SR did you ever admit to being wrong?

Dixie felt your system was flawed. He wanted to fix it for you.

FINALLY. and why does dixie get to fix a flaw by MAKING THE FLAW. How come your friend is entitled to fix your windshield for you by breaking it? What sense does it make to fix a problem and so you need to create one?

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.

Their goal was to ruin the council to get it changed to what they desired. Do I have the right to break your lawn mower because i want to change the way you mow your lawn?

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 DIDNT WANT TO BAN THEM.

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.

youre right, they stopped. and i wrote several times. just stop, walk away, no one is in trouble, no action will be taken, nothing. Thats why DIXIE ISNT BANNED. wtf immie?


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

I wasnt offended by the councils actions, i wasnt really offended one way or the other, other than i was given a choice, "do what i say or else". I guess a person tends to get offended when someone else tells them what to do with their own property or else.

SR
 
Immanuel said:
Dixie... you slobber. I don't. You slobbered for days about the travesty of the Security Council. My God the way you whined one would have thought SR had hired Osama bin Ladin or worse yet John Kerry as an administrator. You didn't even give the SC a damned chance. It was you and your ego that tried (and may have succeeded in doing) to destroy SR's site. The SC may well have failed. If it did, so what? SR would have tried something else. But, you were not happy with that. You did your damnedest to destroy not the council innitiative, but the whole damned site.

And now you are attacking everyone who did not play your little game. Whose ego are we talking about here? Yours or SR's?

I wonder why you were so deadset against even giving it a chance. Perhaps because it was not your idea? Maybe you felt others would ban you or declare you to be a troll? How foolish of you. There was no chance you would have been banned or declared a troll. Maybe because you were afraid you would not be elected King of FullPolitics.com?

Today, I asked SR a simple question and expected a simple answer. I simply asked if the ban was permanent or temporary. SR responded with a full explanation as to what happened. I'm glad he did, because so many of the threads were deleted and so much has transpired. I agree with some of the things he said and others I thought he was wrong on, but he did give his side of the story.

I respect you and Grind. I was angry when I came onto the site after the banning and found out about it. I'd like to see you both back or to see you here. I did nothing but open a door for him to say that at the moment it was a temporary ban.

As for not seeing, I see enough. I don't like the fact that SR posted those U2U's. What's done is done and there is nothing I can do about it. As for reading other's U2U's, I always (and Care will back me up on this) suspected that it was possible for him to do it. I hoped he was ethical enough not to. Regardless, I didn't post things that I would have had a problem with him seeing. Anyone that posted things that they did not want others to see in the U2U system was a fool. You had to know that it was possible for an administrator to see those messages.

Is it possible that SR did not know about it? Yes it is. I have taught myself how to program in several languages and also use different software packages. I start by skimming through the manual then trying different things that interest me. I can go for months working with a system and then need to do something and have to go find the manual to see if it is possible. Was the feature available to SR? Yes. Did he know about it? He says no. I'll take his word for it because only liberals call everyone that they don't agree with "liars"

As for ethics, I wonder if you have any. You see, I believe you made it your goal to destroy SR's site when he would not play your game. That is kind of sad. SR gave us a place to go when politics.com died. You have thrown him "under the bus" after he gave us all what we wanted. The funny thing is someone went digging through some of the old treads and found one started by you thanking SR for giving us the site. My how times have changed. So, I think you have stabbed SR in the back simply because he would not play your game. The ego problem is yours as well as SR's.



What about your ego problem? Do you lose sleep when people don't pay attention to you as much as you think they should?

I have not left fullpolitics.com. I don't know that I will nor do I know if I will stay. It really depends on which site remains active with the people with whom I enjoy conversing. Until we see what happens, I'm not leaving either site.

SR has hinted at some interesting changes. I'd like to see if he implements them. If the site continues and people I enjoy posting with stay at fullpolitics.com, I will probably stay. If it dies as you tried to kill it then I will leave.

Immie
Click to expand...

Immie, I just want to tell you one thing, but not completely directed at you because i see others saying it. You say "anyone who put anything in their u2u's they didn't want anyone else to see is a fool." Well, I admit I am a fool about computers and I have no idea what an adminstrator's capabilities are. I did though assume that they might be able to get in there. Here is what I never even thought of, ever. I never thought that even if I deleted them as I sent and received them, nearly immediately, that the administrator could have them saved to some kind of hard drive and still read them at their leisure. See, that I didn't know and am just beginning to understand from some things I have read.

I had my netscape email account hacked by conservative witches on another board. They read things between my real life boyfriend and me, and then they posted some of them from what I heard, I left before it got to that point. And do you know what people said? They said if you had a firewall, if this if that, it wouldn't have happened. It sounds to me a lot like, if you weren't wearing that skirt he never would have noticed you and followed you into the parking lot, you know what I mean? So I don't like that.

All of that given, I've learned for a second time that nothing is private in cyberspace and I really need for someone to smack that into my head. lol. Not that I think he was reading mine, I don't. He'd have to be pretty bored to be reading my stupid u2us. But I just wanted to point out that not everyone is as savy as you guys are about what can and can't be hacked or looked at. That doesn't mean they have it coming. That's all.

As for all the rest of this, I wasn't here when it was happening, wasn't here for very long before it happened, and really don't have a position on it one way or the other and I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea about that.
 
SR_ said:
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
Click to expand...

However, I do not specifically tell you that you are allowed to spam my board, in fact quite the opposite, while you did tell them that they were allowed to run for office, and to even use U2U to do it. You gave them the tool, and told them how to use it, trained them in its use, then got upset when they began to use it in an easily foreseen manner that was easily taken from them by a simple change, one easy change that would have rendered this group powerless from the beginning.
 
maineman said:
one easy change that would have rendered this group powerless from the beginning.

hindsight is 20/20
Click to expand...

I presented that idea to him the very first time he mentioned the SC, I told him that a Unanimous requirement would render the SC useless as all it would take is one dissenter to be elected, which was pretty much certain in such an environment....

That wasn't hindsight it was foresight. With that one change threads and threads of argument about running a campaign to get elected would have also been rendered moot.... on and on... U2Us would still be believed to be private...
 
I'm hoping that we can get this out of our system soonly... so we can get back to the business of actual debate. The SC will get elected and we can see how it works now that there is no unanimity requirement there is no need for dissenters to work so hard to gain that one seat.
 
Damocles said:
I presented that idea to him the very first time he mentioned the SC, I told him that a Unanimous requirement would render the SC useless as all it would take is one dissenter to be elected, which was pretty much certain in such an environment....

That wasn't hindsight it was foresight. With that one change threads and threads of argument about running a campaign to get elected would have also been rendered moot.... on and on... U2Us would still be believed to be private...
Click to expand...

This is very true. I told him this on numerous occassions.
 
Damocles said:
I'm hoping that we can get this out of our system soonly... so we can get back to the business of actual debate. The SC will get elected and we can see how it works now that there is no unanimity requirement there is no need for dissenters to work so hard to gain that one seat.
Click to expand...

Can I ask you something Damo? Because this is something I've been wondering about. I suppose I think that Tiana never would have given a crap about any of this in the first place if CK hadn't been following her around making racist and harrassing comments.

Now, if someone followed me around saying "hey can you s my" whatever, you know, sexual harrassment, it would get to me after a while. It's harrassment. So is the racial harrassment she was putting up with.

And we all bemoan boards where you can even ssay the f word without getting your post pulled, God knows I do, I'm very free with the language. On the other hand, no one can follow you around on those boards calling you a "n" word, or a jew, or a whore, etc... So, something is lost and something is gained right?

So where is that line drawn, so that a board can be as enjoyable and NON-threatening to everyone as possible?

And if SR read this I'd also like to hear his opinion of allowing someone to follow someone around and harrass them due to their race. I mean, aren't there some things so obviously wrong, that the person can just be banned, without a big "free speech" discussion, or crying over the loss of a so-called unmonitored message board? Isn't the one thing SR might have learned that, you can't have one that is too unmonitored?
 
Darla said:
Can I ask you something Damo? Because this is something I've been wondering about. I suppose I think that Tiana never would have given a crap about any of this in the first place if CK hadn't been following her around making racist and harrassing comments.
Click to expand...

Probably not. The ignore feature is a good one for that.

Now, if someone followed me around saying "hey can you s my" whatever, you know, sexual harrassment, it would get to me after a while. It's harrassment. So is the racial harrassment she was putting up with.
Click to expand...

The rules are specific on lawbreaking. It is illegal to stalk somebody online as it is in RL. If I allowed a user to break the laws, threatening and stalking another with no effort to end it I would be making myself open to lawsuits... I know it is only a message board, but breaking a law is breaking a law. I prefer the site to be as free and open as possible, hence the ignore feature is enabled and will remain so on this board. Stalkers have lost their power here.

And we all bemoan boards where you can even ssay the f word without getting your post pulled, God knows I do, I'm very free with the language. On the other hand, no one can follow you around on those boards calling you a "n" word, or a jew, or a whore, etc... So, something is lost and something is gained right?
Click to expand...

True, this is an adult format, and some opinions are likely to be offensive to some, even me. I hate racism. It baffles me. Pigmentation is simply not a large enough difference to cause all this consternation IMO. It is a primal urge to dislike the "different"...


So where is that line drawn, so that a board can be as enjoyable and NON-threatening to everyone as possible?
Click to expand...

For me the line is drawn at the point of personal liability, as I have described above.

And if SR read this I'd also like to hear his opinion of allowing someone to follow someone around and harrass them due to their race. I mean, aren't there some things so obviously wrong, that the person can just be banned, without a big "free speech" discussion, or crying over the loss of a so-called unmonitored message board? Isn't the one thing SR might have learned that, you can't have one that is too unmonitored?
Click to expand...

I'm open to ideas...
 
Darla said:
Can I ask you something Damo? Because this is something I've been wondering about. I suppose I think that Tiana never would have given a crap about any of this in the first place if CK hadn't been following her around making racist and harrassing comments.

Now, if someone followed me around saying "hey can you s my" whatever, you know, sexual harrassment, it would get to me after a while. It's harrassment. So is the racial harrassment she was putting up with.

And we all bemoan boards where you can even ssay the f word without getting your post pulled, God knows I do, I'm very free with the language. On the other hand, no one can follow you around on those boards calling you a "n" word, or a jew, or a whore, etc... So, something is lost and something is gained right?

So where is that line drawn, so that a board can be as enjoyable and NON-threatening to everyone as possible?

And if SR read this I'd also like to hear his opinion of allowing someone to follow someone around and harrass them due to their race. I mean, aren't there some things so obviously wrong, that the person can just be banned, without a big "free speech" discussion, or crying over the loss of a so-called unmonitored message board? Isn't the one thing SR might have learned that, you can't have one that is too unmonitored?
Click to expand...

Oh, but you see, SR harasses me about my race. Do a Control-f on watermelon and fried chicken in this very thread. he really is a scumbag so thinking he would give a shit about someone having to endure racist remarks probably wouldn't bother him in the least. You can also do a search on his very forum for the same things I mentioned earlier and you will see he's just as bad as CK is. And you're right I wouldn't have given a $hit if it weren't for CK.
 
Well, online stalking is illegal you're right. Very difficult to prosecute and it rarely is. The only times I have ever heard of it being prosecuted is when a woman's name and address have been put up on dating sites and men have come to her home. This has happened at least twice in my state, and that is only that I know of. Both were prosecuted.

I'm talking about something a little more nebulous. No one is going to prosecute CK for following Tianna around and making racial slurs constantly. Let's be realistic right?

But why shouldn't the little puke be banned for it? See that's my question. I agree that the ignore function does help.
 
LadyT said:
Oh, but you see, SR harasses me about my race. Do a Control-f on watermelon and fried chicken in this very thread. he really is a scumbag so thinking he would give a shit about someone having to endure racist remarks probably wouldn't bother him in the least. You can also do a search on his very forum for the same things I mentioned earlier and you will see he's just as bad as CK is. And you're right I wouldn't have given a $hit if it weren't for CK.
Click to expand...

Oh I haven't seen that. Sorry. I don't know what to say then.
 
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.

No, ideology is ideology, not a district or state. If you had established the groupings based on our regional locations, it would have had a completely different meaning. You intentionally and purposefully designed partisan ideology within your system, which introduces an element that doesn't really need to be included in picking the people you trust and think will be fair.

It was almost as if you have this bigoted view, that someones ideology is always going to be a mitigating factor in decisions requiring integrity and honesty. I happen to disagree with that, and I think a lot of people disagree with that. The people I would most trust to serve on an impartial and fair council, would likely not be the partisan ideologues from my own political spectrum. In all honesty, I would feel their partisanship would cause more of a potential problem in making fair and unbiased judgements. In that regard, it would seem that moderates or independents would be much more desirable for a council, people who are not confined to a particular faction or way of thinking. Ironically, the concept I am supporting would not benefit conservatives, or myself, in any way. It would have indeed helped the Libertarian group, as they have quite a few people who are admired from the left and right, as being fair and honest people of integrity.

The point is, the council produced is quite different, depending on what choice you are giving those who choose the council. What you have constructed, will yield pairs of people who will "take sides", a pair who will try to keep the peace between opposing sides, and a pair who will just not give a shit what the rest think. In other words, a complete cluster fuck. This is mainly why the idea of a unanimous vote was so laughable, it just wouldn't ever happen under such a system, there is too much partisan partitioning. Subsequently, a council comprised of the 8 most trusted people of integrity, who were voted on by the entire board (regardless of size), will always be the 8 most trusted people of integrity voted on by the entire board, and would make legitimate and valid determinations based on their integrity and honesty rather than ideological concerns. Such a group might very well be able to reach unanimous consent, because the barriers of ideology are not in play.

As you can see, these are very important principles, and the concerns are totally justified. Nothing in what I have articulated is malicious in intent, or bent on destroying anything of yours, in fact, it was just the opposite. My intent was to improve the council, not destroy the feature. I respected your rules, your system, and even the way you had constructed the thing to work. I had no problems working within the rules and system in place, it was you who couldn't abide by your own system and rules, and decided to become obstinant, unreasonable and defensive about it.
 
I guess a person tends to get offended when someone else tells them what to do with their own property

And one more time... the PEOPLE are not your property. Those of us who spend our time posting to your forum, telling our friends about your forum, making your forum the very special place it (was), do not belong to SiR! I don't know what has to happen for you to get that through your head, I've repeated it over and over again, and you continue to insist on taking this "my property" view, that frankly doesn't make a lick of sense.

Surely you understand, a software program and server are completely worthless without PEOPLE posting to your forum daily. In that regard, it is OUR property, each and every participant in the forum. We collectively make up the community which is really the only thing of legitimate value here. I guess people tend to get offended when someone proclaims ownership to their views and opinions, or treats them as property.
 
I don't recall SR ever claiming ownership of anyone's views or opinions. He set up a system to deal with administrative issues. Maybe it wasn't the best system.... maybe the unanimity issue made it practically unworkable...

but in the final analysis, it would not have impacted anyone's "views or opinions" A thread about Iraq would still have been a thread about Iraq. A thread about tax policy would still have been about tax policy and the views and opinions of the posters on those POLITICAL issues were never SR's property, nor did he ever claim they were.
 
No, ideology is ideology, not a district or state. If you had established the groupings based on our regional locations, it would have had a completely different meaning. You intentionally and purposefully designed partisan ideology within your system, which introduces an element that doesn't really need to be included in picking the people you trust and think will be fair.

context is always lost on a fool, and i cant explain it any clearer.

And one more time... the PEOPLE are not your property.

dixie,

im convined that youre just being retarded on purpose. no one could be this ignorant and still be alive.

SR
 
However, I do not specifically tell you that you are allowed to spam my board, in fact quite the opposite, while you did tell them that they were allowed to run for office, and to even use U2U to do it. You gave them the tool, and told them how to use it, trained them in its use, then got upset when they began to use it in an easily foreseen manner that was easily taken from them by a simple change, one easy change that would have rendered this group powerless from the beginning.

damo, are you saying that you specifically tell people when they come here to post?

Youre dodging the obvious and being facecious and i dont appreciate it one single bit. Either debate honestly with me or dont waste my time.

SR
 
SR_ said:
damo, are you saying that you specifically tell people when they come here to post?

Youre dodging the obvious and being facecious and i dont appreciate it one single bit. Either debate honestly with me or dont waste my time.

SR
Click to expand...
No, you are being deliberately obtuse here. You put forward a new idea, told people to run and insure they were represented, even told them to use U2U to campaign while waxing rhapsodic about your new idea...

While I have put a rule specifically against spam. These are two totally different things. One is encouraged, the other is specifically forbidden. If you cannot see the difference between the two then it must be purposefully...

These people worked within the expected, and announced, framework, you suggest going outside of that framework. The two are not analogous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top