are sources of drama.

Wimpy Cursed wrote:

No, everything is okay as is. Events are more so on the community itself, not to be govern.

Reffty_gag wrote:

no.

igorsprite wrote:

wouldn't mind playing CS with 150 ms if it's with someone i like and i think most people here think the same. i think the moment i had the most fun with someone here was when i started playing Panel del Pon with Endaris, i never beat him but it was fun anyway

IAMACROBA wrote:

Yes. I’d like to see more structured events to keep things interesting, better organization so discussions don’t feel like they get lost in the chaos, and a leadership approach that’s more in touch with the community. Right now, OT can feel either too chaotic or too slow, and I think we can find a balance that keeps things fun while also making it a place people want to stick around in.

Patatitta wrote:

Exiling someone is more complicated than you are led to believe, gmt really DONT like exiling people, even someone like jangsodloor, the gov pushed for them to be banned months before their inevitable osu ban and it was unsuccessful, they only became exiled after a force external to OT pushed for it to be exiled. Aditionally, abraker shadow removed jangsodloor from exieled hours before they actually got banned, which was pretty comical. But yeah, even if I wanted to push this change, I don't think it's possible.

sametdze wrote:

is an exile really necessary? just lock and move on and if the problem persists just silence them

Scyla wrote:

no, this place needs new threads until page 5 per day

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

I do think exile isn't something that the OT!governement should handle. Giving users the power to exclude other users is just bad in my opinion, and it would just bring more tension into OT (in worse case, it will be like in the first 2 days of the elections but every day). I don't want to have people to feel superior to other just because of a f*cking title.

The exile is something that should be managed by the moderation, who have the competences to decide if such punishement should be published or not (I'd like to emphasis that the OT!governement doesn't have "all of the elements" about an user in particular regarding their bad actions).

To actually answer the question, sure I'd do. This is an infrignement of the very rules of OT, and if repeated more, then the user must be punished. But then, is the exile a very effective punishement? In one hand it avoid getting real punishement such as silences, but I feel like it rarely stopped some users to continue to misbehave, especially for severe faults.

Wimpy Cursed wrote:

No, what's the point in that? It's a post, often not harmful in any way. A lock takes a simple click.

Reffty_gag wrote:

no, except they're spamming

igorsprite wrote:

no, and i think that with the exception of moderation, no user should have the power to exile someone. just lock the thread if someone is doing that.

IAMACROBA wrote:

No, that’s too much. But I do think there should be something in place to discourage spam, like a cooldown for people who repeatedly make low-effort threads. Instead of outright banning people, guiding them toward making better content would be a better approach.

Patatitta wrote:

Let's divide this questions in parts

Thread quality

Absolutely not, mainly because there is no way to objectively define the thread quality. You may say "ohhhhhh scyla threads are clearly awful we should go scorched earth on them" but even for that, there are people engaging with scyla threads. At the end of the day you just need someone who works as a judge for thread quality, and from all the years OT have been in the hand of a single overlord, it isn't the best system, it's heavily biased, it feels bad whenever you get a thread locked that you thought it was good, and I don't think it's even going to help anyone, because as we have seen, getting your thread locked has had 0 effect on people to stop producing said threads. People were getting their threads locked every single time yet they would still post them.

The other option would be having a system like my thread "Rate your OT thread", where threads under a certain threshold are locked, but how do we guarantee transparency on that?, if the rating system is public, people will just try to farm it, like it happened with rate your OT thread, and if it's private, how do you guys know we're not lying?. It also requires a certain ammount of people to be rating every single thread for the system to work, and I don't think we cant expect people to go to every ot thread and rate them if they should be locked or not forever and ever.

It's a mess, and I think how OT operates right now with few locks + appeal for locks is ideal.

- respect between OT members

This already exists, it's in the OT rules, I assume the person asking this question assumes it's not enough, probably because of the drama that happened when I didn't let GMT participate. And for that I say that's not really a example that you can extrapolate to the whole of OT, because in that person, the people arguing where gmts, they were above the law.

Now, excluding that specific scenario, do I think there is not enough enforcement of this in OT?, not really, last year has probably the chillest i've seen OT in a while. However I will say, remember that the report button exists, if you see someone annoying you and you feel they should face consequences, report it.

- Preventing bad influences on minors

By default, osu does not have a age requirement, however, the specific countries do have laws on how old do you need to be before you start using social media and stuff, and the most common of those requirements, and the one I agree the most is 13yo+, I do think we should enforce OT for all the content to be 13+

Now, I know why you're asking the question, I know you're probably not happy with my 13+ answer, mainly arguing that there are people in OT who are less than 13 even if they dont publicly admit it. This is not something I can enforce, mainly because I know everyone would be against it, but I would personally simply not let these people into OT, I would exile them, I would do whatever to make sure they dont get in

why?, because OT is the wild west, yes, we may have very strong enforcement but unless that enforcement is lighting quick, someone under that age may still be exposed to that content, not only that, but it's quite literally a crime. I don't think it's realistic for everyone in OT, a forum where most people are over that age of 13, to adapt their speech to be suitable to someone who is 8yo who should not by law be admitted on there.

sametdze wrote:

-thread quality; absolutely not. the whole reason to why i liked OT compared to other places was because i could post whatever and people would interact with it no matter the effort. also, aren't low quality threads what makes OT.. OT?

-respect; yes, i believe there should be some bar of respect. some fun silly banter is fine, but overall we should generally keep away from getting on each others nerves. just how inviting would OT be if we were all dunking on each other?

-the minor issue; if a child is getting influenced by horny linux users on an anime rhythm game forum, just think about the whereabouts and teachings of the parents.. personally for me i dont mind the questionable stuff on here, i'm smart enough to not get influenced.

Scyla wrote:

no, you have common sense for that and forum rules

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

Yes, as I said for question 2, we need more formal rules to avoid drama. For thread quality, maybe requiring a minimum of "quality", if yes, under which criteria? I think this is a question that should be debated with the whole active OT community, if they want to see very low effort threads or a bit of quality at minimum. For the respect between OT members and the bad influence of minors, I do think the official osu! rules are doing that in some extend, but in my opinion, this is common sense.

Wimpy Cursed wrote:

I don't believe there should be for thread quality and respect. Off-Topic as a general meaning is basically just shitpost central, so that can be subsided. And respect within a forum page just sounds stupid to me.

I don't believe Off-Topic should be the place to regulate rules within minors though I guess it can be good to put some rules as a "layer." Though, official ruling should be set in general.

Reffty_gag wrote:

1. no, OT is a place for shitposting. But im appreciate users who make a high quality thread in OT.
2. For respect between OT members, im agree. I dont want OT become a place for degenerate ppl and i dont want there is a drama like EVERYDAY.
3. maybe yes, at least do NOT post NSFW things. Maybe 13+ would be okay

igorsprite wrote:

there shouldn't be any rules or guidelines on these topics other than those that already exist here.
Thread quality: if the thread is bad, no one will post in it and it will soon be forgotten on the second page. we don't need anyone to tell us if a thread is good or bad.
respect between OT members: respect other people, that's common sense.
preventing bad influences on minors: this is the responsibility of the forum moderation, but if you want to help them, don't be weird toward minors here.

IAMACROBA wrote:

Some basic guidelines wouldn’t hurt, but I wouldn’t want OT to feel overregulated. Encouraging quality discussion and mutual respect is important, but too many rules could take away what makes OT fun. There needs to be a middle ground where people can still be themselves without making the space unwelcoming for others.

Patatitta wrote:

I disagree with the premise of this question. I don't think i'm morally entitled or an bojectively better choice than anyone else, however, I don't think it's narcicistic to say the person I trust the most is myself, and I if want to see the changes I want to see, it is I who should run in the race. So in short, I don't think anyone is a better candidate than anyone else morally, but I still enjoy my own policies the most.

sametdze wrote:

i DON'T think i should be president lol, im just here for fun

Scyla wrote:

refty, save the best for last

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

I do think some candidates (I won't give name) will have a bad influence on OT if not killing the governement and maybe the whole subforum. I do think I have enough time with OT (nearly 5 years wtf) to fulfull such a role. I'm also doing this for the good of OT!, and not trying to get a personal gain at all cost. If I'm GMT, it's not for the power but to answer the lack of OT! moderators back then, honestly I don't care about having control over OT. Just writing this sentence to ensure that people understand I'm not a power-hungry beast.

Wimpy Cursed wrote:

I don't. I'm not a person with strong opinions nor can I recognize changes to better suit OT.

Reffty_gag wrote:

dont vote me pls

igorsprite wrote:

i don't think i should be president because i'm no better than most of the candidates

IAMACROBA wrote:

Because I want to actually do something with this role. A lot of leadership in the past has either been inactive or just maintaining the status quo, and I think OT could benefit from a fresh perspective. I might not have the most experience, but I’m willing to put in the effort to make real improvements.

Patatitta wrote:

Achromalia, I like them as a person, I think they're one of the less erratic ot users and most level headed ones, and in adition they always write their whoooole thought process before typing anything, and honestly, even if they do changes I dislike, I don't think I can even be mad at them, so yeah, it's achromalia.

sametdze wrote:

achro because i find that they're the best at expressing themselves, and a president which is capable of expressing their true thoughts and emotions while maintaining positive traits is better than a president that doesn't even know where to begin (cough cough me)

Scyla wrote:

my other self

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

Achromalia, they do have a long experience in OT, and a very good ability to express calmly and to cool down the people when needed. I don't see any issue with them.

Wimpy Cursed wrote:

Achromalia

Achromalia wrote:

i wonder if some candidates here may have sweet/interesting ideals to play with, or personalities which imply decisions and creations and philosophies that i would be interested in observing and appreciating, but

...i'll trust in patatitta, most likely

beyond him being a likely pick, there is presumable administrative aptitude and experience from the year he spent learning from his work... truthfully, i believe patatitta built/maintained a reasonable-enough administrative basis of community preservation through resources (archival, encyclopedic records, "eras", revising institutions/customs) and security ("denizenship", political integrity in elections and governance, gmt presence and moderation). i partly intended to adopt that foundation alongside my own priorities, while nourishing something else from it...

Reffty_gag wrote:

Achromalia, i like her personality. I am no an OG OT user, but i think she can handle thing in OT, especially with her way of respond and maturity.

igorsprite wrote:

i was going to vote for Patatitta, but since he's being a bitch and admitting defeat, i will probably vote for Achromalia

IAMACROBA wrote:

Whoever has a clear plan and genuinely cares about OT, not just someone running because they can. The best leader would be someone who listens to the community and wants to make positive changes rather than just holding the title.

Patatita wrote:

Keep it as it is, like it or not this model worked and did everything I want it to do, it's a objective way to grand denizenship, this avoids drama, it also gets rid of the generations, which were even more drama, when should it end, what title should it be?. One of the common complaints i've seen is "you've left randoms into being denizen", and I disagree with this notion, if they got in it is because they were active, so not a random first of all, but I know the argument then follows that they have not made a contribution to OT

Contribution is hard to define, abraker and the previous govs kinda defined it as participating in lore, hosting events, making high quality threads, etc, but personally I see this as a dated and borderline erroneous view of OT, it's a highly subjective messurement with high degrees of bias. If you make threads I like (so high effort), then you're more likely to make it to denizen!

that also ties in a problem with the there will be people (and have been) users who under one gov or period of time didn't get recognized as having contributed enough, who then by another gov is recognized and placed in a generation that isn't where they should have been just because that infinite waiting room.

There is also a clear lack of clarity of if someone has been rejected for denizen temporarily or if they haven't noticed you qualify.

That system is a mess and if we want to make it more relaxed the old system wont help that cause.

now, what is the use of the denizenship system?, in the past there were many threads that had it as requirements to participate in certain events or whatever, but I personally don't like this, it's gatekeeping and bad for the health of OT IMO. We want more people to come to OT and for OT to grow, however, if we make threads that new users cant partake in, it's less likely that they stick in

an argument to that would be "the thought of finally partaking in threads like that is a motivator that will make people more likely to stay", and I don't agree with this, what we're creating by gatekeeping things to denizen only is a culture where newfags are looked down upon, and while some people may be motivated for this, I firmly believe that this is a net negative for OT, as more people will retire than the ones that will stick.

Again, in a now deleted thread someone talked about "the tensions about oldfags and newfags", that is something that really hasn't existed for a while now, and one of the reasons why that tension went away is because we kinda stopped shaming newfags for their newfag status

also, I want to note, the deprication of the denizen system as a requirement for anything was something that was already pretty rarely seen even from before I made my changes.

I have a lot more thoughts about old denizenship, I explained most of them in this thread before I was president and before I made eras that kinda illustrates why the previous model of denizenship just doesn't work, I would highly encourage everyone (at least the other candidates) to read it in full.

community/forums/topics/1817951?n=1

igorsprite wrote:

i wouldn't do anything with the denizen system. ot!eras is a fair system that rewards users who are active. anything beyond that is a cult

Scyla wrote:

dissolve

IAMACROBA wrote:

Right now, it doesn’t serve much of a purpose. If we’re going to keep it, it should actually mean something—maybe giving denizens a role in community decisions or exclusive participation in certain events. If not, we should be honest about whether it’s even necessary.

sametdze wrote:

unfreeze it, start a new generation, build from there

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

I think there was good ideas with Patatitta OT!Eras, however it's not really perfect, such as handling people between 2 years and I feel like it's been used to exclude inactive OT!users, which I think it shouldn't be. I think I'd keep the denizen system in place, but with objective criteria, as Patatitta was looking for, to avoid drama. It may change but I'd set the requirements as:

1. 300 posts, including 30 within the previous month.
2. 3 months since first post
3. 1 created thread

You may think this does lower the bar to be denizen but I'm totally okay with it. I feel like these 6 months requirements are too high and really separate the denizens into 2 groups, and exclude some who actually deserved at some point. For diving denizens into groups/generation, either per year or per president. I don't want a "elitist" title as denizen. Maybe if people want a "elite" list, of people who changed OT significantly, then why not, but the problem is, how you can objective here? I'm open for suggestions.

Patatita wrote:

I of course have a sense of morals, but these are not what I would be able to qualify. I do not follow a religion or consider myself a firm believer of a certain philosophy which dictates morals. I just do what feels right you know?

igorsprite wrote:

wtf is this question. i'm not a religious person and i follow my own beliefs

Scyla wrote:

John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life".

IAMACROBA wrote:

I believe in fairness, accountability, and treating people with respect. I don’t think leadership should be about control—it should be about making sure things stay balanced and that everyone feels like their voice matters.

sametdze wrote:

what in the..??

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

None 🐺

If it's about my "ethical framework" as president, it would be the interest of OT as a whole, not putting my own interest in priority. This is how I always acted (even without being president), even as GMT. I'm not GMT to take over of OT or anything but because OT was lacking of GMT, and it could have been in long term the end of OT (or maybe not, but who knows?).

Patatita wrote:

I don't think i'm ever going to use my president status to host events. I may host events, but they wont be official government things, mainly because I don't see the point on them being so. The only real event I can see being improved because of me hosting is a gov is a RP one where it directly ties into that, but I do not like those type of events.

Some examples of events i've hosted in the past is OT plays chess, OT book 2 (big flop), OT gd mecollab (equally big flop), rate your ot thread, some interactive threads here and there, etc.

igorsprite wrote:

yes. i hosted a mafia game and a forum game that led to a new rule being created, does that count? xd

Scyla wrote:

no

IAMACROBA wrote:

Yes, absolutely. Community engagement is one of the most important things for keeping OT active. Before running, I’ve been part of events and discussions that bring people together, and I’d love to build on that with bigger, better-organized activities. Things like game nights, creative contests, and interactive discussions could all make OT more engaging.

sametdze wrote:

i don't really host events anymore

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

Weird question to talk about future and if answering yes, talking about the past.

Let's talk about the past project I made. I hosted the succesful OT!Skin, or other ideas such as Google Docs public documents or the OT! OC collab in collaboration with LostSiver a few times after my fursona reveal . I was also very active in the OT!Book and it's sequel, and on very important event, I can be here and to help making others' events a success and fun for everyone. I also made some epic threads during the RP eras such as the french osu! shop or OT! currrency design. There are for sure other projects I didn't mentionned here, some with success, and some with failure.

Whatever RP will be back or not, I can be creative and make some very good events where people have fun. For ideas I have:

1. OT!Skin collab 2, it's been 4 years already...
2. A card game (like pokemon) but with OT! denizen. I already did this before but failed because the rules were too complicated...
3. Maybe a new version of the OT!Book if people are motivated, in a more restricted area (no magic, demons, explosions, etc.)
4. I'll try a few RP threads and if they fails, well I'll consider RP dead but this won't stop me
5. And more...

Those are collaborative projects that everyone can join, to unite people, which is fun, really. I did take part to some epic threads and I still want to do that again.

I can do this without being president tho. If I was president, I'd try to make denizens more actors of the governement and how OT is going, and not just watching what's the governement do in their private group. I'll organize more vote, more choice to people to decide what they wants for OT and its future.

Patatitta wrote:

The use of the word "Nowadays" implies that at some point in history it WAS needed and that it no longer is. I disagree with this premise. The OT government has not peaked in usefulness and that is not something I believe we are going to see soon. The gov is a way for the OT community to choose the changes they want to see in OT. This could be changes for denizen to example, that IMO shouldn't be in the hands of GMT because I don't see how having admin priviliges on here should give you the authority to also take control of a off topic user grouping list.

Now, it also has the function of regulating GMT, but this is just kinda appealing into them untill they either give in or veto it. IMO I don't think there is nothing that the gov should not be able to appeal to the GMT, so yeah, any administrator permission a GMT may have, the gov may also ask to use it, and if that is accepted by both parties, it should be acted upon.

We as the gov can't force GMT at gunpoint to do whatever we want it to say, so I don't think it makes sense to set arbitrary limits of "oh you may NEVER ask for a exile on a user that is going too far", like yeah, if you disagree with that just veto all exile requests, but don't remove the ability to ask it in the first place.

igorsprite wrote:

probably not, but it's a fun rp

Scyla wrote:

no

IAMACROBA wrote:

I think having some form of leadership helps keep things organized, but it shouldn’t be overcomplicated. The president should be a representative and organizer, not someone with unchecked power. Their role should be about encouraging engagement, keeping things running smoothly, and making sure the community has a say in how OT is shaped.

sametdze wrote:

no lol

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

Depends of what OT!governement is. It is just RP and/or a counter power against GMT? I've seen both since I'm GMT in 2023...

If it's just RP, I'd say no because I feel like it caused more harm than good. We have people very involved, and taking this (too?) seriously (see the shitshow during the 2 first days of these current elections, and yeah, I know I wasn't good regarding that point either)... If it's to have a counter-power against GMT, I'm divided. I feel like this is a bit overkill for a shitposting subforum, and we aren't in a context where it's raining locks (remember Stefan last year, or even with abraker years ago). I think with how I handle the forums, maybe it's unnecessary, as I'm trying to locks and delete posts/threads when it's really needed, cases where the gov can't even intervene.

But in another side, hearing the feedback from people can help me in the others pointing out what I'm doing wrong, and thus in a process of improvement, which is benefical for both parts. Seriously I did so much shit at the beginning of my GMT role. (and I duuno how I didn't got fired after nearly 2 years lol) I'm not against getting yelled at when it's really needed, even if it's not making me happy. So at this point, I'm okay to keep that "report" thread that Patatitta made, and if I really want to be a moron, I could just ignore it.

And about what powers a president should have, not subtitute a GMT for sure, they don't really have the competences and not always have all elements when action should be taken. They can contest some decisions, on not severe cases, but not severe ones. (to give an idea (not absolute), when silences are given or when threads wastelanded) I'm personally doing my best to not abuse my moderation powers. And they also shouldn't be able to bend rules of the system without or with little discussion, at least everyone should be able to discuss it. For RP, I'm fine the president can do whatever he wants as long this isn't used to create drama or "crush" people because of a f*cking title which has (almost) no value, for real!

Patatita wrote:

No, and that is because what I said earlier, one of the current function of the govs is regulating the GMT, having a GMT be president would just kill that whole line of duty of the government.

igorsprite wrote:

no, they already have enough power and the premise of ot! government is to balance the relationship between users and moderation. if we're going to have a GMT as president, it's better that there isn't even a president.

Scyla wrote:

yes, i don't see any difference between gmts and users. all humans

IAMACROBA wrote:

Yes, as long as there are boundaries. A GMT president would need to separate their mod duties from their leadership role to avoid conflicts of interest. If they can do that fairly, I don’t see an issue.

sametdze wrote:

no because bro they literally already have all the power in the forum WHY do they need more

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

I don't see the GMT role and the president role as mutually exclusive. abraker had both roles at the same time (more exactly, he became GMT during his presidency) and it went well, not too much drama, overall it worked!

I can understand that some people doesn't see well this idea of a GMT president, but what if at some point people want that? Not wanting a governement and all the drama that slow down in some sense the moderation, and just people and GMTs like a normal forum? And if they don't want, I want to them to at least having the choice, and if they don't want, they just vote someone else, as simple as that. Why being so aggressive and preventing at all cost a GMT being president? In 2024 this wasn't even an issue...

I can't tell about the plans of other GMTs if they eventually become denizen, but I promise, I swear, that I won't use the governement to assert some sort of dominance, to my interest only, but for everyone. I don't want to be seen as a god or "the face of OT" or any shitty title you come with. And a dictatorship RP doesn't interest me at all, I don't want that! At least, I'd like to show you that yes, GMT + president role is possible without things go wrong.

Patatita wrote:

I think I did pretty good, no regrets

igorsprite wrote:

i think all the changes he made were good, and i have no criticisms. 🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂🧂

Scyla wrote:

PATATITA IS THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER
PATATITA is SUGOI

IAMACROBA wrote:

There were some good intentions and solid ideas, but there were also areas where things could have been handled better. I think there could have been more transparency and communication with the community. Instead of focusing on the past, I’d rather take lessons from it and improve moving forward.

sametdze wrote:

he did a fine job, i didn't notice anything so i can't really say

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

For behaviour, I'm clearly not happy of Patatitta's behavior, and I've spat enough (probably too much) at him, so I won't spend any more time saying what I thought was wrong. But I do think there's still room for improvement. At least despite the bad experience I personnaly had the whole year, things got done. So I'll just say that with more transparancy, less stubborn and arrogant behaviour, he would have been a very great president.

Because beyond his behaviour, I do think the actions taken as president are good, or very good sometimes. There was genuinely good idea to implement new stuff and changes to OT, some very interesting and exiting changes in a OT a bit "sleepy" and "boring" as some may think, after the gov being inactive during 2022-2023. About the actions I don't really have criticism about the result, really.

Patatitta wrote:

No goals, as I've said before i'm not a rp person and honestly I don't think bringing rp back is something only gov can do, if you really care about RP, make RP threads and if you it the thread goes well gg, if not, maybe people just aren't very generally in RP anymore, in which case to keep pushing for RP when you're aware most people are not into it wouldn't be a good idea

Scyla wrote:

people are free to do whatever they want

IAMACROBA wrote:

Role-playing has always been part of OT, and I don’t think that should change. My goal is to make sure it stays fun and accessible while also keeping it organized so that it doesn’t take over everything else.

igorsprite wrote:

i support RP and i think it's cool, but in my opinion the best RP is the one that comes naturally, so trying to say whether an RP is good or bad or telling people to RP something is not ideal

sametdze wrote:

idk, i dont have any "goals", i just want to have fun

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

Try to bring in back, not forcing too much into the political side of OT (OT!governement, etc.) because it causes more heated discussions than fun. Then, if it fails, I'll just give up. I can't force RP of there are nobody to engage with, and the only way to eventually revive it is new people wanting to RP comes to OT.

Patatitta wrote:

Depends on the individual, generally well for gov memebers, only complaint was hydreigon that went inactive, if I get president again and see something like that happen again I will kick them and add the next voted given they're active.

For GMTS, abraker and kobold were nice, corne was tougher to work with mainly because they don't like me very much but they were understanding enough to where things got done

Patatitta wrote:

I don't think it needs to be public, however I don't oppose it, but I honestly don't know if people would actually read it given that people don't even read threads and that is like 1/10 of a discord conversation, could be something that could be talked depending on what the general opinion is but personally it's not something i'm going to actively push

Scyla wrote:

don't really care about other peoples convo, not my business, not my problem

IAMACROBA wrote:

Not completely, but there should be public summaries of major decisions. Some discussions need privacy, but the community should still know what’s happening at a broader level.

igorsprite wrote:

yes, transparency is necessary when decisions are made regarding a community

sametdze wrote:

nah, unless it's called for (like a misunderstanding or whatever) i reckon it should be kept private

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

Yes, for transparency. The denizens should know what the government is going.

Patatitta wrote:

No and no, moderation is good as it is, we don't need more moderation, also no, I don't want them to quit, they're not my enemy. I don't have enemies.

Scyla wrote:

yes, no

IAMACROBA wrote:

If the current team is overwhelmed, adding more GMTs makes sense. As for whether someone should quit, that depends on whether they’re actively doing their job. It’s not about personal opinions—it’s about whether they’re contributing in a way that benefits OT.

igorsprite wrote:

yes, i don't see how anyone dedicating themselves to OT could be a bad thing, but whether someone dedicates themselves to OT or not is not my decision.

no, i don't see any reason for Corne2Plum3 to quit

sametdze wrote:

no, we already have two (three if you include kobold but i haven't seen him in a while) and while corne sucks at his job i dont think he should quit but rather reflect and improve

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

I'm not against 1 or 2 more GMTs dedicated to OT. At the moment there's only me and abraker (who's sometimes inactive) who are GMTs especially for OT. And for the 2nd question, I'm not the best placed to answer it.

Patatitta wrote:

What we have been doing is fine, lock and maybe delete the offending post

Scyla wrote:

necropost is an art www

IAMACROBA wrote:

If a post is still relevant, I don’t see the harm. But if someone is just reviving old threads for no reason, a soft reminder or temporary lock might help prevent unnecessary spam.

igorsprite wrote:

lock the thread and delete the post if it was not relevant

sametdze wrote:

nothing. let the thread die again after two days, its really not that deep

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

I'd delete the reply in addition of locking the thread (without replying), to avoid giving attention to the necroposter, which is sometimes what they're looking for.

Patatitta wrote:

I see some couple problems rn, moderation, which I think i've improved it as much as I personally could, and then you have toxicity which it's not something I think I can solve as gov, or that really can be solved by moderation given how some of this people act (you kinda would have to start exiling people left and right and I don't think that would be good), but it can be solved (hopefully and eventually) as long as people look down upon into this issue, which may seem dumb but it's not the popular belief among a considerable subset of OT.

Scyla wrote:

the only problem OT has is that people are so fixated on making quality threads but refuse to connect genuinely with others

IAMACROBA wrote:

Yes, like any community, there are things that could be better. A few issues I see are:
1. Spam and low-quality threads. There needs to be a way to encourage better discussions without making people feel like they have to overthink every post.
2. Leadership that feels disconnected. I want to make sure there’s real communication between leadership and the people in OT so that decisions reflect what the community actually wants.
3. Lack of engagement. More structured events and ways to interact could make OT feel more active and welcoming.

igorsprite wrote:

this is a tricky question because different people see different problems, so i think that as president the ideal would be to listen to others instead of trying to solve the topics that i find problematic on my own

sametdze wrote:

regarding things that would be in my control, no. regarding things out of my control, yes (respecting other users for example)

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

I don't think OT as is doesn't have a ton of problem, put aside the government crisis, which isn't really a big issue, thinking about. I'd say there are some toxic users but then the responsibility is for people, not me. However the only thing I can do is doing my job as GMT.

IAMACROBA wrote:

Why are you running for president?

I want to encourage engagement, bring some structure without making things too strict, and make leadership actually listen to the people here.

How?
- Polls for events and changes so people actually have a say. I literally do not recall a single “Feedback Megathread” so that people know what’s going on.
- Thread spotlights to highlight good discussions and keep them from getting buried. I haven’t seen any OT!Awards since ghouly left but I was also banned for a period of time.
- Fun but organized events to give people something to look forward to.

Listening isn’t just about reading complaints—it means responding, adjusting, and actually being part of the conversation.

Anything new you have in mind for OT?

Yeah, I’d love to see more structured events to keep things interesting.

What kind of events?
- In-forum game nights.
- Creative challenges (writing, meme contests, short-form storytelling).
- Fun challenge threads (like “Explain a movie badly” or “Write a short horror story in 10 words”). Sure, these could be Forum Games, but they’re still apart of OT.
- Community awards (stuff like “Funniest user” or “Best thread-maker”). See above.

Basically, making sure there’s always something going on.

"How do you suggest balancing fun with making OT a place people want to stick around in?"

OT swings between being way too chaotic (spam) and way too strict (when things get over-moderated). The best way to fix that is:

- Mega-threads for repetitive topics so spam doesn’t take over. (hey, the, AMA, etc.)
- Encouraging effort over quantity—giving people better spaces to post so they don’t feel like they have to spam.
- Some basic posting guidelines, but nothing that kills the fun.

People should still feel free to be themselves, just without making the whole place a mess.

"Should there be more rules about thread quality, respect between members, and protecting minors?"

Some basic guidelines wouldn’t hurt, but too many rules would take the fun out of OT.

How do we find a middle ground?
- A clear baseline for thread quality—no one wants to read “Hi.” as an OP.
- A warning system before threads get deleted or locked. Give people a chance to fix things first. This is kind of already implemented but I thought I’d make it known.
- More engaging discussion prompts so people naturally post better stuff.

"If you couldn’t vote for yourself, who would you vote for?"

Achromalia because I believe their ideals and way of thinking align with what OT used to be and how I wish I could’ve seen it. Whether or not the word “fag/faggot” was thrown around I still hear a lot about that era and a lot of oldfags seem to recall it as an important time period in OT history.

"What do you think should happen with the Denizen system?"

I want it to go back to the way it was, before the era changes, before the gen swaps. It was the only reason I stayed in this forum because I *WANTED* it. Nowadays it just seems like some worn down synonym for a citizen.

"Will you host events if you win? What have you hosted before?"

Yeah, absolutely. Keeping OT active means actually giving people stuff to do.

Events I’d host:
- Game nights
- Writing/meme contests
- Debate-style threads
- Community awards

As for the past, participated in discussions, but never hosted any event aside from supporter giveaways. Should I become president I plan on changing my involvement towards the creation of events.

"Do we even need an OT government anymore? If yes, what powers should the president have?"

I think some leadership is useful, but it shouldn’t be overcomplicated. The president should be an organizer, not someone with unchecked power.

They should:
- Organize events
- Help keep discussions going
- Represent the community’s interests

They shouldn’t have moderation power or the ability to make major rule changes without input, which is what we have set up to my knowledge. The president should be the face of OT, not some almighty dictator. Leave the moderation to the mods.

"Do you think GMTs should be able to be president?"

Yeah, as long as they keep their mod duties and leadership role separate. No one should be making decisions based on personal bias.

A few boundaries would help—like making sure a GMT president doesn’t handle reports related to political stuff in OT.

"What do you think of Patatitta’s presidency?"

I think you did great for what you could. I think you got fucked. I think everyone who used to care is gone now and all we have left is a hollow out shell of a community that relies on half-baked memes and ragebait, which isn’t your fault.

"What’s your plan for role-playing in OT?"

It’s always been part of OT, and that shouldn’t change. The main thing is making sure it stays fun without taking over everything else.

The best way to do that?
- Keeping dedicated spaces for RP so it doesn’t flood the board.
- Encouraging more structured RP events so people have a place to join in.
- Making sure other types of discussion don’t get drowned out.

"Should there be more GMTs for OT? Should Corne2Plum3 quit?"

If the current team is overwhelmed, yeah, adding more GMTs makes sense.

As for Corne—if they’re doing their job and contributing to OT, then there’s no reason for them to quit. If they aren’t, that’s a different story. I feel as it that’s more of a peppy decision rather than a president of a forum.

"What problems does OT have, and how would you fix them?"

There are definitely issues, and just pointing them out doesn’t do much—so here’s how I’d actually fix them.

Spam and low-quality threads → Mega-threads for common topics, better discussion prompts, and spotlighting good threads.
Leadership feeling disconnected → More community polls, monthly feedback threads where leadership responds directly.
Lack of engagement → Regular events, scheduled discussions, and fun challenges to keep people involved.

If you believe my responses are inadequate, then DQ me.

I have no business, nor interest with some who does not value my ideals.

patatitta wrote:

community/forums/topics/1829424?n=1

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

I'm hesitating between these two:
community/forums/topics/1246838
community/forums/topics/1527564

Igorsprite wrote:

community/forums/topics/1339786

Sametdze wrote:

no because i don't remember any threads of mine that ended up being "my best", OT world cup maybe? i'm quite indecisive on this

patatitta wrote:

it generally is chill, I dislike when drama arises or when some people throw slurs around like winny when they get heated, or ymir on discord, but everything else is fine, believe me or not I like waifus.

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

I think the community is fine, a lot better than what we could except from a shitposting subforum. I find some people annoying but this is a minority. I feel like it's a nice place to act "weird" without being judged too hard.

Igorsprite wrote:

it's fine. i like when people make more casual threads and talk about their day to day or something that happened recently, but i don't like when people keep forcing some meta

Sametdze wrote:

its a fun community, great and funny people, what's not to love? i don't really like the "drama" when two users get heated but eh it all goes away in two days so Ecks Dee!