Why would you fear one ideology representing the board on council, if that is who the board felt was the most qualified people of honor, trust, integrity and fairness? Why do you continue to assume such a person's political ideology would play any role at all in their objectivity and impartiality on a council?
This is a good question answered several times previously.
I dont fear one ideology representing the board on the council at all. I feel that having a political debate forum shouldnt appear to be "governed" by one ideology or the other. Thats just an appearance desire, I dont want new members to get the impression that if the entire council was liberal that this was somehow a liberal board. That defeats the purposes im trying to make. In addition any fully partisan council composed of one ideology would allow if not encourage accusations of impropriety. As we've seen, the mere accusation of wrong doing isnt good for the board.
Their ideology doesnt play any role per se in the council, and Ive mentioned several times that there are people of integrity in every group. Their ideology only goes to decide what district they are in, and that their ideology has a place on the governing body. Its not in the interests of conservatives to have ZERO conservatives on the council, etc... It doesnt mean that conservative ideology helps or hinders them in deciding whether or not a thread should be deleted, as most all issues before the council are not formed in terms of an ideological debate, but its how we're split and the fringies having two members enables them to have the same representation as the cons, or libs, regardless of member totals.
Let's look at an example here... say you have a "Josef" troll appear one day, and he is clearly a right-wing religious zealot, and he has been skirting the edge with regard to posting personal info on the board, so he has been brought before the council for recommendation. Let's say that I am on the council. Everyone would consider me to be as close to Josef's ideological group than anyone on the council, but if the evidence showed he had violated the rule, I would have to vote to take action, and my personal ideological views, or how closely they matched Josef's, would never be a consideration.
perfect example: If you were to vote to take action upon Josef, there would be no possibility of him/her accussing the council of anything. Why? Because even a fellow conservative voted for it.
Subsequently, let's say the Libertarian bloc had elected a representative with deep-rooted Libertarian views, and because of his partisan ideological views on personal freedom, he didn't want to take action against Josef. Here you have a perfect example of what I am trying to say, strong ideological views are not always condusive to fairness and impartiality.
yes, but if that person was elected, then thats what the libertarians wanted. However, their ideological view doesnt pertain to the charge and charter of the council, it just allows them representation as their district. If that libertarian was elected at large it still wouldnt change anything.
Ethics, morals, integrity, honesty, and honor, have a far greater significance in the process. This is the criteria you should establish for candidates to serve on a council, and it should have absolutely nothing to do with what the person's politics are, that is completely irrelevant.
I understand this dixie, and i believe there are people of ethics, morals, and integirty in every bloc. having established what the duties are for the council members, it only allows for equal representation upon the designated districts which are split based on ideology. members choose which "district" best describes them, and they operate within that district. conservatives are represented by conservatives in the council, and are represented by two for the whole board.
I get where you are coming from, I understand what you are trying to do, but I fundamentally disagree with your assumptions and I think you are making a grave mistake in judgement. You've gone out of your way to prove, you can most certainly do whatever the hell you want to do and you don't have to listen to me or anyone else. In the end, you will be the one to deal with the consequences of your actions, not me, so it really doesn't matter one way or the other to me, at this point.
yes this is true. You may think that not doing what you ask is not listening, but this is the hundredth time we've discussed this, obviously you are being listened too, just not agreed with. They are not the same no matter how badly you wish they were.
There is no grave result to come from a conservative coming to fp.com and registering as a conservative, voting for conservatives to the council and being labeled as a conservative on a political debate forum. You may think there is grave reprecussions but there isnt.
Those members that have integrity, that dont campaign for sinister goals in secret, but are members of ethics are in every bloc, and will do a good job on the council, representing not only the other members of their ideology but being an offical representative of the entire board. meanwhile, every member has someone on the council that is of the same affiliation, and the board is protected from partisan accusations of impropriety.
Now, I have listened to you, I do not intend on installing the system you prefer. I am making a decision based on the fact that i believe the current method is the best route to take.
SR
