SR did you ever admit to being wrong?
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Immanuel said:
Immie, you must be one of those type people who lives for what you get out of things. You simply can't understand doing something for the principle, unless it also involves something beneficial to yourself. This was not about me "saving you" or being your "White Knight" dumbass. It was about principle. There was no "conspiracy" except to effect change. I think we accomplished our goal in that regard. There has definitely been change.
I've always had this problem with standing on my principles when I am right, and I don't back down, it doesn't really matter about personal gain, or being liked. If it mattered to me about being liked, like it apparently does for you, I would have probably not chosen "Dixie" as my moniker. I am a defiant, hard-nosed, never-say-die rebel who refuses to back down. If the cause is worth it, I'll die fighting it, because that is just how I am. I think I might have been born that way, I don't know.
I've had a long history of standing up for what I believe in, and I am very accustomed to resistance, and at-home with being attacked for my opinions. It really doesn't bother me in the least, which is why I think it's funny that you are so wrapped up in my "obvious need for attention" or whatever. I think YOU are the one who seeks attention. You weren't over here 5 minutes until you were bugging Damo to fix this and do that... while you bounced back over to kiss on SiR some more and make nice with him too..... heaven knows, wouldn't want anyone mad at Immie!
SR_
Junior Member
Immanuel said:
you miss the point.
if no one agreed then that would have been great. I mean if we had no trolls that would have been perfect. At least the debate and representation would have honestly worked to stop that. I think everyone would have agreed on taking out personal info.
BUT debating the merits wasnt important to a scumbag who JUST WANTED IT CHANGED OR REMOVED.
This isnt complicated. If members of the council didnt agree then thats one thing. If a member was only looking at which way to vote TO MAKE SURE that it never worked thats another.
Do you see the difference?
Why do you think it had to be done in secret? Why would people vote for someone to the council who had no intention other than to make sure it always was gridlocked, no matter what issue, no matter what thats the only goal.
How come congressmen dont campaign on the platform that they want to take bribes? because who would elect someone who's only intention is for malicious purposes?
Thats the point. I honestly DID NOT WANT a lot of actions to be taken, that was the point, it had to be something really really bad for EVERYONE from all sides to agree. But it wouldnt even have been given a chance to work if someone is going to be deceitful and vote in dissent for the sheer purpose of making certain it doesnt work.
And ill tell you what. IT wouldnt have mattered how we elect them, if its in a persons heart to do such things than it is, there is no system to prevent people from being assholes.
SR
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Immanuel said:
yahayaah waahyaaa yaa. I wegisterd b4 yeeeewwwwww... nanan nana boo booo....
So ya did, Ims, so ya did.
To SR:
So again.. I'm banned and he isn't becaauuuse . . .?
Not that I want dixie banned, I am just saying...it's pretty evident I got banned because I took you to school.
So again.. I'm banned and he isn't becaauuuse . . .?
Not that I want dixie banned, I am just saying...it's pretty evident I got banned because I took you to school.
Immanuel
Junior Member
SR_ said:
That is all well and good. And you promised a new vote every 4 months I think you said. So, if it didn't work the first time then the offender (and his mates) could have been voted off and life would have gone on.
Yes, the "conspiracy" was active. So what? And so what if they had won? I thought and still do that they were playing games with it at first. I mean Lady T registering as a conservative? We talked on site about people registering as one party or another to affect a vote in a primary election. Big deal.
I'm sorry that I don't see your experiment as having a major effect on the site and if a conspirator won and blocked all actions then it was your fault for requiring an unanimous vote. I said that from the beginning. I respected your wishes and moved on. I have lobbied for an individual ignore feature for a long time. You vetoed it at every attempt. I respected your wishes and waited for another opportunity. I do not understand everything you are attempting to accomplish with the SC. I don't care. I took a wait and see attitude from the very beginning.
Maybe I don't see the full picture you are looking to accomplish, but I don't find it to be a major roadblock in any manner whatsoever.
You call them scumbags. I don't see it that way. I saw them as attempting to accomplish a set of goals by following the rules. You set up the parameters and when this all started they were trying to follow your rules. You didn't like their motives. I didn't think they were out to hurt you at first, at all. Later I felt they got pissed and began to attack you.
Maybe, I am missing something, but I don't find your SC to be all that powerful or all that important.
Immie
SR_
Junior Member
did you ever just stop and think, ya know, this board isnt mine, its just a message forum its not worth all this effort to try and prove that im better than SR?
i mean just a little self restraint grind. I know that you wish that everyone thought i was some evil unethical monster reading everyones u2u's, i guess that might make you feel better about yourself, i just dont know, i mean you put so much time and energy into it not to mention the energy you put into ruining the board features. you have friends here that support you, they think youre a stand up guy... but i think me and you know differently.
All i know is that you can do so on your own time and not on my dime.
SR
i mean just a little self restraint grind. I know that you wish that everyone thought i was some evil unethical monster reading everyones u2u's, i guess that might make you feel better about yourself, i just dont know, i mean you put so much time and energy into it not to mention the energy you put into ruining the board features. you have friends here that support you, they think youre a stand up guy... but i think me and you know differently.
All i know is that you can do so on your own time and not on my dime.
SR
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why do you think it had to be done in secret?
Hmmm, could it have had anything to do with your continued threats to ban anyone who dared to "destroy your property" in that way?
Uhmm, I think I speak for everyone who remained incognito, it was because of your insipid behavior and unreasonable attitude, that we chose to discuss the matter privately. Nothing that would have or could have been done, would have been any violation of your system in any way, as it was established. There was nothing in your rules to prevent what we were doing, in fact, it was your own system that enabled us to do it.
That's where your problems began. You should have thanked me for showing you how your little "factional divisions" were exploitable given a common purpose amongst your membership, and made the proper changes, but instead, you decided to become defensive and arrogant and insisted on selling the board this lie about how we wanted to destroy you.
I am shocked you carried it to the extreme you did, but it was clearly of your own accord. I didn't make you choose the paths you took in breaking your own rules, while banning people who never came close to breaking your rules. I wasn't parading around the board calling people idiots and morons because they didn't agree with me. Despite the spectacle that you made of yourself, there are still SiR Ass Monkeys out there, singing your tune... feeding your ego... creating boogie men out of me! Ownership has it's rewards, I suppose.
Life goes on.
Hmmm, could it have had anything to do with your continued threats to ban anyone who dared to "destroy your property" in that way?
Uhmm, I think I speak for everyone who remained incognito, it was because of your insipid behavior and unreasonable attitude, that we chose to discuss the matter privately. Nothing that would have or could have been done, would have been any violation of your system in any way, as it was established. There was nothing in your rules to prevent what we were doing, in fact, it was your own system that enabled us to do it.
That's where your problems began. You should have thanked me for showing you how your little "factional divisions" were exploitable given a common purpose amongst your membership, and made the proper changes, but instead, you decided to become defensive and arrogant and insisted on selling the board this lie about how we wanted to destroy you.
I am shocked you carried it to the extreme you did, but it was clearly of your own accord. I didn't make you choose the paths you took in breaking your own rules, while banning people who never came close to breaking your rules. I wasn't parading around the board calling people idiots and morons because they didn't agree with me. Despite the spectacle that you made of yourself, there are still SiR Ass Monkeys out there, singing your tune... feeding your ego... creating boogie men out of me! Ownership has it's rewards, I suppose.
Life goes on.
SR_
Junior Member
immie,
your approach was all i expected from anyone. Dont be fooled dude, there was no ethical reason to try and do what they did. It was all for malicious purposes, if it wasnt why not come out and say "elect brent, hes gonna provide gridlock on the council so we can change it". Thats what people with principles do immie, come on anything thats thats justifiable based on principles need not be done in secret.
thats why dixie wasnt banned. I established that anyone who trying to change the board by destroying the feature would be banned. In my estimation that was enough for him to abandon it, grind just couldnt accept that and he took it too far. If 8 honest people got elected and it just didnt work i wouldve changed it. But in order to fix something thats broken it needs an honest opportunity to work. Its like your friend telling you that you need to go fix your brand new car, you ask him why, and he walks over and takes a baseball bat to the windshield and says "because something is wrong with your windsheild".
SR
your approach was all i expected from anyone. Dont be fooled dude, there was no ethical reason to try and do what they did. It was all for malicious purposes, if it wasnt why not come out and say "elect brent, hes gonna provide gridlock on the council so we can change it". Thats what people with principles do immie, come on anything thats thats justifiable based on principles need not be done in secret.
thats why dixie wasnt banned. I established that anyone who trying to change the board by destroying the feature would be banned. In my estimation that was enough for him to abandon it, grind just couldnt accept that and he took it too far. If 8 honest people got elected and it just didnt work i wouldve changed it. But in order to fix something thats broken it needs an honest opportunity to work. Its like your friend telling you that you need to go fix your brand new car, you ask him why, and he walks over and takes a baseball bat to the windshield and says "because something is wrong with your windsheild".
SR
SR_
Junior Member
"Hmmm, could it have had anything to do with your continued threats to ban anyone who dared to "destroy your property" in that way?"
yeah dixie, i guess in order to inspire you not to be a scumbag you needed to be aware of what would happen.
whats your point?
'That's where your problems began. You should have thanked me for showing you how your little "factional divisions" were exploitable given a common purpose amongst your membership, and made the proper changes, but instead, you decided to become defensive and arrogant and insisted on selling the board this lie about how we wanted to destroy you."
everything is exploitable if people want to act without ethics and be scumbags. you demonstrated that with you little tirade involving desh and the US constitution.
SR
yeah dixie, i guess in order to inspire you not to be a scumbag you needed to be aware of what would happen.
whats your point?
'That's where your problems began. You should have thanked me for showing you how your little "factional divisions" were exploitable given a common purpose amongst your membership, and made the proper changes, but instead, you decided to become defensive and arrogant and insisted on selling the board this lie about how we wanted to destroy you."
everything is exploitable if people want to act without ethics and be scumbags. you demonstrated that with you little tirade involving desh and the US constitution.
SR
For me the entire thing is a practice in micropolitics.
In actual politics there are factions of people that will work together to gain representation as well, especially on a strong city board... Those people will work to get in position to block legislation from an opponent constantly. There was nothing out of the ordinary. And they even did what you described, SR, stating that they would U2U and work a campaign to get elected, etc...
Their agenda was outside what you expected, but it was all in the framework of what you had set up. I was fascinated, and still am by the SC and want to see it in play. Especially when you made changes to a Majority vote over unanimity. I wouldn't have gone quite to that extreme. In micropolitics those people who work against the very system itself can only win one or two seats otherwise, like any other representative society, it will fail. A supermajority vote would be enough. I'd go for a 9 member Council and require a vote of 6 or 7 to change it if I were implementing such a system.
Of course I'm not...
In actual politics there are factions of people that will work together to gain representation as well, especially on a strong city board... Those people will work to get in position to block legislation from an opponent constantly. There was nothing out of the ordinary. And they even did what you described, SR, stating that they would U2U and work a campaign to get elected, etc...
Their agenda was outside what you expected, but it was all in the framework of what you had set up. I was fascinated, and still am by the SC and want to see it in play. Especially when you made changes to a Majority vote over unanimity. I wouldn't have gone quite to that extreme. In micropolitics those people who work against the very system itself can only win one or two seats otherwise, like any other representative society, it will fail. A supermajority vote would be enough. I'd go for a 9 member Council and require a vote of 6 or 7 to change it if I were implementing such a system.
Of course I'm not...
Immanuel
Junior Member
SR_ said:
First off, they acted in "secret" because that was the only method to converse on a one on one basis. How would you have suggested they discuss the issue and the solutions together? They were working for a "so-called" cause. Was that a crime?
Our politicians meet behind closed doors everyday to strategize even to get particular individuals elected. Is that a crime? Is that corrupt?
I have absolutely no problem with them meeting behind closed doors. Would you have had a problem if I had met with 4 others, behind closed doors, to support you and counter their plans? How about if I had attempted to infiltrate their little group and to sabotage it? It was all politics and I found it fasinating.
However, I think their personal attacks on you were uncalled for. I can understand your anger in that and I can understand you taking action if it were not abated. It got out of hand. I don't know who started it and I don't really care. This battle got out of hand over a silly little thing.
Immie
SR_
Junior Member
Damocles said:
I understand what youre saying damo, and maybe im not explaining myself properly. We had an instance here in Texas where Democrats who had lost the majority did not want to accept the fact that texas was going to be redistricted. So their response was to leave the state, which is to say, they would rather forsake their duties in order to try and demand something that they had no right to demand. Now this isnt exactly the same, but the point is to show that the positions that people are elected too come with certain code and come with certain expectations.
In all honesty it wouldnt matter how we elected people or how we really voted, if people who are elected desire not to pay any attention to why they were elected, or hide their true intentions there is nothing that can be done to stop them, other than to provide disincentives for such behavior.
The SC for fp.com was meant to serve the interests of the board, people of integrity are in every voting bloc, but some felt like they needed to be elected for their own interests, that being their own satisfaction or whatever it doesnt matter. Thats why it had to be done in secret, and that was wrong.
The framework wouldnt have mattered, none of that matters to people who forsake ethics for personal gain. The faction that was working, wasnt working as a faction to block legislation, it would be paramount to a faction in the executive secretly working to change the dynamic of how congress worked for their own personal desires. Its not up to the executive to demand or try to force change in institutions that they have no purview over for personal desires. Its unethical. In this case it was a feature on someone elses private property. It would be like me doing taking advantage of the posting ability here to post 50 threads every five minutes that say "nigger, nigger, nigger". Obviously I have that ability damo as posting new threads is in the system, and if my motivation was to get you to change something with this board, then you'd be looking at a situation where a member is causing damage to you and offering you a choice "do what i say or Ill ruin this place".
SR
SR_
Junior Member
"First off, they acted in "secret" because that was the only method to converse on a one on one basis. How would you have suggested they discuss the issue and the solutions together? They were working for a "so-called" cause. Was that a crime?"
if its a malicious cause i can see why. But if you were wanting to run for the SC and wanted your ignore feature, why not go onto the board and say "VOTE FOR IMMIE and I will work to convince SR we need an ignore feature". Thats my point, the cause for someone to be elected should be known, UNLESS its scummy or not supportable. Hell people told me after the fact that they were contacting them to vote for brent, and never once did they mention their "cause" immie.
"Our politicians meet behind closed doors everyday to strategize even to get particular individuals elected. Is that a crime? Is that corrupt?
"
of course not, but the cause isnt also the strategy. getting brent elected involved strategy, not telling anyone their goal is decietful. is it okay for a democrat to strategize on how to win an election? yes Is it okay for that democrats purpose for getting elected is to take bribes or some other malicious purpose that they dont tell anyone? i would think not
SR
if its a malicious cause i can see why. But if you were wanting to run for the SC and wanted your ignore feature, why not go onto the board and say "VOTE FOR IMMIE and I will work to convince SR we need an ignore feature". Thats my point, the cause for someone to be elected should be known, UNLESS its scummy or not supportable. Hell people told me after the fact that they were contacting them to vote for brent, and never once did they mention their "cause" immie.
"Our politicians meet behind closed doors everyday to strategize even to get particular individuals elected. Is that a crime? Is that corrupt?
"
of course not, but the cause isnt also the strategy. getting brent elected involved strategy, not telling anyone their goal is decietful. is it okay for a democrat to strategize on how to win an election? yes Is it okay for that democrats purpose for getting elected is to take bribes or some other malicious purpose that they dont tell anyone? i would think not
SR
Okay, the feature on somebody else's property was specifically designed to draw out the politics. People were supposed to get others to vote for them. In your descriptions you were talking about people using U2U to contact others to convince them to vote for them and running campaigns. Dixie wasn't even in secret. Shoot there was a thread with over 200 posts talking about "Join Him"...SR_ said:
It was politics, plain and simple. They were working within the system you had built to enact what they wanted, even when it was against the Executive of the board...
It was a play I foresaw and informed you that a simple change to supermajority would end, they couldn't win more than one, and if they were lucky, two seats... This would make it so such a vote would not ruin the system at all and their weak position would make it likely they would never be voted in again.