The Board Rules

All things related to the general running of the forum - got a suggestion? Here's where it should go.

I agree with the board rules

Yes.
18
90%
No.
2
10%
 
Total votes: 20

User avatar
The Hen
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:56 am

Re: The Board Rules

Post by The Hen »

Cool. Perhaps it is about time with set parameters concerning the Board.
Bah!

Image

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Board Rules

Post by Lord Jim »

I share Hen's view....

The vote is slightly under 2/3 with 20 people having voted...(6 people fewer than voted in the suspension poll)

At this point, 13 people have voted to ban someone permanently; the ultimate sanction that can be imposed on someone in a forum of this sort (21 voted for the suspension)

I would argue that at the least, these results would indicate that the poll ought to be left open a while longer, (perhaps to see what sort of affect the expression of views has...so far at least, it seems to me that since this poll was set up , the behavior that led to it's creation appears to be in abeyance....

Whether or not that will continue of course, is anyone's guess....

But if it does, that might lead some folks who voted yes to change their vote to no, (and/or for more who haven't voted yet to vote no)

And conversely, if the behavior starts up again, the opposite could happen....

In which case there'd be the sort of overwhelming mandate for banning that there was for the suspension....

And while the margin now is not inconsiderable, when considering the gravity of the sanction it seems to me you really want to have a sort of broad consensus, on the same level of the vote that accompanied the suspension.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20703
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The Board Rules

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Scooter wrote:The analogies you are drawing are specious. Democratic processes were used to establish the structures that came to the decisions you cite as examples, precisely because in a society of thousands or millions of people, direct democracy cannot work. What do you suggest, that we select from among us members to sit as legislators and judges? If not, then what process, other than direct democracy, do you claim will work better here?

As to your allegations that I am planning to use this case as some sort of a precedent to initiate polls to ban other posters, let me remind you that in the only other poll proposing to ban a poster, I expressed my very forceful opposition in spite of the fact, and it is no secret to anyone, that it involved someone with whom I had a longstanding acrimonious relationship and who I would have very much preferred would just disappear, but the circumstances, in my opinion, did not warrant a ban and I said as much. I, and obviously many others, view the current case differently, as evident by the wide disparity in result between the two polls.

I categorically reject the implication that I or anyone who voted yes in the poll in question were making use of democracy as some sort of pretext, or that we made our decision lightly and without regard to its implications. But I am not going to refrain from supporting a course of action which I believe to be correct today, because someone might use that course of action in an inappropriate way tomorrow.

As to only admins initiating polls on board operations, I fail to see the logic. Surely an idea wil or will not be seen by the membership as worthy of support regardless of whether it is proposed by an admin or some other member. I suspect this proposal derives more from disapproval of the poll question, the result and the poster who created it, than it does from any principle that admins are somehow more "worthy" than anyone else when it comes to starting polls.
Oh just take a chill pill will ya? You find implications where none exist. The analogies are appropriate enough - we all agree that might does not make right. Thoreau said that any man more right than his neighbours consistutes a majority of one - or something like that. Or was it Paul Theroux? One of them dudes.

My suggestion - which I thought was clear enough - is that if (for example) there should be grounds to ban a person such a serious POLL could only be initiated by the admins after they chew it over a bit. The impetus to have such a POLL could come from a THREAD started by a poster asking if such an action is appropriate. And yes, I object to posters starting polls seeking to get a person banned. Nothing to do with who was the poster or who was the identified victim. And no I don't think "admins" are more "worthy" - I think they are "admins" and that posters are not. If it's not a good idea, then OK

I was making what we earthlings call a JOKE about you and rubato starting a poll to chuck me out based merely on our jointly acknowledged antipathy - hence the smiley (smilie?)

I am glad to see that a simple majority is NOT regarded as being a sufficient ground for action - so evidently 'democracy' doesn't always have its way? I think that's why referendums(da) are not highly regarded in most countries - more "worthy" ideas tend to rule them out

I say again in case it's not clear - if my suggestion is not a good one, then fair enough - that's OK by me. I am pleased the discussion has been carried on

And LJ - it is equally false to assume there is no slippery slope. Review Adolf Hitler's career and explain how "restraint" worked so well.

Meade

Edit: 1 spling eror and one word duplicated and now deleted
Last edited by MajGenl.Meade on Tue May 08, 2012 6:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: The Board Rules

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

Lord Jim wrote:I'm sorry oldr, but there was just way too much common sense in that post....
How about "UN"common sense? :ok
from your friendly neighborhood alcoholic ;)

ETA
And for the record, I don't vote in polls, but for reasons given I would say no to banning. I think the members should police the offender, but do it civily and politely. We shouldn't fan the flames with name calling and the like. Just ask politely for the person to stop being/doing whater it is htey are doing. of course I'm not the one on hte receiving end but I would like to think if I was I would take the "high road". Treat others and all that even if they are not returning the favor. And/or just recite the serenity prayer a thousands times ;)

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: The Board Rules

Post by Andrew D »

Scooter wrote:Democratic processes were used to establish the structures ....
No. At least, not in the US. In the US, anti-democratic processes determine the relevant structures.

In the US, the people of the State of Wyoming -- who number fewer than the people of the City and County of San Francisco -- are represented by two US Senators. The people of the State of California -- who number some 68 times the people of the State of Wyoming -- are also represented by two US Senators. That is not democracy.

The people of the State of California are represented in the House of Representatives by some 52 times the number of Representatives representing the State of Wyoming. But the people of California number some 68 times the people of the State of Wyoming. That is not democracy.

The President is chosen by the Electoral College. Each State is represented in the Electoral College by the sum of its number of Senators and its number of Representatives. As against the people of the State of Wyoming, the people of the State of California are grossly under-represented in the Senate and even (and, in my opinion, unconstitutionally) under-represented in the House of Representatives. So the people of the State of California are under-represented in the choice of the President. That is not democracy.

The Justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the anti-democratically chosen President and confirmed by the (wildly) anti-democratic Senate. That is not democracy.

More fundamentally, the courts exist as a forum in which a single person can assert her or his rights against the majority, no matter how large that majority may be. That is quintessentially not democracy.

If you want democracy, then come out and declare yourself an advocate of the tyranny of the majority. But if you think that even those in the minority should have their say, then abandon your reliance on democracy. The choice is straightforward enough.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20703
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The Board Rules

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

:ok
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: The Board Rules

Post by Gob »

Andrew D wrote: The Justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the anti-democratically chosen President and confirmed by the (wildly) anti-democratic Senate. That is not democracy.

More fundamentally, the courts exist as a forum in which a single person can assert her or his rights against the majority, no matter how large that majority may be. That is quintessentially not democracy.

If you want democracy, then come out and declare yourself an advocate of the tyranny of the majority. But if you think that even those in the minority should have their say, then abandon your reliance on American style "democracy". The choice is straightforward enough.
Fixed :lol:
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Board Rules

Post by Lord Jim »

Say Strop....

When was the last time that the Parliamentary party that "won" a national election in either the UK or Australia, and formed the government, actually got a majority of the votes cast?

Has it ever happened?

Just curious.... :P
ImageImageImage

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20703
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The Board Rules

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Gob you missed the point anyway. AD asserts that there is no such thing as "democracy". If it were so, then the majority would simply rule and the minority would never have the power of change. In the USA, there is no such thing as "majority rules - end of story". Nor is that so in the UK and Australia and so on.

The USA is not a democracy but a republic utilising democratic forms. Australia and the UK are parliamentary systems which also utilize democratic forms.

In a way, I believe AD provides support for what I said - in society rule by pure democracy is rejected by the same people who seemed (at least initially) to believe that the board should be run as a pure democracy. It isn't and it shouldn't be.

In the end, even a "clear majority" is subject to review by the worthy Admins (and rightly so) to determine whether a "popular" change should be implemented if it unreasonably impinges upon a minority right

Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: The Board Rules

Post by Gob »

Oh you two! So serious, so so serious..... :loon :nana
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20703
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The Board Rules

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Whoops - caught! Oh well, back to scanning Youtube and pining for the Archers
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Board Rules

Post by Lord Jim »

You like Mumbles Cohen and Cricket, Gen'l....

The Archers should be right up your street....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20703
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The Board Rules

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Well you can see the attraction mate... here's a complete episode from September 1958

"Aarh hello there LJ (puff puff). Hey, what's the matter with Judy?"

"Nothing Walter - she's just barking because she didn't see you standing there by that stile."

"Aaaaaarh, well she should've know me by the smell of me pipe oi'd say" (puff puff)

"Walter. Am I so predictable you knew which way I'd go? Have you been looking for pheasants"

"Oh aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrhhhhhhh. Birds - wrong toime of day for birds LJ. Thought you'd know that."

"Well being a totally brilliant person, I do. Now what do you want?"

"AAAAAaaaaaaaarrrrrghhhhaaaaaargh, well that moight be telling (wink) but I was wondering, just wondering
if you knew of any problems with Leonard Cohen and if you needed help?"

"As far as I know Walter, Christine and Paul are going to the concert and I shall say as far away as possible. London perhaps"

"Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh only Mrs Oglethorpe has seen Paul's car parked outside a Miley Cyrus concert - more than once!"

"Well I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt Walter. Don't you?"

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggg"

rumpty tumpty tumpty tum
rumpty tumpty tum tum
rumpty tumpty tiddley tum
rumpety tumpety tum
tum tee tiddle ee
tum tee tiddle ee
rumpty tiddley tum
rumpty tumpty tiddley tum
rumpety tumpety tum
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: The Board Rules

Post by Andrew D »

Gob wrote:
Andrew D wrote: The Justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the anti-democratically chosen President and confirmed by the (wildly) anti-democratic Senate. That is not democracy.

More fundamentally, the courts exist as a forum in which a single person can assert her or his rights against the majority, no matter how large that majority may be. That is quintessentially not democracy.

If you want democracy, then come out and declare yourself an advocate of the tyranny of the majority. But if you think that even those in the minority should have their say, then abandon your reliance on American-style or Australian-style or UK-style or German-style or French-style or ... "democracy". The choice is straightforward enough.
Fixed :lol:
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
alice
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: The Board Rules

Post by alice »

I wrote a post this afternoon.
It was as very long and thoughtfully cosidered post and was written in and around my ever-busy world.
It included a couple of relevant quotes from the thread I was writing in, and also a quote from something 'off board' which was intended to support the point/s I was making.
I put my heart and soul into the post, dammit.
Well ... not quite. But I fart-arsed around with it for ages.
And then ... and then
I'm sure I hit preview and checked it. I'm reasonably certain that I would have, because I usually do this before I post. And I usually end up with a bit of
tweaking' required, especially if it's a long post with quotes and stuff.
And after tweaking I would hit the preview again to make sure it tweaked properly.
... and then
I hit 'post'.
.... and it came up with a message that said "you have to log on before you can quote'
:-( :-(
But ... I was logged on
Except that now I wasn't. And it had taken me to the log on sceen.
So I quicky logged back - maybe it was preserved and waitying for me??
No ... it 'preserved' one of the forum quotes I'd used, but none of the rest.

And it wore my brainpower, forum time and energy out doing it the first time, so I can't redo.


Should have done it in "word" first, I know, but I was only going to do a short post and then i just got carried away with it all, and in my unbridled emthusiasm .... lost the lot.

:( :(


(Why doesn't it recognise the keystroke activity as board activity and keep you logged in?)


end of whinge. I just wanted to have a public tantrum over it. :beat
Life is like photography. You use the negative to develop.

User avatar
The Hen
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:56 am

Re: The Board Rules

Post by The Hen »

That happens all the time on my I-device.

I now always select all and copy before I hit the submit button these days.
Bah!

Image

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: The Board Rules

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

Networks are funny things. Only your computer recognises keystrokes and keeps the screen saver or sleep mode from happening. Networks also have these types of "sleep" features and recognises that if you are not accessing the network for a while, it shuts you off. Then when you are ready to "transmit/receive" network data does it reconnect you. of course all of this happens without you knowing/being alerted to it

When you are writing a post, it is done locally. That is all interaction is done directly on your computer. The posting page from planB is stored on your computer and you are filling in the blanks. If it takes a long time, then the network you are on, times out as you have had no activity requiring data exchange from the internet. PlanB seems to log you off if your network connection with it is severed for a certain amount of time. So when you hit "post" after composing a lengthy post, chances are your network connection has timed out and with that, planB has figured you are no longer accesing the board and logs you off automatically.

Moral of the story, before submitting any post, highlight and "control c" (copy) the post then submit. This way if you need to, you can log back in, find the thread/post you were responding to and then hit "control v" and paste what you just copied.

I too have had ome lengthy posts disappear into oblivian and learned my lesson.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Board Rules

Post by Lord Jim »

It's the kiss i=of death...

From Mr. Gold Finger.....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Board Rules

Post by Lord Jim »

It's the kiss of death...

From Mr. Gold Finger.....
ImageImageImage

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: The Board Rules

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

Stutter much?

Post Reply