Potential Rule Change

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

You know moon if you're really that concerned you could create a slew of accounts right before the poll closes and vote "Nay". If you time it right the mods might not notice before the poll closes. There's usually a way to rig e-voting for the truly passionate. You could also form chain letters and campaign to your friends and family to vote nay. Personally I look forward to the rule being implemented.

Just a reminder - following this course of action will result in a permanent ban of all of a member's accounts.

Matt

[moon]

You know moon if you're really that concerned you could create a slew of accounts right before the poll closes and vote "Nay". If you time it right the mods might not notice before the poll closes. There's usually a way to rig e-voting for the truly passionate. You could also form chain letters and campaign to your friends and family to vote nay. Personally I look forward to the rule being implemented.

Hey, I've already demonstrated that it's likely to be a charter for censorship. Those that want to implement it know I'm right and they're just interested in the piddling numbers. You really think that less than one percentile of the site membership is an acceptable sample ?

Only when it suits you, right ?

[Traveler]

Moon you can't force folks to vote.

This thread has had 2000 views so far!

Granted many of them may be multiple vists by users who have postd and thn re-posted in the thread but only 27 have voted so far!!

What does that tell you?

[moon]

It tells me that a very few people visit the thread multiple times because they're involved in it. It tells me that those very few people are NOT representative of the membership as a whole and it tells me that the members who this farce is likely to affect, the ones that start threads, either don't know what is afoot or haven't yet realised what's in store for them.

Nobody is going to tell them though and the farce ends tomorrow, right chums ? What a wheeze !

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

Do me favor, try to construct a political forum with some sense of fair play and democratic values.

You know, web space is cheap. If you don't like the way this particular forum is, why don't you create your own? Why should anyone here do you a favor, especially given your behavior?

[ThorHammer]

Originally Posted by pramjockey

You know, web space is cheap. If you don't like the way this particular forum is, why don't you create your own? Why should anyone here do you a favor, especially given your behavior?

indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if people vote 'yes' simply out of spite.

[moon]

pramjockey;

Why should anyone here do you a favor, especially given your behavior?

It's just a figure of speech and I don't require favours from anybody. My 'behaviour' ? Oh, you mean my vertical backbone. Yes, sorry to show you up there, old horse.

Thorhammer;

ndeed. I wouldn't be surprised if people vote 'yes' simply out of spite.

Too right. The poll is almost certainly already contaminated and worthless.

[moon]

Dr Goodtrips ;

Hi all,

I want to emphasize from the beginning that this is *NOT* a change to the rules, nor is it one that is inevitably going to be enacted.

Well, that's a relief. The pro-censors are in a frenzy.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

pramjockey;
It's just a figure of speech and I don't require favours from anybody. My 'behaviour' ? Oh, you mean my vertical backbone. Yes, sorry to show you up there, old horse.

Well, little poodle, you dodged the main point of my post (yet again). So much passive aggressiveness in you. Perhaps some counseling could help you with that?


As far as "vertical backbone" claims go - it's clear that passive-aggressive tendencies are a reflection of cowardice, and not backbone. Responding to half of a post (but not the important half) is not demonstrating backbone either. And, of course, unfounded claims of "I'm being censored" followed with "I didn't say I'm being censored" and "I can't talk about it" are most clearly not backbone displaying.

So, pip pip and all that, chum bucket.

[moon]

Check out your own 'behavior', pramjockey.

[AjaxPress]

Originally Posted by moon

Hey, I've already demonstrated that it's likely to be a charter for censorship. Those that want to implement it know I'm right and they're just interested in the piddling numbers. You really think that less than one percentile of the site membership is an acceptable sample ?

Only when it suits you, right ?

Piddling "numbers"? FYI, I suspect that about 5% of the site membership is actually active.

[Traveler]

342 members active at the moment...not a lot is it?

[moon]

No it isn't. It's few enough to canvass directly. Canvassing thread-initiators would be even simpler.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

No it isn't. It's few enough to canvass directly. Canvassing thread-initiators would be even simpler.

But canvassing them directly would indicate that their opinion somehow matters more than the rest of ours. And, since some of those who you would canvas are the source of the problem, you get the fox guarding the henhouse.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

Check out your own 'behavior', pramjockey.

Not enough backbone to answer the questions, old pimple?