• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Convention rules[W:18, 58]

Re: Convention rules[W:18]

This is how PirateMk1 explained it. There is an appropriate time and place for different types of work.

Great. So it is going to be held to a minimum, as I had suggested. What's the problem then, or are you just confused?
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

All I suggested was to keep it to a minimum.

Fair enough. Tone can't often be seen or heard through the internet. Sometimes people accuse their opponents of being uncivilized as a method to discredit their ideas. They shoot the messenger so that nobody sees the message. People may act too civilized. People may act uncivilized. People may act partisan. People may act unpartisaned. Their behavior isn't sufficient reason to discard the ideas presented.

I guess I jumped ahead of myself and relied too much on my past experiences.
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

Fair enough. Tone can't often be seen or heard through the internet. Sometimes people accuse their opponents of being uncivilized as a method to discredit their ideas. They shoot the messenger so that nobody sees the message. People may act too civilized. People may act uncivilized. People may act partisan. People may act unpartisaned. Their behavior isn't sufficient reason to discard the ideas presented.

I guess I jumped ahead of myself and relied too much on my past experiences.

les-miles-hand-clap-o.gif
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

One other thing --

Can we agree to leave Partisanship at the door?

You are never going to be able to convince everyone to completely check partisanship at the door. However, I do agree the mind set of this exercise should include the idea of working our differences towards a notable solution. They had to do this back then, we should do the same now. Else, why bother with this project?
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

You are never going to be able to convince everyone to completely check partisanship at the door. However, I do agree the mind set of this exercise should include the idea of working our differences towards a notable solution. They had to do this back then, we should do the same now. Else, why bother with this project?

Everyone engaged in this convention brings with them the background necessary to represent various needs and ideologies. Setting aside ones individual ambition for the greater good is key.
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

Great. So it is going to be held to a minimum, as I had suggested. What's the problem then, or are you just confused?

Everyone engaged in this convention brings with them the background necessary to represent various needs and ideologies. Setting aside ones individual ambition for the greater good is key.

It's usually people from the left that ask for ideologies to be suppressed. Hmmmm I find that to be suspicious.
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

Here is a draft of the rules for the convention:



Please propose any amendments you think should be made to these rules. I will start a poll thread on any proposed amendments. So please propose them formally (e.g. Add "something", remove "something", replace "something" with "something else").

I'd prefer that this thread be solely for proposing such amendments, and that arguments for or against be made in the poll thread for the specific amendment.

I'm not so sure about "making a motion means a yes vote". If a motion is made and some sort of negotiation takes place on the motion amdending it, the proposer may not be happy with the outcome of the final motion... I propose then that someone making a motion should have a free vote either way.
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

It's usually people from the left that ask for ideologies to be suppressed. Hmmmm I find that to be suspicious.

Moderator's Warning:
This is a thread for discussing and proposing conventions rules, not for you to muse on about "people from the left" or what you find "suspicious". Stop derailing this thread
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

Moderator's Warning:
This is a thread for discussing and proposing conventions rules, not for you to muse on about "people from the left" or what you find "suspicious". Stop derailing this thread

Have you guys considered put these threads in a subforum under DP Games or something to keep them all together?
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

Have you guys considered put these threads in a subforum under DP Games or something to keep them all together?

Yes. Some are advocating for electing officers that are already on the admin team. That way they can help with those efforts.
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

Yes. Some are advocating for electing officers that are already on the admin team. That way they can help with those efforts.

This comment got me to thinking. There are a number of admins that I think would work well as officers of the convention but I don't think we necessarily need an admin as officer to assist with the management of the effort. In fact I think there may be some downsides to having one given the admins moderator role. I'd suggest any admin who actively works on the convention refrain from moderating it.

However since this is a long term effort having an "admin liaison" who can deal with administrative issues is probably a good thing. Additionally have a single admin who follows the entire effort moderate the convention might be more effective that having it moderated by a team that only half follows what's going on.
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

I did a CTRL F search. There has been no mention of 'language'. I wholeheartedly believe that the writing and tone of our finished product is just as important as the ideas and beliefs that they represent. I'm not saying to have it written in Old English, just that it be crafted in a way that not only represents the time we find ourselves in now, but times from now. Our Founding Documents are magnificent and were revolutionary for not only the time, but across the spectrum of known human civilization. However, the leaps and bounds humanity has collectively made since the Founding Documents were created has left them antiquated. I don't mean the rights themselves, but just the language and lack of specificity. Take the 2nd Amendment. I believe wholeheartedly that an American has the right to own weapons. But, without specificity, if we want our document to have literal authority, we need to be specific and not leave wiggle room for "interpretation."

It may perhaps prove to be impossible to craft it in that manner, but I nevertheless hope that what we create has less wiggle room and antiquated language at 230+ years old.

The bar has been set ;)
Depends what you mean by specificity...

If it's too specific, as in "everyone has the right to own a M1911 .45 caliber automatic pistol, with plastic hand grip and laser sight".....well you get the idea.

OTOH if you're talking specifics like "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"...Perhaps change "arms" to "weapons", but then we get into the whole bit about "weapons" including "thermonuclear warheads"
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

It happened plenty of times when I was in the Marine Corps. Our politics, religion, race, etc didn't matter when work was to be done. I understand that it is a lofty goal, but if it does slip out, let's agree to keep it to a minimum, shall we?
There are vast differences between an organized body of trained professionals focused on a few specific goals....

And a political body discussing what the underlying ideas that form the framework for their successors to decide what goals should be given to a similar body of professionals. Or whatever exists then.
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

There are vast differences between an organized body of trained professionals focused on a few specific goals....

And a political body discussing what the underlying ideas that form the framework for their successors to decide what goals should be given to a similar body of professionals. Or whatever exists then.

Damn civilians ;)
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

Yes. Some are advocating for electing officers that are already on the admin team. That way they can help with those efforts.

I think the admin team is already busy enough.
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

Have you guys considered put these threads in a subforum under DP Games or something to keep them all together?

I suggested that very thing with someone here. All the business can be organized through separate threads with perhpas a free flow thread included.

For instance:

1. purpose

2. Rules

3. Order of business

4. Item 1 propsal / discussion

etc etc.

And try and do as few threads at a time as possible to help avoid too much jumping and cross over.
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

Maybe Schweddy will allow a separate sub-forum to be created in the Constitution forum.
 
Back
Top Bottom