Without rules and structure then you have no grounds to complain about trolls, it is that plain and simply. Not only are the rules needed but without any structure we look like a bunch of idiots. Your point in resigning is what? Because you fear the placement in the games forum will open the doors to trolls? So to combat that we have no rules? And then we just pretend that all will be well?
Without rules and structure then you have no grounds to complain about trolls, it is that plain and simply.
What was NEVER voted on was YOU just DECLARING that everyone who didn't vote yes in a poll about starting a convention would forever be banned from voting in it. YOU show me ANYWHERE where that radical desire of yours to have a private little club excluding 100% of new members and over 99.5% of existing members was EVER voted on?
You can't. Your messages now seem a fury that, upon review, it was decided as a Parliamentary decision that NO, you were never CZAR of the forum and NO, the rule was NEVER properly created.
What you are complaining of is what you did! Just declared rules with no authority whatsoever to do so.
Yes, within forum rules, allowances of forum staff, and what forum software allows, the delegates and officers can make this Convention what WE wish it to be. What doesn't happen is that YOU just declare who's in and who's out. You tried that, got away with it for a while too, until it realized what was really going on. Now you go on and on complaining that you didn't get away with what was ultimately torpedoing the Convention by assuring it would die for lack of participation.
While I am posting politely to you, the core motive of your now repetitious messages continues to seem to be simply to wreck the convention once it clear you don't control it afterall.
Which committee rule are you referring to?
You could say that about the entire convention. :lol:
The members voted on priorities, and setting rules came in third place so it is third on the list, not first
But if you ever get elected President, feel free to overrule the wishes of the members and declare a vote irrelevant and then do whatever you want
The entire constitutional convention committee. Glad to see you in the thread-care to address who gave you the authority to unilaterally admit new members as you see fit? Where was that voted on?
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.
The entire constitutional convention committee. Glad to see you in the thread-care to address who gave you the authority to unilaterally admit new members as you see fit? Where was that voted on?
You could say that about the entire convention. :lol:
I am a member. There was never any legitimate basis to excluding anyone, despite how many times you declare that you make all the rules and you decide who is in and who is out. You wanted to be the all powerful big deal, but you aren't and folks know it. In fact, from the start, I've been more involved in these topics than you. Mostly, by my raising objections to the junk you were trying to establish by your edicts - which are worthless and have no effect.
You tried to take over the Convention. You tried to lock virtually everyone out to kill it - and you lost as you should have. You have NEVER had ANY standing to declare who may or may not be in the Convention, have you?
IOW, if you think a rule makes sense, it's OK for someone to impose it unilaterally without a vote.
But only if *you* think it makes sense.
Good question, made worse by actually getting to designing a new Constitution.
No, there is a poll, forum staff defined in general, whereby:
1. Flaming, baiting and trolling in a severe disruptive manner is prohibited.
2. If so, officers may issue warning.
3. Certainly members can report this to officers.
4. The member being warned can tell their side, including on the warning thread.
5. If that member continues to violate that rule after warnings and their side, the officers can decide if action in necessary.
6. If the officers (not one officer) decide that person is only being disruptive and violation the rule, they can ask a moderator to block the person.
7. The final authority then is a moderator - a power all moderators have anyway.
Why that procedure? Because that is the procedure defined and offered by forum staff. You may not like it, but for the entire forum, ALL final decisions and all rules are by the forum staff, not us.
You can form a committee, but the final say is forum staff like always, not any non-staff committee. If you don't like how that works, there is a board in the basement to complain of forum staff structure and authority. It would break Global Forum rules to do it on Convention thread.
Did you vote yes or no in that poll? If you voted no, then don't grumble about lack of rules.
Joko, you are not a member, I dont see where you have voted in the past or been included, and as this is not open to public voting (at least that will be counted), and as your admission would effect every other member, I dont see how the president can admit you as he pleases.
But if you ever get elected President, feel free to overrule the wishes of the members and declare a vote irrelevant and then do whatever you want
First of all its not only me, second of all it was you seeking to impose the addition of new members without a vote-and that effects the entire forum. Thats not good enough and you are undermining the entire process. This is why you should step down asap.
That's NOT the issue. The issue is when was it ever voted on to exclude anyone? The answer is never. YOU declaring basically everyone is excluded never made that a rule. You can post the same over and over, but that rule was never established, a parliamentary objection was raised, and Sangha ruled - basically that no, YOU are not the rules committee.
There are 330,000,000 people in the USA. What is it now, 7,000,000,000 billion people in the world?.
How many are members of the DP forum? Of those, how many have said they want to be delegates? Why isn't that exclusive enough for you?
What purpose do you see in 9 to 11 people declaring they have written a Constitution and Bill of Rights?
The reason US Conservative declared the exclusionary rule of basically everyone - contradicting what the poll said which was "everyone" - came about when it was clear in an officer's election that he was not going to be elected,.
So then decided to destroy the Convention by so limiting who can involve to almost nobody nor anyone new - and now it seems also by posting endless messages lamenting how unfair it is that he isn't totally in control - as a retaliation for being rejected in officer's elections. If he can't control it totally, he wants to kill it. No surprise from him about that to those highly active on the forum aware of his typical behavior.
So you won't tell us which committee rule was broken?
That means no rules were broken
If you can't identify any rules that were broken, then I'm ruling this entire thread "Out of Order", consistent with Robert's Rules of Order
Since no one can identify any rule that has been broken, I am declaring this thread Out of Order and requesting that members ignore it
Since no one can identify any rule that has been broken, I am declaring this thread Out of Order and requesting that members ignore it
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?