Potential Rule Change

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

Backbone you may have, but from here it appears horizontal.



And I agree with you that yours never will.

Always the unpleasant one, moon.

You presume so much, yet clearly know so little.


Haven't you learned that passive aggressiveness only serves to annoy?

[moon]

Are you aware that it's against the 'rules' for me to tell you that you're off-topic ?

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

Are you aware that it's against the 'rules' for me to tell you that you're off-topic ?

And you are on-topic?

[moon]

Sure.

What's the total membership here ? What would a fair sample of the membership be in terms of responding to this poll ? 1% ?

I don't think the response is going to be anything like that.

Is a decision going to be taken according to a simple majority in this poll ? If so are ' nueturals ' going to be ignored or added to those in favor ?

Why was a poll chosen ? The proposal is directed at members who initiate threads. Why should the vote of those who never initiate threads be counted ?

Wouldn't a fairer, more accurate and more serious method be for a vote to be taken from, say, everybody who had started a thread since, say, the 3 thread rule was introduced ? These are the members still interested in posting. They could be PMd and asked their opinion in a serious effort to divine opinion democratically.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

Sure.

What's the total membership here ? What would a fair sample of the membership be in terms of responding to this poll ? 1% ?

I don't think the response is going to be anything like that.

Is a decision going to be taken according to a simple majority in this poll ? If so are ' nueturals ' going to be ignored or added to those in favor ?

Why was a poll chosen ? The proposal is directed at members who initiate threads. Why should the vote of those who never initiate threads be counted ?

Wouldn't a fairer, more accurate and more serious method be for a vote to be taken from, say, everybody who had started a thread since, say, the 3 thread rule was introduced ? These are the members still interested in posting. They could be PMd and asked their opinion in a serious effort to divine opinion democratically.

How would a survey of a subset of a subset somehow indicate anything that could be used as a basis for "democratic" action?

[moon]

Obtaining a canvassed opinion from parties directly affected by the proposal would be fairer than what's on offer. Personally, I'd be more inclined to call that 'democratic' than weighing the opinion of somebody with ten thousand posts as equal to that of a passing Klingon. But then I've always favored a meritocracy-based formula for small groups.
I'd ask for your thoughts but I suspect they'd be habitually abrasive.

[pramjockey]

Ah, yes, I'm the one who's habitually abrasive.

I disagree with your desire to apply higher status to some over others. If someone is a member here, they are equal to every other member, regardless of their post count.

[moon]

If someone is a member here, they are equal to every other member, regardless of their post count.

You were, just a few posts previously, selling your conclusions that members had no rights.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

You were, just a few posts previously, selling your conclusions that members had no rights.

Who said anything about rights?

I said that we're all equal.


Do try to keep up, what, old pip?

[moon]

You did. You said all members had a right to be equals.

pramjockey;

If someone is a member here, they are equal to every other member, regardless of their post count.

What right does a one-post member have to this equality ?

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

You did. You said all members had a right to be equals.

What right does a one-post member have to this equality ?

We, as members are all equal, unless the owner of the forum decides otherwise.

That's not about "rights," it's just a statement of facts.


You can hold your passive aggressive insult, thanks, old bean.

[moon]

That's not about "rights," it's just a statement of facts.

Rights are facts, and you're agreeing with me that members do have them. Your agreement is trivial, granted, merely that one member has a right to be seen as equal to any other, but it's contrary to your previous claim that members have no rights. We do.

Still, that's just splitting hairs. I want members to have rights and so do you, despite yourself. We've just gone the long route to agreement.

As I was saying, for small groups I favor a meritocracy-based formula. In this instance, my suggestion that only thread-contributors were canvassed, the canvassed group would consist of everybody who had contributed a thread since the 3 thread rule was imposed. That's a meritocritous grouping in itself, but it's fair because that group are the affected parties.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by moon

I make no secret of my agenda, unlike others, and my protests at this proposal to allow an unelected body to censor the membership according to their own agendas is clearly designed to protect my existing right to air my viewpoint.

Of course, nobody but you is suggesting that anyone be censored according to their viewpoint.

Originally Posted by moon

Lumping the IOF murder of six Palestinian civilians on Tuesday into the same thead as that concerning the razing of a Palestinian olive grove on Monday is not my idea of 'spam' control, yet I know enough about the politics of USPOL moderators to guess that that is what is intended.

NO. Everybody should be free to politely express their views without having to negotiate any bottle-neck of 'mod-think'.

You know far less than you think you do.

Discussing separate incidents is planly not what this is about.

Posting 10 threads on the same incident is what this is about.

[moon]

Posting 10 threads on the same incident is what this is about.

If that's the case then why is this poll being taken ? Everybody is already aware that 9 of those posts would be removed or merged.

The contention has been that moderators would not be able to resist calling pressurizing posts 'spam'. Pressure is, of course, a perfectly legitimate political tactic.

Further, it should be down to the member to judge the level of pressure. That's all part and parcel of survival/extinction and success/failure in a debate forum. 'Where is old whats-his-name ?, one might ask, 'the chap who attached sickening graphic images to all his posts ?.

Larson;

Of course, nobody but you is suggesting that anyone be censored according to their viewpoint.

Either I know something they don't or I'm in the vanguard of free speech. Or they're all on holiday.

[MattLarson]

Or, you're selling fairy stories about being censored because of your political positions.

In any event, you've blown this way out of proportion, IMHO.

Matt