Official Poll: Vote for Convention VP

[sangha]

OK, we have four nominees for VP who have agreed to run for the office. Please vote in the poll. If someone wins a majority of the votes, they will be VP. If no one wins a majority, then there will be a runoff between the two candidates who get the most votes. The one who gets the most votes in the runoff becomes VP

 

[sangha]

Please vote in the poll

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

My ideas are important too.

 

[joko104]

I truly do not mean this as a personal attack in any manner. Rather, this why I do not think Paleocon would make a fair or good officer - and the reason is important enough to state it. He openly opposes freedom of speech and has posted so on the forum repeatedly.

Since he personally opposes free speech as a religious belief, I do not believe he would support free speech in the Convention as an officer because doing so would violate his religious beliefs, even if for no other reason. An officer must be totally committed to preserving and respecting the free speech rights of every delegate - and equally.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I would offer we complete this vote in a manner without trying to guide votes, since we already have an issue with executive authority rendering the convention power and purpose as diminshed completely at executive will.

 

[sangha]

I would offer we complete this vote in a manner without trying to guide votes, since we already have an issue with executive authority rendering the convention power and purpose as diminshed completely at executive will.

Translation: Orphan Slug's idea of how the convention should be run is that he is the only one who can comment on other posters

 

[OrphanSlug]

Translation: Orphan Slug's idea of how the convention should be run is that he is the only one who can comment on other posters

Clever, but predictably inaccurate. Only one of us made a comment trying to eliminate who they did not want from consideration.

 

[sangha]

Clever, but predictably inaccurate. Only one of us made a comment trying to eliminate who they did not want from consideration.

Translation: It's OK to attack other members but only for reasons that Orphan Slug approves of

 

[OrphanSlug]

Translation: It's OK to attack other members but only for reasons that Orphan Slug approves of

You are doing well with these asinine suggestions, why not appeal to the officers to place who you want?

 

[sangha]

You are doing well with these asinine suggestions, why not appeal to the officers to place who you want?

That's right. Change the subject and hope no one notices how you tried to silence another member

 

[OrphanSlug]

That's right. Change the subject and hope no one notices how you tried to silence another member

Exactly how did I try to silence you? (Again, the asinine comments are getting better. Keep up the good work!)

 

[sangha]

Exactly how did I try to silence you? (Again, the asinine comments are getting better. Keep up the good work!)

Silence "me"?

Hint: reading comprehension is A Good Thing.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Silence "me"?

Hint: reading comprehension is A Good Thing.

Fine, who did I try to silence and how did I do that?

 

[sangha]

Fine, who did I try to silence and how did I do that?

First you tried to silence another member, and now you're trying to interrogate me. No wonder no one voted for you to be an officer

 

[OrphanSlug]

First you tried to silence another member, and now you're trying to interrogate me. No wonder no one voted for you to be an officer

Interrogation... spare us. Who did I try to silence and how did I go about doing that? Very simple stuff here.

And when was I even on a list to be an officer?

 

[sangha]

when was I even on a list to be an officer?

That's right - you weren't even nominated.

Big surprise, huh?

 

[OrphanSlug]

That's right - you weren't even nominated.

Big surprise, huh?

It would be humorous if it were not so sad in how much effort you are putting into ducking very basic questions. You made the claim of me, now please back that up with something... anything.

 

[sangha]

It would be humorous if it were not so sad in how much effort you are putting into ducking very basic questions. You made the claim of me, now please back that up with something... anything.

Even funnier is how you tried to silence another poster while whining about how the convention should be run even though no one thinks enough of you to nominate you to be the conventions Janitor.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Even funnier is how you tried to silence another poster while whining about how the convention should be run even though no one would think of nominating you to be the conventions Janitor.

Still cannot do it can you, back up your assertions? Sad...

 

[sangha]

Still cannot do it can you, back up your assertions? Sad...

You sound jelly. It gave you a sad

 

[OrphanSlug]

You sound jelly

You have to be able to do better than that.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I would like to make a last minute case for myself as VP

Although I am in most issues a liberal, I hold agreeable viewpoints to conservatives in gun control, civil rights, and crime and punishment. As an independent thinker I can weigh viewpoints based on evidence. Having Grown up in a rural area, I understand and care about the issue facing rural Americans. In my job I've traveled to many little towns and sm familiar with issues important to them. Also I am well read in constitutional issues including the original convention and case law

 

[joko104]

I would like to make a last minute case for myself as VP

Although I am in most issues a liberal, I hold agreeable viewpoints to conservatives in gun control, civil rights, and crime and punishment. As an independent thinker I can weigh viewpoints based on evidence. Having Grown up in a rural area, I understand and care about the issue facing rural Americans. In my job I've traveled to many little towns and sm familiar with issues important to them. Also I am well read in constitutional issues including the original convention and case law

While I already cast my vote otherwise mainly not know you as you are fairly new, I did a brief look-see over your message history now with your message. With that, I have no doubt you would make an excellent officer of the Convention. I am not looking at where anyone stands left or right as that really isn't the question of who would be a good officer. Whether liberal, conservative, libertarian, independent doesn't have anything to do with who to elect.

Good luck in the election. If you don't win there will be other positions and roles to fill either by election or volunteerism that hopefully you will be willing to serve in. If so, we all would benefit by your efforts.

 

[joko104]

I would offer we complete this vote in a manner without trying to guide votes, since we already have an issue with executive authority rendering the convention power and purpose as diminshed completely at executive will.

What is diminishing? Not allowing a non-elected member to have just decreed the Convention - with no vote on it - will always be diminishing in members and participation? To just have made up a rule that people can only quit the Convention and no one else can ever join is a certain slow death sentence, isn't it?

The Convention has never had any "power" that you suggest. Not for one second has there been any ability or authority to block any member from participating on any Convention thread, in case you hadn't noticed that before. It seems clear by what has been done that was no chance that forum staff was going to block new members or any members in good standing from doing so. That was never even in the cards despite a very small number of people declaring that wanted it otherwise. 4 o r5 people announcing somewhere along the way there is a "lock everybody out" rule didn't make that a legitimate rule, just a wish of those 4 or 5.

There is a system now in place to distinguish between votes that count and votes that do not. But again, it was never in the cards that others, particularly new members who join the forum, would be blocked from full rights including voting on Constitutional issues on this political debate forum. Why would staff ever agree to that? It completely contradicts the open door to equal free speech to everyone as the forum's core premise.

The purpose, on the bottom line, is to debate issues of the Constitution and Bill of Rights - then vote on it. Ideally, eventually a full Constitution and Bill of Rights is constructed by majority votes.

Officers are needed primarily to insure official polls have options based upon those requested by members and are worded fairly and neutrally. Otherwise, the Convention thrives and remains of interest singularly upon those who participate. That is not in the hands of officers. It is up those who do participate. While a few do care about the minutia of Convention structure, even among original delegates most don't. Most people just to get on with debating and voting on Constitutional issues topics. That is apparent by so many messages.

 

[OrphanSlug]

What is diminishing? Not allowing a non-elected member to have just decreed the Convention - with no vote it - will always be diminishing in members and participation? To just have made up a rule that people can only quit the Convention and no one else can ever join is a certain slow death sentence, isn't it?

The Convention has never had any "power" that you suggest. Not for one second has there been any ability or authority to block any member from participating on any Convention thread, in case you hadn't noticed that before. It seems clear by what has been done that was no chance that forum staff was going to block new members or any members in good standing from doing so. That was never even in the cards despite a very small number of people declaring that wanted it otherwise. 4 or5 people announcing "lock everybody out" didn't make that a legitimate rule, just a wish of those 4 or 5

There is a system now in place to distinguish between votes that count and votes that do not. But again, it was never in the cards that others, particularly new members who join the forum, would be blocked from full rights including voting on Constitutional issues on this political debate forum. Why would staff ever agree to that? It completely contradicts the open door to equal free speech to everyone as the forum's core premise.

The purpose, on the bottom line, is to debate issues of the Constitution and Bill of Rights - then vote on it. Ideally, eventually a full Constitution and Bill of Rights is constructed by majority votes.

Officers are needed primarily to insure official polls have options based upon those requested by members and are worded fairly and neutrally. Otherwise, the Convention thrives and remains of interest singularly upon those who participate. That is not in the hands of officers. It is up those who do participate. While a few do care about the minutia of Convention structure, even among original delegates most don't. They just to get on with it. That is apparent by so many messages.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/dp-co...64-two-important-announcements-president.html
The decision...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/dp-co...power-make-impromptu-executive-decisions.html
The discussion on it...

To answer your questions, that is not quite it. To my knowledge there was a discussion on dealing with members who wanted to quit the convention for whatever reason, removing them from the vote process, notification process, etc. What I do not recall was another discussion on adding new members or opening up the Convention in some other regard. It is not that I object to the idea, what I object to is a unilateral decision without Convention discussion on the matter. In that context, yes the officers are in a position to do as they wish and from my chair that means at will officers can remove the function of the Convention. Right or wrong in their opinion, it places a strain on the process going forward. There is little to stop Sangha from doing so again at some later date to handle some other issue at his will. Given my discourse with him here in this thread it seems likely the process of President will be more about infliction of will over rational discussion or even an offering of evidence to support some position.

Now, assuming we have a discussion where Convention participants discuss an amicable process to be involved I have no issue at all. I am not after locking anyone out, I am not after muting someone's voice. Sangha seems to have a different opinion while claiming I am the one trying to mute someone. Again, not the merit of the decision but rather the authoritarian rule to make such decision without the Convention. That is a problem. I have zero issue with the idea of leadership to ensure procedural process and results outcome, making unilateral decisions on the other hand is a recipe for disaster (especially phrase as such by the "Two important announcements" thread.)

I've asked this several times today. If the power of the officers is to make decisions by suspending the opinion of the Convention then why bother with a Convention at all? It is not an unreasonable question.

Further I would offer that one reason we might be seeing diminished participation is what I mentioned weeks ago. If the struggle for power and decision making ability has trumped the purpose of this Convention, I can see people wanting out.

As for the voting process, the only issue I've ever had is the backroom and PM exchange to get people to change their vote after the fact to effect a different outcome. Other than that I do not recall suggesting any other voting irregularity.

 

[joko104]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/dp-co...64-two-important-announcements-president.html
The decision...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/dp-co...power-make-impromptu-executive-decisions.html
The discussion on it...

To answer your questions, that is not quite it. To my knowledge there was a discussion on dealing with members who wanted to quit the convention for whatever reason, removing them from the vote process, notification process, etc. What I do not recall was another discussion on adding new members or opening up the Convention in some other regard. It is not that I object to the idea, what I object to is a unilateral decision without Convention discussion on the matter. In that context, yes the officers are in a position to do as they wish and from my chair that means at will officers can remove the function of the Convention. Right or wrong in their opinion, it places a strain on the process going forward. There is little to stop Sangha from doing so again at some later date to handle some other issue at his will. Given my discourse with him here in this thread it seems likely the process of President will be more about infliction of will over rational discussion or even an offering of evidence to support some position.

Now, assuming we have a discussion where Convention participants discuss an amicable process to be involved I have no issue at all. I am not after locking anyone out, I am not after muting someone's voice. Sangha seems to have a different opinion while claiming I am the one trying to mute someone. Again, not the merit of the decision but rather the authoritarian rule to make such decision without the Convention. That is a problem. I have zero issue with the idea of leadership to ensure procedural process and results outcome, making unilateral decisions on the other hand is a recipe for disaster (especially phrase as such by the "Two important announcements" thread.)

I've asked this several times today. If the power of the officers is to make decisions by suspending the opinion of the Convention then why bother with a Convention at all? It is not an unreasonable question.

Further I would offer that one reason we might be seeing diminished participation is what I mentioned weeks ago. If the struggle for power and decision making ability has trumped the purpose of this Convention, I can see people wanting out.

As for the voting process, the only issue I've ever had is the backroom and PM exchange to get people to change their vote after the fact to effect a different outcome. Other than that I do not recall suggesting any other voting irregularity.

The reason participation crashed and there was so much criticism and condemnations of the Convention elsewhere on the forum was exactly:

1 When a member - who no one would even nominate to be an officer - unilaterally announced that 99.5%+ of members and 100% of all new members were excluded from the forum as a retaliation for being rejected as an officer.

2. That member and a couple others began incessant trolling on Convention threads whining and lamenting how unfair everything is - like they do everywhere else on the forum. It's called attention whoring.

With that, long time members and forum staff both, including those of both categories who were going to participate instead dropped out and publicly condemned the convention upstairs and elsewhere on the forum. Forum staff essentially said to hell with this too for that reason.

At no time, ever, was there any legitimate basis to exclude anyone nor is this with the premise of the forum. Rather, a small (very small) group whose interest is in personal feuding and seeking attention via trolling continue a campaign essentially to make it so no one cares to participate - and certain no one else should be allowed to. They now fixate on just how tiny a private little irrelevant group they can make the Convention until they have destroyed it entirely.

Until the made-up exclude-everyone rule was just announced out of thin air with no vote whatsoever by a malcontent over election rejection, many people were going to participate.

For those who want a little private group to tit-for-tat over pecking order? Start a social group. Then you can have 100% power and fulfill your dream of blocking out everyone.

HOWEVER, none of that is the topic of this ELECTION thread.