Would this be agreeable to Convention Delegates?

[sangha]

Yeah, but you don't have this power that you're so desiring yet. Don't think I don't have an idea of who you already have in mind.



I'm sure you'd rush to welcome me. Lol.

And if the "officers" have a personal or ideological problem with someone? Keep in mind that everything you support happening to someone else, could happen to you.

Wait until everyone who doesn't toe the right line gets thrown out.

Ladies and Gentleman

Allow me to introduce you to Exhibit A

 

[X Factor]

Ladies and Gentleman

Allow me to introduce you to Exhibit A

I'd be first on your list, eh?

So much for "nobody's trying to stop you from participating".

 

[radioman]

And if the "officers" have a personal or ideological problem with someone? Keep in mind that everything you support happening to someone else, could happen to you.

This could happen.
Depends on whom the "officers" are.......I'm not certain of their identities at this moment.

 

[X Factor]

This could happen.
Depends on whom the "officers" are.......I'm not certain of their identities at this moment.

Exactly, that's all I'm saying.

 

[joko104]

Exactly, that's all I'm saying.

If the officers are only going to push their agenda there's no point to this anyway, is there? There is no difference between this and DMs in the basement or moderators upstairs EXCEPT more safeguards. This will take:
1. The officers in agreement, not just 1 DM or 1 moderator.
2. There has to be warning first.
3. There is the safeguard of then it takes a moderator to do so, who aren't going to go along with this for long if it becomes clear it is just one side's agenda.
4. This also just involves one sub-forum.

So this is a curious concern you have as there are safeguards that don't exist in the basement as any one DM can unilaterally take actions - and many actions that the officers can't do (can't move or change messages or threads nor close any thread down.)

What would your response be if someone was concerned DMs might be unfair? What is there response to those who claim mods are unfair? And DMs and Mods aren't elected either.

 

[joko104]

This could happen.
Depends on whom the "officers" are.......I'm not certain of their identities at this moment.

Currently they are Sangha (he's still prez) and Vasu. They are mostly ideological opposites - the safeguard of requiring agreement rather than unilateral action by just one. Any officers are elected, not appointed or just picked. So the 3rd officer also will be elected. If Sangha does resign, Vasu becomes prez and his replacement also elected.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Debate forums are supposed to have structure and form. Great discussions can be derailed by one person who ruins it for the rest. I would argue it actually enhances the quality of speech

 

[PirateMk1]

I understand that the moderation team has left you in a spot, however with your solution or just calling a vote by the delegation at large to control the matter at hand you may end up in a better position than if some one just gets thread banned by the mods, especially if you make the proceedings formal and public. This situation may work better for you than you might realize as of yet.

 

[PirateMk1]

If the officers are only going to push their agenda there's no point to this anyway, is there? There is no difference between this and DMs in the basement or moderators upstairs EXCEPT more safeguards. This will take:
1. The officers in agreement, not just 1 DM or 1 moderator.
2. There has to be warning first.
3. There is the safeguard of then it takes a moderator to do so, who aren't going to go along with this for long if it becomes clear it is just one side's agenda.
4. This also just involves one sub-forum.

So this is a curious concern you have as there are safeguards that don't exist in the basement as any one DM can unilaterally take actions - and many actions that the officers can't do (can't move or change messages or threads nor close any thread down.)

What would your response be if someone was concerned DMs might be unfair? What is there response to those who claim mods are unfair? And DMs and Mods aren't elected either.

I would suggest a vote by the delegation for removing disruptions, after a formal public thread were the charged can defend themselves if they can. Like I said to sangha this may work out better than you think.

 

[paddymcdougall]

I would suggest a vote by the delegation for removing disruptions, after a formal public thread were the charged can defend themselves if they can. Like I said to sangha this may work out better than you think.

I'm just imagining here... we'll have trolls on the formal threads, spend days discussing whether to remove someone, with endless quoting, thereby setting this exercise back even further.

If the officers remove people injudiciously, we can fire the officers.

 

[PirateMk1]

I'm just imagining here... we'll have trolls on the formal threads, spend days discussing whether to remove someone, with endless quoting, thereby setting this exercise back even further.

If the officers remove people injudiciously, we can fire the officers.

That works too.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

If we are all on the same track then trolls should not be a problem if we dont feed them. I would rather see a honor system rather than a penalty system. Since none of us are actually Mods we shouldnt pretend that we are. I say this because on boards like this moderation is done like a dictatorship because it has to be done that way. You cant have factions taking control of something owned and operated by someone else. I have seen the outcome of a loss of control of boards and it usually ends the site in one way or another.

Now this subforum is a micro version of a board. The main difference being that the DP dictatorship can close it with no warning if it causes too much trouble for them. And who could blame them if that were the case? So creating out own system of discipline will strain our relationship with those that can end this project in a instant.

I suggest that we just as members stick to a code of debate ethic, and not to feed the trolls. Perhaps label each thread as either a official discussion or not. If you want a official debate put official in the title. Polls should only be started by the officers after discussion on the subject.

And why are we calling ourselves delegates? Delegates of whom, the internet?

 

[joko104]

I would suggest a vote by the delegation for removing disruptions, after a formal public thread were the charged can defend themselves if they can. Like I said to sangha this may work out better than you think.

No moderator is agreeable to what you suggest so it is not even a prospect. But it understandable why they wouldn't.

Such a thread to vote on block members (not just delegates, the real problem will come from people who are just posting for attention whoring insult messages) would basically just become a basement thread, ie an insult thread. This would not be voting to remove someone for bad ideas on constitutional issues. It would be about someone who is doing nothing but posting pointless harassment messages having nothing to do with the constitution, just rank trolling and spamming.

In the days of that voting thread, the person could be posting walls of pointless photos and pointless cut and paste junk, and a thousand other troll messages. If you've even been on unmoderated forums you'd understand the concern. It isn't about a delegate posting opinions people really don't like. It is about what if someone is just troll attacking the Convention threads just for the fun of doing so?

 

[joko104]

I'm just imagining here... we'll have trolls on the formal threads, spend days discussing whether to remove someone, with endless quoting, thereby setting this exercise back even further.

If the officers remove people injudiciously, we can fire the officers.

That's it. In addition, if the officers are just going off on their own personal thing, the mods won't go along with that for long. It still takes a mod for the final action. Officers elected. Takes warnings first. Takes officers in agreement. Takes a mod. That is vastly more safeguards than anywhere else on the forum.

Hopefully, the moderators won't withdraw this offer to have some means to keep trolls only trying to derail the Convention from wrecking it.

 

[joko104]

If we are all on the same track then trolls should not be a problem if we dont feed them. I would rather see a honor system rather than a penalty system. Since none of us are actually Mods we shouldnt pretend that we are. I say this because on boards like this moderation is done like a dictatorship because it has to be done that way. You cant have factions taking control of something owned and operated by someone else. I have seen the outcome of a loss of control of boards and it usually ends the site in one way or another.

Now this subforum is a micro version of a board. The main difference being that the DP dictatorship can close it with no warning if it causes too much trouble for them. And who could blame them if that were the case? So creating out own system of discipline will strain our relationship with those that can end this project in a instant.

I suggest that we just as members stick to a code of debate ethic, and not to feed the trolls. Perhaps label each thread as either a official discussion or not. If you want a official debate put official in the title. Polls should only be started by the officers after discussion on the subject.

And why are we calling ourselves delegates? Delegates of whom, the internet?

First, there is no way to limit it whatsoever, is there? Anyone who joins the forum can post on any thread, not just delegates. It has always been that way and always will. So there is no honor system among delegates as it isn't just delegates - and the severe problems won't be coming from delegates. It will come from the 15 year old teenager who joins the forum and figures out he can post as much of any raging and insulting crap he wants to in the Convention threads - with absolutely no way to ever stop it.

And when he is told about the "code of debate ethics" he just posts 500 pictures and messages telling everyone to STFU and are "moronic f...gots" - and everything and anything else he wants to post as his disruptive punk attention whoring - getting off on people raging back at him - ENDLESSLY.

As for the delegates voting on who to remove? No moderator has stated willingness to go along with that so it isn't even a prospect. The only thing we can do is what staff will allow. They are NOT going to allow what is known will become removal hate-threads, as that is what those votes would be about ultimately.

Understand, at any time the moderator staff could change their mind and withdraw this offer. Its all we got, folks. That's why it's a YES or NO poll. There no other options available.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

First, there is no way to limit it whatsoever, is there? Anyone who joins the forum can post on any thread, not just delegates. It has always been that way and always will. So there is no honor system among delegates as it isn't just delegates - and the severe problems won't be coming from delegates. It will come from the 15 year old teenager who joins the forum and figures out he can post as much of any raging and insulting crap he wants to in the Convention threads - with absolutely no way to ever stop it.

And when he is told about the "code of debate ethics" he just posts 500 pictures and messages telling everyone to STFU and are "moronic f...gots" - and everything and anything else he wants to post as his disruptive punk attention whoring - getting off on people raging back at him - ENDLESSLY.

As for the delegates voting on who to remove? No moderator has stated willingness to go along with that so it isn't even a prospect. The only thing we can do is what staff will allow. They are NOT going to allow what is known will become removal hate-threads, as that is what those votes would be about ultimately.

Understand, at any time the moderator staff could change their mind and withdraw this offer. Its all we got, folks. That's why it's a YES or NO poll. There no other options available.

Of course any poster can say whatever, but we dont need to take all them seriously. Personally I just block those that annoy me. And the 15 year old types that you mentioned get onto that list. No need to even acknowledge such people.

But an occasional heated debate will be par for course with such touchy and final decisions to be made. I would hate for judgements to made over the inevitable frustrations that come with this project. Some people are adult enough to debate some are not and it is easy to tell the difference.

 

[joko104]

Of course any poster can say whatever, but we dont need to take all them seriously. Personally I just block those that annoy me. And the 15 year old types that you mentioned get onto that list. No need to even acknowledge such people.

But an occasional heated debate will be par for course with such touchy and final decisions to be made. I would hate for judgements to made over the inevitable frustrations that come with this project. Some people are adult enough to debate some are not and it is easy to tell the difference.

Heated debates are expected and not a problem. Understandably, moderators do not want to have to read thru and follow all of that - and then try to police it with warnings, thread bans, infractions etc - plus quickly people are raging the moderators are unfair, playing favorites and so forth.

Arguments and debates will get heated. But are they related to issues or just someone who jumped in who isn't even a delegate just ranting, insulting and trolling stalking members just for kicks.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Heated debates are expected and not a problem. Understandably, moderators do not want to have to read thru and follow all of that - and then try to police it with warnings, thread bans, infractions etc - plus quickly people are raging the moderators are unfair, playing favorites and so forth.

Arguments and debates will get heated. But are they related to issues or just someone who jumped in who isn't even a delegate just ranting, insulting and trolling stalking members just for kicks.

You make this project sound impossible.

 

[paddymcdougall]

You make this project sound impossible.

Not at all. He's just separating heated legitimate debate from trolling. I think we all know it when we see it.

 

[joko104]

You make this project sound impossible.

Not at all. Actually, it simplistic.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Not at all. He's just separating heated legitimate debate from trolling. I think we all know it when we see it.

Lol that was the point that I was trying to make.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Lol that was the point that I was trying to make.

great, then we're all onboard. Unless you think separating legitimate debate from trolling is hard to do.

 

[sangha]

If the officers are only going to push their agenda there's no point to this anyway, is there? There is no difference between this and DMs in the basement or moderators upstairs EXCEPT more safeguards. This will take:
1. The officers in agreement, not just 1 DM or 1 moderator.
2. There has to be warning first.
3. There is the safeguard of then it takes a moderator to do so, who aren't going to go along with this for long if it becomes clear it is just one side's agenda.
4. This also just involves one sub-forum.

So this is a curious concern you have as there are safeguards that don't exist in the basement as any one DM can unilaterally take actions - and many actions that the officers can't do (can't move or change messages or threads nor close any thread down.)

What would your response be if someone was concerned DMs might be unfair? What is there response to those who claim mods are unfair? And DMs and Mods aren't elected either.

Pay no attention to X. He doesn't give a damn about the convention. He's only posting here because he's obsessed with me. If you doubt that, go read his last few posts

 

[US Conservative]

Pay no attention to X. He doesn't give a damn about the convention. He's only posting here because he's obsessed with me. If you doubt that, go read his last few posts

Step down asap.

 

[sangha]

Step down asap.

I want to thank you for convincing me to stay on for just a little bit longer because you reminded me that there is one important task I need to complete before I resign my office.

Care to guess what it is?

I am delaying my resignation. I will remain in office until Vasuda returns and a VP takes office and we take care of one last thing that needs to be addressed before I resign