SR did you ever admit to being wrong?

SR,

Unless I am mistaken there had not been any real campaigning. Their so called strategy sessions were simply to prepare a campaign strategy to begin with.

With five of them, I am not sure but they may very well have had a lock on the fringe group. I don't see that as being their fault. It was simply an issue with how you set up the rules. Had I wanted a seat, I might have contacted Care and a few others that I thought trusted me and begun to "campaign" for a seat.

I'm sorry but I don't see a problem with their "meetings". And their cause, which appears to have been to affect change, seems to have been an issue with only you.

You are assuming that they never would have told others what their goal was. Maybe they wouldn't have.

Did George Bush tell America that his goal was to go to war with Iraq? Assuming as Desh likes to point out that it was. Do you really think that anyone running a campaign is honest about what their ultimate goal really is? For Lady T it was obvious. She wanted Canadiankid and Toby "trollized". Was that wrong of her? Dixie didn't hide his motives either. He came right out and told everyone that he didn't think it would work and that his way was better.

I don't think they were hiding their goals. If they were then they did a shitty job of it.

Immie
 
Damocles said:
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"...

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.
Click to expand...


no, dixie wasnt running. there was little support for him in that endeavor, had he chosen to acutally run on the merits of his campaign i highly doubt he would have succeeded, and if he had i woulve banned him. are you starting the see the necessity for the clandestine operation?

They had no public position. If i had never been tipped off to it, and they had accomplished their goal, they STILL wouldnt have told anyone. It just would have been a defunct feature, attacked on purpose for no other reason than he wanted it changed.

This is your board Damo, i dont feel i have the right to use the features on YOUR board to FORCE YOU to change things or use them against you. This isnt public property, this is private property. There is no "Damo do what I say with your property or else". Or do you disagree?

SR
 
SiR, you can explain it until you're blue in the face over here, there was nothing "malicious" in our intent whatsoever. Why would some of your most prolific regular posters be intent on destroying your property?

For me, it was Fundamental, not Malicious. There is no malice in civil disobedience, and that's what you saw happen, whether it's what you want to admit to people or not. Nothing we did was really a big secret, except on the board, because you threatened to ban the dissident traitors and such. In essence, just like the Desh Constitution episode, you were the one who blew it up into a big stink, not me. You decided it was better for you to appease your pinheaded whiners by turning me into a pariah, and creating this huge controversial drama by closing down the board and making the changes to keep me from NOT breaking your rule!

You are just a piece of work, SiR. Simply amazing.
 
SR_ said:
no, dixie wasnt running. there was little support for him in that endeavor, had he chosen to acutally run on the merits of his campaign i highly doubt he would have succeeded, and if he had i woulve banned him. are you starting the see the necessity for the clandestine operation?

They had no public position. If i had never been tipped off to it, and they had accomplished their goal, they STILL wouldnt have told anyone. It just would have been a defunct feature, attacked on purpose for no other reason than he wanted it changed.

This is your board Damo, i dont feel i have the right to use the features on YOUR board to FORCE YOU to change things or use them against you. This isnt public property, this is private property. There is no "Damo do what I say with your property or else". Or do you disagree?

SR
Click to expand...

The only reason their "or else" could work is because of your insistence on Unanimity. This gave each seat on the SC sole veto power for any and all resolutions. It isn't destroying a feature if you are using it as it was designed. Trying to get elected as a RINO or a DINO in a largely R or D community is an age-old political move. They weren't even subtle about it.

I disagree they were saying "do what I say" with your property. They were saying, "These are the conditions in which I have to work, this is what I'll do then!"

It wasn't destruction of a feature, it was usage of the feature exactly as you had designed it. You somehow expected every person to agree with the necessity and work towards your goal rather than to have some other agenda.

Now they would have almost no power at all on a security council. They would have to win a majority of the council over multiple groups.. They have no power other than what you give them.
 
"Unless I am mistaken there had not been any real campaigning. Their so called strategy sessions were simply to prepare a campaign strategy to begin with.

With five of them, I am not sure but they may very well have had a lock on the fringe group. I don't see that as being their fault. It was simply an issue with how you set up the rules. Had I wanted a seat, I might have contacted Care and a few others that I thought trusted me and begun to "campaign" for a seat."

immie, that was the campaign. you may contact others and ask for votes, but would you lie to them about what your cause was in order to get them to vote for you. meaning, would you hide the fact that you wanted to destroy the feature? If im going to run for a position to serve the interests of the people electing me, thats fine, i campaign on those issues. The only reason to hide intentions is because those intentions would lead people not to vote for you.

If you want a seat in congress so that you can get rich of bribes would you tell anyone that? If you didnt tell them your sole purpose to act in an unethical manner, then what does it matter the process in how you get elected?

"Did George Bush tell America that his goal was to go to war with Iraq? Assuming as Desh likes to point out that it was. Do you really think that anyone running a campaign is honest about what their ultimate goal really is? For Lady T it was obvious. She wanted Canadiankid and Toby "trollized". Was that wrong of her? Dixie didn't hide his motives either. He came right out and told everyone that he didn't think it would work and that his way was better.

I don't think they were hiding their goals. If they were then they did a shitty job of it."

If that was the case in the scenario with Bush, then he needs to be impeached. Thats what i dont get, sure people lie when they campaign, but those that lie about a desire to do harm or behave unethically should be removed. I stated as much in that anyone elected who did harm to the board would be banned. This was the consequence, just as taking bribes comes with a consequence, and that deterred some from desring to continue on with their unethical behavior.

Dixe made it clear what he wanted, but he refused to run. he knew that no one would elect him to destroy the council, too many people thought it would be neat to at least try, the others didnt care.

Can we as a society stop someone who will take bribes from getting elected? no, it doesnt matter what system we use to elect them. Can we provide consequences and disincentives to such behavior? yes. Does that stop it? NO

SR
 
"I disagree they were saying "do what I say" with your property. They were saying, "These are the conditions in which I have to work, this is what I'll do then!"

Damo. to what end?

this is a simple question. TO WHAT END? You disagree, you seem to believe that they were just working within the conditions, and im asking you what you truly believe they were working towards accomplishing?

SR
 
SR_ said:
"I disagree they were saying "do what I say" with your property. They were saying, "These are the conditions in which I have to work, this is what I'll do then!"

Damo. to what end?

this is a simple question. TO WHAT END? You disagree, you seem to believe that they were just working within the conditions, and im asking you what you truly believe they were working towards accomplishing?

SR
Click to expand...

To what end? They didn't want the change. You gave each position veto power. I even told you that somebody would try this if you insisted on unanimity in all decisions that it would largely be a figurehead because almost certainly one person would be against any action...
 
Damocles said:
To what end? They didn't want the change. You gave each position veto power. I even told you that somebody would try this if you insisted on unanimity in all decisions that it would largely be a figurehead because almost certainly one person would be against any action...
Click to expand...

The simplest fix would have been to change it to a supermajority which would insure a large consistent choice throughout all the "parties" on the board at the same time as taking power from the one or two dissenters that might get elected.
 
Damocles said:
To what end? They didn't want the change. You gave each position veto power. I even told you that somebody would try this if you insisted on unanimity in all decisions that it would largely be a figurehead because almost certainly one person would be against any action...
Click to expand...


ok damo, not wanting the change isnt accomplishing anything, you do something in order to accomplish something.

tell me what operating within the conditions, obviously to get someone elected, for what purpose.

What was to be accomplished.

SR
 
Damocles said:
The simplest fix would have been to change it to a supermajority which would insure a large consistent choice throughout all the "parties" on the board at the same time as taking power from the one or two dissenters that might get elected.
Click to expand...

thats what the plan is.

SR
 
SR_ said:
ok damo, not wanting the change isnt accomplishing anything, you do something in order to accomplish something.

tell me what operating within the conditions, obviously to get someone elected, for what purpose.

What was to be accomplished.

SR
Click to expand...

Once again, the ultimate Conservative position. To deter change. That is a purpose.
 
SR_ said:
thats what the plan is.

SR
Click to expand...

Only after 7000 posts on how it was destroying your property to use the system as you designed it, then the banning of two members from a site that promised at the beginning not to moderate at all except to delete threads with personal information...

Like I said, I can see both sides. However I foresaw the issues you would have, but you insisted on the unanimity until it simply got to where you had to relent to take the power from the few that were dissenting...

I found it fascinating, and directly representational of regular politics in the US...
 
Damocles said:
Once again, the ultimate Conservative position. To deter change. That is a purpose.
Click to expand...


so how is this different than me saying "do what I say" with your property or else.

If what you say is what you believe they were working towards either not having the feature at all (again your private property), or changing the way it worked (again your property).

You just decided that you would allow trolls that resemble other peoples names. If i took it upon myself to not desire such a change, and decided that i would BLAST this board with nigger threads, until you capitulated, what would be the difference?

SR
 
I also find it fascinating that we end up talking politics on the Whatever Goes thread, even when it appeared we weren't...

:D

Goodnight, SR. I plan on keeping my membership at your site. I am now a member of 3 poli sites including this one....
 
Damocles said:
I also find it fascinating that we end up talking politics on the Whatever Goes thread, even when it appeared we weren't...

:D

Goodnight, SR. I plan on keeping my membership at your site. I am now a member of 3 poli sites including this one....
Click to expand...

nite man, enjoyed it.

SR
 
SR_ said:
so how is this different than me saying "do what I say" with your property or else.

If what you say is what you believe they were working towards either not having the feature at all (again your private property), or changing the way it worked (again your property).

You just decided that you would allow trolls that resemble other peoples names. If i took it upon myself to not desire such a change, and decided that i would BLAST this board with nigger threads, until you capitulated, what would be the difference?

SR
Click to expand...
The difference is you handed them the tool and said they had the power if people could get elected. They were working on a grass roots campaign...

I have a rule against mutiple threads on the same subject, you stated that they could run campaigns. They were within the framework of what you designed you are without... Notice the difference? I do.
 
no, dixie wasnt running. there was little support for him in that endeavor

LMAO... yeah, we discussed this very thing in private, and it was pretty much a concensus that I was too hated to garner much outside support. That is the main reason I did the mouth running instead of others, I was already 'damaged goods' so to speak. We weren't being clandestine to be sinister, we were doing as Damo suggests, and working within the system you set up for us. Maybe that's the part that drove you insane?

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...

I can certainly find more merit in effectiveness as a council by supermajority, but I still disagree with the ideological grouping thing. The way I see it, most "normal" folk are going to fall in the Conservative group, a few might trickle into Libertarian or Independent, but the vast majority of the other 3 groups are the nuts. So, now you'll have a council made of 75% ideological nuts and 25% normal people. And a Supermajority prevails. That should be interesting, huh?

My point all along has been, integrity is what you are seeking, not ideological values. In the experiment thread, I demonstrated how the psychology of this works, and you can clearly see, people cast a different vote based on what they have as a choice. If they are asked to choose someone of integrity and honesty, they often pick someone they see as fair an unbiased... but if they are confined to chose a representative of their ideological viewpoint, it's a completely different story. They will pick a clear ideologue, because it's what they were asked for.
 
Damocles said:
The difference is you handed them the tool and said they had the power if people could get elected. They were working on a grass roots campaign...

I have a rule against mutiple threads on the same subject, you stated that they could run campaigns. They were within the framework of what you designed you are without... Notice the difference? I do.
Click to expand...


no, i dont notice the difference. You offer me the framwork to post as many threads as i want, i can change a letter here or there, but the system is in place for me to take advantage of it. I could then change to posting with enormous fonts, etc.. i mean come on Damo, being disruptive to the point where YOUR members would not desire this place is availabe in almost every feature the board depends on.

But its your property. Its not a publicly owned entity. I have no entitlement to demand anyting from you, or use these features to inspire you to capitulate to my demands.

SR
 
SR_ said:
immie, that was the campaign. you may contact others and ask for votes, but would you lie to them about what your cause was in order to get them to vote for you. meaning, would you hide the fact that you wanted to destroy the feature? If im going to run for a position to serve the interests of the people electing me, thats fine, i campaign on those issues. The only reason to hide intentions is because those intentions would lead people not to vote for you.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you were one of the few who did not understand their goals. They were not being secret about it. Their goals were not even the same. Lady T wanted Toby declared a troll. Several people promised it. Lady T said she'd vote for each of them. Dixie felt your system was flawed. He wanted to fix it for you.

Just because you did not like their goals does not make them wrong. You can't control the council and how it votes if you want it to have any kind of true meaning.

SR_ said:
If you want a seat in congress so that you can get rich of bribes would you tell anyone that? If you didnt tell them your sole purpose to act in an unethical manner, then what does it matter the process in how you get elected?
Click to expand...

Heck no, I wouldn't tell them that. I'd want to be elected. But it is politics and they are not going to tell you the truth.

SR_ said:
If that was the case in the scenario with Bush, then he needs to be impeached.
Click to expand...

You said it not me.


SR_ said:
Thats what i dont get, sure people lie when they campaign, but those that lie about a desire to do harm or behave unethically should be removed. I stated as much in that anyone elected who did harm to the board would be banned.
Click to expand...

But, you didn't even give them a chance to act. They have done nothing. This is similar to arresting and convicting a person because you think they will someday murder the man down the street.

I'm not talking about Grind here. The issue with Grind is different. I disagree with you, but that is not what we are talking about here.

SR_ said:
Can we as a society stop someone who will take bribes from getting elected? no, it doesnt matter what system we use to elect them. Can we provide consequences and disincentives to such behavior? yes. Does that stop it? NO
Click to expand...

There are consequences for "breaking the rules". You laid them out, but were any rules broken? Dixie's group made it plain and clear what their platform would be. The votes weren't even cast yet. Maybe you think the rest of us are stupid, but most of us saw what Dixie and his group were doing. Some approved others didn't. The vote would have decided the issue. Fairly, I might add.

The way it appears to me is that you had a problem with it and therefore you got offended. They did not break one single rule. No one had been elected yet. The council did not exist. Until it did they had not interfered with your objectives.

If you are going to get offended at the council's actions then why have a council?

Immie
 
We weren't being clandestine to be sinister, we were doing as Damo suggests, and working within the system you set up for us.

again, working within the system is in no way sinister, ITS WHAT YOURE WORKING FOR.

I can certainly find more merit in effectiveness as a council by supermajority, but I still disagree with the ideological grouping thing. The way I see it, most "normal" folk are going to fall in the Conservative group, a few might trickle into Libertarian or Independent, but the vast majority of the other 3 groups are the nuts. So, now you'll have a council made of 75% ideological nuts and 25% normal people. And a Supermajority prevails. That should be interesting, huh?

They dont view themselves as nuts, only we view them that way.

My point all along has been, integrity is what you are seeking, not ideological values. In the experiment thread, I demonstrated how the psychology of this works, and you can clearly see, people cast a different vote based on what they have as a choice. If they are asked to choose someone of integrity and honesty, they often pick someone they see as fair an unbiased... but if they are confined to chose a representative of their ideological viewpoint, it's a completely different story. They will pick a clear ideologue, because it's what they were asked for.

the ideology is nothing more than a district in a state, within a board context its how we are split. You dont get to vote for the representative in New York even though you may think they have a lot of integriety IF YOU LIVE IN ALABAMA. its no different in the way i set up the counci districts. Hell you even get to choose what district your in.

SR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top