[00Razor00]

Originally Posted by ddrxero64

Because those 90,000 people then feel the need to make their own site, create their own community, and convince people who don't like me to do the same, thus creating the same vicious cycle. It's more beneficial to have someone who's well known and well respect by all to lead the pack, because decisions are less questioned and productivity would be higher.

SMO was once a single community. There are now many. Backtrack and realize why it was split up. How can this be prevented? It's not only about elitism, it was the countless alternative communities made. Once someone thinks the admin is doing something wrong and enough people agree, they will split off. You would need someone who is well respected by most to prevent this, AKA crowd control. It's like if you had a crazy fight at a bar about girls, and a playboy bunny walked in to stop it. Are guys really going to continue to fight if they see this girl trying to break it up?

Seemingly random example right? Guys are very much impulsive when it comes to hormones. Similar to the follower type idea on forums. You have Person B who is well respected trying to split off, but Person A walks in with more respect. Person B is forced to step down unless he wants to be criticized thoroughly.

If they wanted to make their own site then, by all means, they can. Truth of the matter is, you should at least stay loyal to a site you're gonna put your all into, regardless of popularity or not. To be quite frank, I'd rather have a(n) unknown/less popular person managing my site who can contribute and bring the skills necessary to have things running in proper fashion, versus, having someone being known by an entire community yet has no clue what they're doing.