SR did you ever admit to being wrong?
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
SR_
Junior Member
Immanuel said:
ok lets say they were demonstrating the problems of the council. What problem would there be. If people didnt agree on any issues, i see no problem. If we never labled anyone a troll, i see no problem. If we never did anything I see no problem.
I do see a problem if the elected member CHOSE to always vote in the negative no matter what. now this isnt an action of the council, this is a reflection of the elected member. In essense the member is the problem, not the council.
what i see you saying is that no problem exists, until a member creates the problem and thus it is demonstrated. I fail to see how this is defensable. You have a new car, your friend says something is wrong with it (first and foremost its brand new nothing is wrong with it), you ask "what is wrong with it its brand new", your friend then walks over and bashes the windshield and says "The problem is that your windshield is broken". Do you feel like he was attempting to help you fix the problem with your new car?
SR"
now, exactly , how does the IGNORE BUTTON WORK on this site?
care
p.s. SR, nothing was destroyed on your site, at least not yet.
and I admire you for coming over here and trying to settle this debate, once and for all....you're a tough cookie, much tougher than me, that's for certain...but personally I think that male testosterone is getting in your way of thinking straight.
Destroying your site would ruin my life, why would I want to see it damaged?
Same with many of the others, though they may not be willing to admit it, Dixie made mention to this in a previous post, paraphrased, "why would I want to ruin a site I spend half my time on?"
Please take a step back for a couple of days and think about all that was said. And said to help your SITE, not to harm it. You can't squash human beings from thinking outside of the box, you need to start predicting it and also doing it yourself....that's my humble advice.
And when you return from this cease fire, maybe you will be willing to compromise with your members, as a company owner may compromise with his workers, who technically, as you think, he owes nothing to....yet still does it, for the long term benefit of his company goals.
Basically, I HOPE, that cooler heads prevail and insight is miraculously given to you!
care
care
p.s. SR, nothing was destroyed on your site, at least not yet.
and I admire you for coming over here and trying to settle this debate, once and for all....you're a tough cookie, much tougher than me, that's for certain...but personally I think that male testosterone is getting in your way of thinking straight.
Destroying your site would ruin my life, why would I want to see it damaged?
Same with many of the others, though they may not be willing to admit it, Dixie made mention to this in a previous post, paraphrased, "why would I want to ruin a site I spend half my time on?"
Please take a step back for a couple of days and think about all that was said. And said to help your SITE, not to harm it. You can't squash human beings from thinking outside of the box, you need to start predicting it and also doing it yourself....that's my humble advice.
And when you return from this cease fire, maybe you will be willing to compromise with your members, as a company owner may compromise with his workers, who technically, as you think, he owes nothing to....yet still does it, for the long term benefit of his company goals.
Basically, I HOPE, that cooler heads prevail and insight is miraculously given to you!
care
Immanuel
Junior Member
SR_ said:
They did nothing at all to your site. The only harm they caused was to your precious ego. They out-thought you at your own game.
You told us you knew what was best in this petty game of yours. They showed you that you didn't know shit and you won't forgive them for that.
Immie
PS, I will now accept my ban from FP.com. It is obviously coming.
Last edited:
SR_
Junior Member
Immanuel said:
again, the personal attacks accomplish nothing immie. They did nothing to the "feature" which is apart of the site because I threatened to ban them and they others informed me of what was going on.
You seem to forget that they didnt do anything because I stopped them.
And you keep refering to them helping me.
Why dont you answer my questions?
SR
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
sure. the government set up for the United States is representative of people who LIVE IN STATES. Thats why its called the United States, and we choose our representation based on that context. It servers the interests of the states, some of whom are industrial, some are agricultural, some live where there are hurricanes, some live where there are wild fires. The system is set up to address this. That is the context.
Yes, context of regional divisions. I see no inherent problems with establishing a security council based on our regional divisions. Ideological divisions are completely out of the context of regional divisions, and it is you who the concept of context seems to be lost on, not me. If your only choices were Democratic candidates because you happen to live in a Blue State, or Republican candidates because you happen to live in a Red State, it would be the same context you have established for your security council. Essentially, that is what you are saying, that we have no choice except within our own predetermined ideological box.
The most obvious problem with this is, you have no way of knowing what a person's true ideology is, or whether they are being completely honest about it. I know quite a few liberals who claim to be "moderate" and they are simply not, it's just what they call themselves.
When having a body that sits as an executive over a message forum, it would be nice to reflect the context of that message forum accurately.
Ideological context is far less important than integrity, honor and trust. Besides, a 4-way split between Cons, Libs, Mods, and Kooks, is not an accurate representation of our board, or any board for that matter, nor will it ever be, in a constantly changing environment. If you have 75% Liberals, 10% Conservatives, 12% Moderates, and 3% Kooks, how is your system equally representative in any way? It's not! However, if your council is comprised of the 8 people who the entire board trusts the most and finds the most integrity in, the ideological viewpoints are not a factor. Perhaps that means the majority would be more Liberal or Libertarian, but if that was who the entire board selected, there would be no question of partisanship, as the choice to seat them was not made on partisan basis.
Yes, context of regional divisions. I see no inherent problems with establishing a security council based on our regional divisions. Ideological divisions are completely out of the context of regional divisions, and it is you who the concept of context seems to be lost on, not me. If your only choices were Democratic candidates because you happen to live in a Blue State, or Republican candidates because you happen to live in a Red State, it would be the same context you have established for your security council. Essentially, that is what you are saying, that we have no choice except within our own predetermined ideological box.
The most obvious problem with this is, you have no way of knowing what a person's true ideology is, or whether they are being completely honest about it. I know quite a few liberals who claim to be "moderate" and they are simply not, it's just what they call themselves.
When having a body that sits as an executive over a message forum, it would be nice to reflect the context of that message forum accurately.
Ideological context is far less important than integrity, honor and trust. Besides, a 4-way split between Cons, Libs, Mods, and Kooks, is not an accurate representation of our board, or any board for that matter, nor will it ever be, in a constantly changing environment. If you have 75% Liberals, 10% Conservatives, 12% Moderates, and 3% Kooks, how is your system equally representative in any way? It's not! However, if your council is comprised of the 8 people who the entire board trusts the most and finds the most integrity in, the ideological viewpoints are not a factor. Perhaps that means the majority would be more Liberal or Libertarian, but if that was who the entire board selected, there would be no question of partisanship, as the choice to seat them was not made on partisan basis.
Immanuel
Junior Member
"You seem to forget that they didnt do anything because I stopped them."
1) you have not stopped them. You simply have not instituted the program.
2) nothing they would have done would have cause a lick of trouble to your site. In fact, seeing what they tried to do and your counter measures would have been very interesting.
Immie
1) you have not stopped them. You simply have not instituted the program.
2) nothing they would have done would have cause a lick of trouble to your site. In fact, seeing what they tried to do and your counter measures would have been very interesting.
Immie
SR_
Junior Member
Please take a step back for a couple of days and think about all that was said. And said to help your SITE, not to harm it. You can't squash human beings from thinking outside of the box, you need to start predicting it and also doing it yourself....that's my humble advice.
And when you return from this cease fire, maybe you will be willing to compromise with your members, as a company owner may compromise with his workers, who technically, as you think, he owes nothing to....yet still does it, for the long term benefit of his company goals.
care,
Lets say that I did listen to them and just held an election at large for the top five getters. Lets just for arguments sake say that I did that.
And lets just say that Cypress felt like that would not be good for the site. Regardless of his reasoning, it just felt it wouldnt be good. And so he said "SR, Im going to post 150 threads a day that have porn in them, and Im going to post HAHHAHAH a million times in each thread that anyone else creates, until you listen to me and do what i say"
now, Ive already changed the system to what other members wanted under the threat of holding it in gridlock, in effect rendering it useless.
now, Ive got another member threatening to use the features i make available to all members, the abiliy to post in any thread, and the ability to create new threads.
What should I do? Both are trying to "help" me, both are using the features that I offer them to affect change?
SR
And when you return from this cease fire, maybe you will be willing to compromise with your members, as a company owner may compromise with his workers, who technically, as you think, he owes nothing to....yet still does it, for the long term benefit of his company goals.
care,
Lets say that I did listen to them and just held an election at large for the top five getters. Lets just for arguments sake say that I did that.
And lets just say that Cypress felt like that would not be good for the site. Regardless of his reasoning, it just felt it wouldnt be good. And so he said "SR, Im going to post 150 threads a day that have porn in them, and Im going to post HAHHAHAH a million times in each thread that anyone else creates, until you listen to me and do what i say"
now, Ive already changed the system to what other members wanted under the threat of holding it in gridlock, in effect rendering it useless.
now, Ive got another member threatening to use the features i make available to all members, the abiliy to post in any thread, and the ability to create new threads.
What should I do? Both are trying to "help" me, both are using the features that I offer them to affect change?
SR
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
p.s. SR, nothing was destroyed on your site, at least not yet.
And nothing would have been "destroyed" on his site. That is the dirty little secret. Any action we discussed or planned, was not in violation of any rule, was not destructive to any property owned by SR, and was within the very guidelines he established himself. There was no "malicious" intent, there was no "secret plot to bring down the board" or any other such nonsense, that was SR's paranoia kicking in.
And nothing would have been "destroyed" on his site. That is the dirty little secret. Any action we discussed or planned, was not in violation of any rule, was not destructive to any property owned by SR, and was within the very guidelines he established himself. There was no "malicious" intent, there was no "secret plot to bring down the board" or any other such nonsense, that was SR's paranoia kicking in.
Immanuel
Junior Member
SR,
Did you mean those rhetorical pissant questions?
Now, on to the discussion and your reply to Care.
How about if you simply listened and maybe adopted the valid changes (if there were any) and then said that after the system was implemented and running for a little while you would re-evaluate the issues addressed and any problems that might arise? That seems to me like an intelligent alternative to attacking those that were only voicing their opinions on a political message board.
Immie
Did you mean those rhetorical pissant questions?
Now, on to the discussion and your reply to Care.
How about if you simply listened and maybe adopted the valid changes (if there were any) and then said that after the system was implemented and running for a little while you would re-evaluate the issues addressed and any problems that might arise? That seems to me like an intelligent alternative to attacking those that were only voicing their opinions on a political message board.
Immie
SR_
Junior Member
Ideological divisions are completely out of the context of regional divisions, and it is you who the concept of context seems to be lost on, not me. If your only choices were Democratic candidates because you happen to live in a Blue State, or Republican candidates because you happen to live in a Red State, it would be the same context you have established for your security council. Essentially, that is what you are saying, that we have no choice except within our own predetermined ideological box.
Dixie, again, youre confused. On an anonymous message forum the only interests are that of good debate and fairness in moderation. For example you live in Alabama, it doesnt matter whether its red or blue, its a coastal state that will be hit by hurricanes. No matter what EVERYONE living in alabama shares this. Now out of no fault of anyone, just nature, people living in South Dakota do not share this issue of hurricanes with you. You choose to live in Alabama, they choose to live in south dakota.
On fp.com you choose to be a conservative or you choose to be no label, but we are all naturally split into ideologies. that is the natural context of a political debate site. You think we need less taxes, others think we need more taxes, THAT IS the natural formation of the districts. Ultimately we agree on certain things, as states agree on certain things, but for the most part a liberal we always see it this way, and a conservative will always see it another and that split provides the actual content for the site. Without disagreement we have hardly any content.
Thats why the natural district on a political message board is your ideology, and that was what context provides you with the ability to be represented on a governering body.
The most obvious problem with this is, you have no way of knowing what a person's true ideology is, or whether they are being completely honest about it. I know quite a few liberals who claim to be "moderate" and they are simply not, it's just what they call themselves.
I agree, but you at least acknowledge that they are liberal. the party labels are just options for you as a member, whether you choose moderate, or fiscal or whatever doesnt really matter. And youre right people could lie, I cant stop people from being liars.
Ideological context is far less important than integrity, honor and trust. Besides, a 4-way split between Cons, Libs, Mods, and Kooks, is not an accurate representation of our board, or any board for that matter, nor will it ever be, in a constantly changing environment.
I dont know they seem pretty even. And Id like new members to notice the equality and not be turned off by the appearance that there on huge super majority over another?
If you have 75% Liberals, 10% Conservatives, 12% Moderates, and 3% Kooks, how is your system equally representative in any way?
Its equal in terms of power. Just because you have more than another shouldnt mean that the majority has more say than anyone else. At least not in executive terms. The US has the most powerful military in the world and the most money, yet we only have one vote on the UN SC.
However, if your council is comprised of the 8 people who the entire board trusts the most and finds the most integrity in, the ideological viewpoints are not a factor. Perhaps that means the majority would be more Liberal or Libertarian, but if that was who the entire board selected, there would be no question of partisanship, as the choice to seat them was not made on partisan basis.
Nothing suggests that we dont have conservatives with integrity, or liberals with integrity, or kooks with integrity. And there would be no reflection of non-partisan agreement if a majority was elected by a majority of one ideology.
SR
Dixie, again, youre confused. On an anonymous message forum the only interests are that of good debate and fairness in moderation. For example you live in Alabama, it doesnt matter whether its red or blue, its a coastal state that will be hit by hurricanes. No matter what EVERYONE living in alabama shares this. Now out of no fault of anyone, just nature, people living in South Dakota do not share this issue of hurricanes with you. You choose to live in Alabama, they choose to live in south dakota.
On fp.com you choose to be a conservative or you choose to be no label, but we are all naturally split into ideologies. that is the natural context of a political debate site. You think we need less taxes, others think we need more taxes, THAT IS the natural formation of the districts. Ultimately we agree on certain things, as states agree on certain things, but for the most part a liberal we always see it this way, and a conservative will always see it another and that split provides the actual content for the site. Without disagreement we have hardly any content.
Thats why the natural district on a political message board is your ideology, and that was what context provides you with the ability to be represented on a governering body.
The most obvious problem with this is, you have no way of knowing what a person's true ideology is, or whether they are being completely honest about it. I know quite a few liberals who claim to be "moderate" and they are simply not, it's just what they call themselves.
I agree, but you at least acknowledge that they are liberal. the party labels are just options for you as a member, whether you choose moderate, or fiscal or whatever doesnt really matter. And youre right people could lie, I cant stop people from being liars.
Ideological context is far less important than integrity, honor and trust. Besides, a 4-way split between Cons, Libs, Mods, and Kooks, is not an accurate representation of our board, or any board for that matter, nor will it ever be, in a constantly changing environment.
I dont know they seem pretty even. And Id like new members to notice the equality and not be turned off by the appearance that there on huge super majority over another?
If you have 75% Liberals, 10% Conservatives, 12% Moderates, and 3% Kooks, how is your system equally representative in any way?
Its equal in terms of power. Just because you have more than another shouldnt mean that the majority has more say than anyone else. At least not in executive terms. The US has the most powerful military in the world and the most money, yet we only have one vote on the UN SC.
However, if your council is comprised of the 8 people who the entire board trusts the most and finds the most integrity in, the ideological viewpoints are not a factor. Perhaps that means the majority would be more Liberal or Libertarian, but if that was who the entire board selected, there would be no question of partisanship, as the choice to seat them was not made on partisan basis.
Nothing suggests that we dont have conservatives with integrity, or liberals with integrity, or kooks with integrity. And there would be no reflection of non-partisan agreement if a majority was elected by a majority of one ideology.
SR
SR_
Junior Member
Did you mean those rhetorical pissant questions?
my pissant question is the same one youre asking me. i keep answering it, and you refuse too.
You have a new car, your friend says something is wrong with it (first and foremost its brand new nothing is wrong with it), you ask "what is wrong with it its brand new", your friend then walks over and bashes the windshield and says "The problem is that your windshield is broken". Do you feel like he was attempting to help you fix the problem with your new car?
]I have a new feature, Dixie says theres something wrong with it. I ask what is wrong with it? Dixie gets brent elected and holds the council hostage through purposefully providing gridlock. Dixie says the problem is that the council is always in gridlock because thats the problem im creating. Do I feel like Dixie was helping me with a problem in the council?
its the same thing. The problem only occurs when someone purposefully CREATES THE PROBLEM.
SR
my pissant question is the same one youre asking me. i keep answering it, and you refuse too.
You have a new car, your friend says something is wrong with it (first and foremost its brand new nothing is wrong with it), you ask "what is wrong with it its brand new", your friend then walks over and bashes the windshield and says "The problem is that your windshield is broken". Do you feel like he was attempting to help you fix the problem with your new car?
]I have a new feature, Dixie says theres something wrong with it. I ask what is wrong with it? Dixie gets brent elected and holds the council hostage through purposefully providing gridlock. Dixie says the problem is that the council is always in gridlock because thats the problem im creating. Do I feel like Dixie was helping me with a problem in the council?
its the same thing. The problem only occurs when someone purposefully CREATES THE PROBLEM.
SR
SR_
Junior Member
Immanuel said:
immie, a council that has a member who only looks to vote the opposite of others in order to render it useless, in essence breaks the feature from serving the purpose it was designed for.
It is creating a problem because the feature no longer works as it should.
Dixie has not denied that this was his goal, to ruin the SC, to make it useless, so i would change it. Had he not decided that creating such a problem was vital to demonstrating the problem than who's to say that people would just not be honest and vote on issues they felt were important to them. Those issues are issues that arise on the board, not the issue of the council itself.
It is the same thing, both create damage that must be addressed and fixed.
SR
Immanuel
Junior Member
The only damage that was created, SR, was to your feelings. You just could not accept that everyone didn't think this was a fabulous idea without any flaws.
Sorry to tell you this but the only one who did not see the flaws in your system was you which is why you should have taken the time to listen to the input of others.
Immie
Sorry to tell you this but the only one who did not see the flaws in your system was you which is why you should have taken the time to listen to the input of others.
Immie
SR_
Junior Member
Immanuel said:
immie,
your opinion of how i feel and my own personal thoughts is of no relevance to me, or do you think i should listen to you and feel the way you keep projecting i feel in order to keep you happy?
lol
why people argue and try to convince others of what others think or feel makes little sense. Its like me telling you that you feel like a woman and thus you act like one. Well i have no way of proving how you feel, but im going to continue to argue with you and insist that I know how you feel.
come on immie, this is something not worth debating. I debated the merits with everyone over and over and over and over for hudreds of posts. And I specifically said, "hey if you dont like it, you dont have to be involved, you dont have to participate in anyway".
My goal wasnt to please everyone as that is impossible.
And i have changed it to majority on some issues, super majority on others, and unanimous on others.
SR