- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 38,338
- Reaction score
- 44,419
- Location
- Atlanta
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This began by necessity with Pirate making "edicts." It is necessary for someone to be in charge until officers are elected. Those officers and the delegates then could change anything they want to.
Obvious and easy to understand.
WHOA, wait a minute...
Let's ponder the history of this complaint...
Initially the Convention was going to open to "everyone."
Then US Conservative just DECLARED ("edict") it was open only to those who voted yes on a poll. Somehow, that just become the EDICT of the Convention - that had never been voted on by anyone nor by any elected officer either. Upon HIS edict, 1/4th of those who voted yes dropped out formally and over 1/2 stopped participation. Closing the convention locked out 100% of new members and 99+% of all members, for which forum staff pretty much then blew off the Convention too.
Creating a way by which others could join into the Convention (also necessary to keep it dwindling down to nothing) lead to the staff allowing some abilities to the officers. The EDICT of US Conservative was dooming this Convention and has done a great deal of harm that hopefully can be undone.
So US Conservative, more than anyone else, is not in a position to complaint of edicts by the ELECTED officer(s), particularly since all decisions by Sangha and Vascu have been stated on the forum after discussion on the forum.
In defense of myself, Pirate not only offered that I could join, he even offered me to take his place - all before the "EDICT" just declared by US Conservative locking almost everyone out. He has never been an officer or in a position to declare any rules or exclusions whatsoever. Pirate, Sangha and Vasu also offered this - and I accepted.
Here's the REAL bottomline: Election of officers needs to be completed promptly, during this all the Convention needs to keep moving (which Sangha has been doing despite many obsticles), and people need to be invited and encouraged to rejoin or join in participation to maximize diversity of opinions, lively debate and discussion.
US Conservative, you can post your views on anything you want freely to your heart's content. But do you have authority to make edicts and demands? No. It is time to move beyond all that.
Please stand back while I take a big whizz on your book. Is that acceptable to you? I'm guessing that you having contacted our former President didn't involve a PM. Isn't that true?
You're posting this thread is not you having valid concerns for the Constitutional convention. You're just here to stir up ****. Well, you are what you stir. You're ****. You've always been ****, you're **** now, and you will always be ****.
Have fun with it!
Why keep the convention moving if officers can change anything they want?
US Conservative just announcing along the way that 99.5+% of forum members and 100% of all new members are excluded NEVER had been that a rule in the first place, did it? Did he and 4 other people have the ability to just declare that established? Of course not. Personally when they did that I just laughed at it in "who does he think he is to just take over and dictate to everyone?"
Sangha made a parliamentary decision - and the correct one. That rule had NEVER been legitimately established by ANY elected officer OR by any vote. Therefore, as a point of order it wasn't a rule. Sangha didn't CHANGE anything. There was never such a legitimate rule in the first place.
Why do I get the feeling that this flaming and baiting is perfectly acceptable to the current "officer(s)". Lol.
So we should not have had a discussion on how to handle bringing in new people?
Please stand back while I take a big whizz on your book. Is that acceptable to you? I'm guessing that you having contacted our former President didn't involve a PM. Isn't that true?
You're posting this thread is not you having valid concerns for the Constitutional convention. You're just here to stir up ****. Well, you are what you stir. You're ****. You've always been ****, you're **** now, and you will always be ****.
Have fun with it!
Those officers and the delegates then could change anything they want to.
As of my last post, I had contacted him twice. If you think blatant disregard for the convention and its rules is stirring things up than so be it. I consider following of committee rules to be important.
WHOA, wait a minute...
Let's ponder the history of this complaint...
Initially the Convention was going to open to "everyone."
This is a mental exercise and a way to organize thoughts on the topics, and consider serious political issues, plus Internet interaction. We are real people. What you wrote applies to the entire forum. Nothing of the forum carries real weight out there. Only with each of us, such as it is for each person. It is about US, individually and personally, not the whole world.
Maybe I'm different in that quitting when things aren't as I want them isn't my nature. Maybe its stubbornness, ego, being a fighter, I dunno. I don't get run off easily. That's what quitting is.
The purpose is to debate and vote on Constitutional issues, not build a private clique or personal pecking order tit-for-tats, Officers are necessary to organize topics and put together impartially worded polls so those participating can build a Constitution and Bill of Rights for people to debate and vote on. That should be the essence and that is what people are interested in.
Anything they want? :doh This is what gets me-that was not agreed to or voted upon. Its interesting that the President seems to have a fan club who all want to allow him to do things he was not elected to do, though.
This thread is like watching Star Wars fans debate Star Trek fans, and each side thinks it is really important.
Why keep the convention moving if officers can change anything they want?
Of course not. Personally when they did that I just laughed at it in "who does he think he is to just take over and dictate to everyone?"
The Convention is a bit short on officers right now. Did YOU report the message to Sangha?
I think that by comparing the conventions activity and support both before and after my election, two things becomes clear:
1) There are people who are more interested in focusing on rules and procedures and those who prefer discussing the substance of the issues
2) The former leads to people leaving the convention while the latter leads to people wanting to join the convention
I consider following of committee rules to be important.
Joko, you are free to start your own constitution thread/polls at any time and it will be open to all. This convention predates your involvement and you are not a member, so keep that in mind.
There actually was quite a bit of messages about it on the convention threads and elsewhere. For my messages, I kept challenging the legitimacy of it and how such a rule could just be asserted into existence, particularly for how extreme it was. 4 o 5 people just DECIDED to BAN ALL new members and over 99.5% of existing members - and by those few just declaring that it became a rule of the Convention?
How the heck is that legitimate? I even, for fun, just started DECLARING rules myself to make the point.
A rule to exclude people is VERY SERIOUS - and would have to be a proactively created rule, as the core presumption of the entire DP forum, the forum staff and the software all do allow everyone a equal free speech voice and equal voting rights. Equal free speech and voting rights is a core premise of he DP forum.
If anything Sangha has done anything that was "authoritarian" it was making it so a person has to basically register with the Convention officers or their vote won't be counted.
Simply, if restrictions are put on whose vote is not counted and whose is, such a restriction would have to be created by a vote (not sure if 1/2 or 2/3rd) as the status quo of the entire forum is that it is equally open to everyone (except a post count requirement for the Basement and a donation for the Loft.)
You could start a thread on that topic if you wish. Might be a good idea to do so. I oppose a closed Convention because I think then it will slowly die for lack of participation. I am confident the forum staff will not be supportive of a unique, small private club. But that's my opinion of it. You can have your opinion and an opposite one.
My real point is that the exclusionary rule was NEVER legitimately established, so it was proper for Sangha to consider the objection raised to it - and make it clear there is no such rule as an obvious parliamentary ruling. A rule not properly established is a rule not to be followed or enforced by officers. If you explore the history of the notion of excluding people first came, you would find my reflect of where the closed-door convention first originated is accurate. It was just asserted by one person somewhere along the way.
Could I just assert that no one who hasn't posted at least 1500 messages can not be a voting delegate - and if 2 or 3 others post messages agreeing that then is just the new rule? The very first messages on the poll about a convention repeatedly stated the convention would be for "everyone" to participate. Look back and you'll see that. That condition of the poll or this convention was never changed by any vote or even any motion considering the topic.
Any procedure to BLOCK or BAN anyone needs to legitimately established, be clear, upfront and known. Not just asserted by someone along the way.
As a comparison, the poll on how could a really bad, bad troll be blocked/ban has been laid out in detail:
1. It would have to be for severe trolling, baiting or flaming.
2. The person would have to be warned.
3. The person has a right to tell their side.
4. If the warnings failed, it would take the officers in agreement.
5. If they were, they would make a request to moderation staff.
6. Only moderator staff then could actually do the block/ban.
I think you would agree it would not be legitimate if I posted "let's not count OphanSlug's votes," 3 other members post they agree, and now your votes are disallowed. Yet that is how the exclusionary "rule" was just asserted into existence.
Nor do I make it any secret my own view that unless participation on the Convention is increased, rather than decreased, it will become so small and boring it will just fade away.
Sorry to be so long winded. You seem to have a legitimate concern and I'm telling my side of it, though I have no authority on this of course. I am one of the forum members who raised in numerous ways my "parliamentary objection" to the exclusionary rule just being asserted into existence by a few people in their messages. With that, the executive officer was correct in making his parliamentary ruling. However, to keep it "a Convention," he added a member would have to register as a delegate before their votes would be counted. It seemed reasonable to me.
This thread is like watching Star Wars fans debate Star Trek fans, and each side thinks it is really important.
And how is it a delegation if its open to anyone at anytime? The irony is that they are advocating for no rules while writing up the core documents of a nation-essentially they are saying anything goes that is the will of a few-thats not good enough.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?