• 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.

Two Important Announcements from the President

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,530
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1) As president, I have made an executive decision that, in order to help ensure that this conference maintains a sustainable level of activity, we should allow any DP poster who wishes to join the convention to do so by contacting the president or the Sec'y and requesting to be made a member.

As a result of that decision, I'd like everyone to welcome our newest member, Joko104

2) It has just come to my attention that this forum is operating under the rules that are different from the rest of DP.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/dp-co...p-constitutional-convention-announcement.html

From this point forward, the moderation team will be treating the Constitutional Convention as we would any other thread in the game forum. It is up to you to make this into something productive, and we will not police your partisan disagreements. The success or failure of this experiment is completely on you.


If by some chance we are required to take a moderation action to address an especially serious global offense, you will be banned from this subforum.

As it's been explained to me, this means that the mods will not infract anyone for anything that is worth less than 10 point. In other words, things like baiting, flaming, and trolling are allowed in this forum. Since I have no interest in moderating a forum which allows such behavior, I am resigning my position as president and handing the presidency to the only other officer the convention has - Vasudatorrent. My decision becomes effective as soon as Vasudatorrent accepts his new position.
 
We should perhaps all consider what we need here going forward, these changes are not exactly what I was hoping for either.
 
1) As president, I have made an executive decision that, in order to help ensure that this conference maintains a sustainable level of activity, we should allow any DP poster who wishes to join the convention to do so by contacting the president or the Sec'y and requesting to be made a member.

As a result of that decision, I'd like everyone to welcome our newest member, Joko104

2) It has just come to my attention that this forum is operating under the rules that are different from the rest of DP.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/dp-co...p-constitutional-convention-announcement.html



As it's been explained to me, this means that the mods will not infract anyone for anything that is worth less than 10 point. In other words, things like baiting, flaming, and trolling are allowed in this forum. Since I have no interest in moderating a forum which allows such behavior, I am resigning my position as president and handing the presidency to the only other officer the convention has - Vasudatorrent. My decision becomes effective as soon as Vasudatorrent accepts his new position.

Do you necessarily need to moderate it? Surely we can formulate some reasonably parliamentary rules and put in place an enforcement mechanism that doesn't require one person to play cop.
 
1) As president, I have made an executive decision that, in order to help ensure that this conference maintains a sustainable level of activity, we should allow any DP poster who wishes to join the convention to do so by contacting the president or the Sec'y and requesting to be made a member.

As a result of that decision, I'd like everyone to welcome our newest member, Joko104

2) It has just come to my attention that this forum is operating under the rules that are different from the rest of DP.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/dp-co...p-constitutional-convention-announcement.html



As it's been explained to me, this means that the mods will not infract anyone for anything that is worth less than 10 point. In other words, things like baiting, flaming, and trolling are allowed in this forum. Since I have no interest in moderating a forum which allows such behavior, I am resigning my position as president and handing the presidency to the only other officer the convention has - Vasudatorrent. My decision becomes effective as soon as Vasudatorrent accepts his new position.

No! No! No! Don't quit!

Really, DO NOT QUIT. This can be worked out with the mods. I was thread banned by a mod some time back for a harsh message, meaning it was not an anything goes. There are different opinions about this Convention to different mods. You may be communicating with the wrong one. Also, opening up the Convention likely will change that view. This is NOT a basement board so the rules do apply the same as other boards.

I suspect that you over read the message that you linked to. At least confirm your opinion is accurate that the rules of other threads will not be enforced here. The Convention topics certainly will get hot, but I don't think that means the mods will allow it to be a free for all devoid of the rules.

The way I read the message is that if anyone is really getting out of line - or whining to mods too much - they'll just remove the person from the Convention, rather than deal with a lot of complaints. In short, they may be imposing harsher enforcement. The message actually may more have been empowering you than dis-empowering you. I read the message that the mods aren't going to mess around with troublemakers, rather they will just remove the person summarily by a ban from the board and be done with it.

Please do some communications with the mods to make certain you understand that message (if you haven't already). You've been great for the Convention and this would be a real lose. Maybe wait to see how that notice is actually implemented and applied?

And thank you.
 
Last edited:
I think we haven't done too bad, some discussions get passionate, but flaming and trolling don't seem to be happening
 
Do you necessarily need to moderate it? Surely we can formulate some reasonably parliamentary rules and put in place an enforcement mechanism that doesn't require one person to play cop.

The solution seems simple at least to pursue. Ask if the moderation staff would agree to designate a contact moderator for the president of the Convention. If the other officer (or one of the other officers if there is a VP) agrees, the president of the Convention would contact that moderator asking that person be banned from this sub-forum. The Convention officers could give warnings first when appropriate.

I can understand the moderators not sorting thru piles of messages being reported. Rather, just establish that its fine for moderators to ignore them (other than serious infractions such as porn, posting PMs etc) - and that moderators won't do anything - unless asked by the President - and the only thing done is then banning the person from this sub-forum - and problem solved. No eating up moderators time. Very simplistic requiring no time.

All it would take is ONE moderator to agree to this. And all that moderator would be doing is RARE sub-forum banning, rather than thread bans, warnings, infractions and infraction appeals and all that.

Has anyone asked the mods if that would be acceptable? A designated mod who would sub-forum ban upon request of the President - and all the rest of complaints and reports are ignored by all moderators including that one?

Only ONE enforcement - sub-forum banning - and only on the agreement (or majority) of the officers and the communicated only by the President. I don't think it would take more than a couple sub-forum bans to get the message across to people. It also would eliminate any claims of moderators who involve trying to tilt the Convention as all discipline - which is absolute - came from the officers.

Personally, that would seem superior as it would keep control essentially with the Convention staff and keep moderators from overseeing the Convention. Post decent messages and there is no problem. Post trolling, baiting and flaming messages? And get permanently thrown out of the Convention and this sub-forum.
 
Last edited:
Do you necessarily need to moderate it? Surely we can formulate some reasonably parliamentary rules and put in place an enforcement mechanism that doesn't require one person to play cop.

1) We can vote for whatever rules and enforcement mechanisms we want to, but that doesn't stop anyone from doing what they want to. As long as they are not engaged in a "serious global offense", any poster (including non-members) are free to do whatever they want, includin derailing threads

2) I want to be clear about what I mean by moderating this forum. I do not mean being a DP mod and handing out infractions. I mean leading and directing the discussions in a way that helps make them productive. If that's not what the President does, then what is the Presidents' job? To make rules (that anyone can ignore at will) unilaterally?

That's not what I signed up to do.

Please do some communications with the mods to make certain you understand that message (if you haven't already). You've been great for the Convention and this would be a real lose. Maybe wait to see how that notice is actually implemented and applied?


And thank you.

I have been in contact with the mods and they have made it clear. Only "serious global offenses" will be dealt with, and they will result in forum bans. Anything less than a "serious global offense" and they will take no action.

When I accepted the position, I was under the impression that if the rules about things like baiting, disrupting, etc were in place, we had a chance of elevating the discussion and making this productive. Since that assumption has now proven to be untrue, I don't see that happening.

But I thank you for your kind words.
 
Last edited:
1) We can vote for whatever rules and enforcement mechanisms we want to, but that doesn't stop anyone from doing what they want to. As long as they are not engaged in a "serious global offense", any poster (including non-members) are free to do whatever they want, includin derailing threads

2) I want to be clear about what I mean by moderating this forum. I do not mean being a DP mod and handing out infractions. I mean leading and directing the discussions in a way that helps make them productive. If that's not what the President does, then what is the Presidents' job? To make rules (that anyone can ignore at will) unilaterally?

That's not what I signed up to do.

Ask mods if any of them would go along with there being NO enforce except 1.) serious global rules like Helix said and 2.) ban someone from this sub-forum IF this requested by the Convention staff (ie Prez upon agreement of at least one of the other 2 officers)? The mod wouldn't even have to review the messages and a sticky could be posted warning of this.

The Convention could establish rules by which a person is removed or not - as guidance to the Convention leadership (elected leadership).

This would take all the bother off the moderators and keep enforcement entirely with the Convention.
 
Last edited:
1) As president, I have made an executive decision that, in order to help ensure that this conference maintains a sustainable level of activity, we should allow any DP poster who wishes to join the convention to do so by contacting the president or the Sec'y and requesting to be made a member.

As a result of that decision, I'd like everyone to welcome our newest member, Joko104

2) It has just come to my attention that this forum is operating under the rules that are different from the rest of DP.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/dp-co...p-constitutional-convention-announcement.html



As it's been explained to me, this means that the mods will not infract anyone for anything that is worth less than 10 point. In other words, things like baiting, flaming, and trolling are allowed in this forum. Since I have no interest in moderating a forum which allows such behavior, I am resigning my position as president and handing the presidency to the only other officer the convention has - Vasudatorrent. My decision becomes effective as soon as Vasudatorrent accepts his new position.

What do you think is going wrong?
 
What do you think is going wrong?

Not naming anyone, very short list of those participating are so aggressive and trollish that it drives others off and pushes it towards being like the basement. If there is nothing Convention officers can do and if moderators won't do anything, the future looks bleak. Unmoderated forums - despite cries for unlimited free speech - quickly just become name-calling flame fests. That's likely the concern. Sangha has always made in clear he wants the Convention to be conducted in an orderly and respectful manner regardless of strong feelings on issues.

Most who are participating are excellent and sincere. It only take a few to spoil it for everyone.
 
Not naming anyone, very short list of those participating are so aggressive and trollish that it drives others off and pushes it towards being like the basement. If there is nothing Convention officers can do and if moderators won't do anything, the future looks bleak. Unmoderated forums - despite cries for unlimited free speech - quickly just become name-calling flame fests. That's likely the concern. Sangha has always made in clear he wants the Convention to be conducted in an orderly and respectful manner regardless of strong feelings on issues.

Most who are participating are excellent and sincere. It only take a few to spoil it for everyone.

That's a pretty good summary
 
Ask mods if any of them would go along with there being NO enforce except 1.) serious global rules like Helix said and 2.) ban someone from this sub-forum IF this requested by the Convention staff (ie Prez upon agreement of at least one of the other 2 officers)? The mod wouldn't even have to review the messages and a sticky could be posted warning of this.

The Convention could establish rules by which a person is removed or not - as guidance to the Convention leadership (elected leadership).

This would take all the bother off the moderators and keep enforcement entirely with the Convention.

The first rule that is proposed to "open" the convention is to limit free speech?
 
Exhibit A for why I don't want to be a part of that even if it is a workable solution

Another solution would be to just ignore the trolls altogether. That's what I do when I'm just tired of certain people. The right-wing is inherently combative and since things are not going their way in this convention, it's obvious that they intend to take it down. I think the continuing sort of disorder is creating fodder for such an environment. We can always drop them from the convention; we don't need mods for that, just send out warnings and if they don't get it, publish the names of those to be ignored.

I missed some the early debates because I couldn't find the convention, but I'll bet the 2nd Amendment thread is a mess...
 
The first rule that is proposed to "open" the convention is to limit free speech?

This seems like an honest question to me.

My honest answer is no. Speech will not be limited in the convention. The debate exchanges will not be moderated, as helix has pointed out.

The only problem that I see is that sangha is stepping down as President. He is probably smarter than I am and sees this as a ploy designed to undermine the convention.

Yes, that does mean "open trolling season" for anyone that got up on the wrong side of the bed.

It will be hard to ignore the type-by trollings. But that is what must be done, and when done properly, will be successful.

Reconsider if you will sangha. If not, welcome to the Presidency vausderatorrent. I shall soon learn to spell your name. lol
 
Since I have no interest in moderating a forum which allows such behavior, I am resigning my position as president
Jeez, you didn't even get to make a "Your president is not a crook speech".
All kidding aside, I thought you did a good job and I'm sorry to hear this news.

handing the presidency to the only other officer the convention has - Vasudatorrent. My decision becomes effective as soon as Vasudatorrent accepts his new position.
V-man hasn't been around for a few days.
Hopefully, he's not in Argentina, hiking the Appalachian trail.
Our fragile republic could be destroyed by that sort of scandal.
On the plus side, Paleocon's abortive campaign to become VP failed.
I think we dodged a figurative bullet there.
 
Another solution would be to just ignore the trolls altogether. That's what I do when I'm just tired of certain people. The right-wing is inherently combative and since things are not going their way in this convention, it's obvious that they intend to take it down. I think the continuing sort of disorder is creating fodder for such an environment. We can always drop them from the convention; we don't need mods for that, just send out warnings and if they don't get it, publish the names of those to be ignored.

I missed some the early debates because I couldn't find the convention, but I'll bet the 2nd Amendment thread is a mess...


i bolded the part that i have an issue with........

our founding fathers, who wrote a pretty good document, had men of character on all sides of the arguments

they debated ideas.....sometimes heatedly

we have many more people in the middle or to the left on this site.....and in this forum

some of us want to make sure that at least the conservative side is heard

things like limited government......privacy laws......gun rights.......

they can be debated.....and there will be major differences from both sides

i dont know how the votes will go....but if they go as the numbers might suggest, this "new document" will be very different from the founders originally wrote

i hope to remain through this.......but attacks aimed at everyone on the right doesnt seem to be productive to me
 
i bolded the part that i have an issue with........

our founding fathers, who wrote a pretty good document, had men of character on all sides of the arguments

they debated ideas.....sometimes heatedly

we have many more people in the middle or to the left on this site.....and in this forum

some of us want to make sure that at least the conservative side is heard

things like limited government......privacy laws......gun rights.......

they can be debated.....and there will be major differences from both sides

i dont know how the votes will go....but if they go as the numbers might suggest, this "new document" will be very different from the founders originally wrote

i hope to remain through this.......but attacks aimed at everyone on the right doesnt seem to be productive to me

It's not. That quote also isn't in this thread.
 
i bolded the part that i have an issue with........

our founding fathers, who wrote a pretty good document, had men of character on all sides of the arguments

they debated ideas.....sometimes heatedly

we have many more people in the middle or to the left on this site.....and in this forum

some of us want to make sure that at least the conservative side is heard

things like limited government......privacy laws......gun rights.......

they can be debated.....and there will be major differences from both sides

i dont know how the votes will go....but if they go as the numbers might suggest, this "new document" will be very different from the founders originally wrote

i hope to remain through this.......but attacks aimed at everyone on the right doesnt seem to be productive to me

I wouldn't view them as attacks but rather a reminder of how mature discussion goes quickly down the tubes with ad nauseum rhetoric that poisons debate. A thread has already appeared noting trouble makers in the convention. Even in the list you bring up the flash points are obvious and, if as you say, the convention ideologically imbalanced, then it's easy to predict that the conservatives will be carried away as they do on sensitive subjects in our forum.

I find the conservative balance an important point of reference, as I do the liberal balance. If we can keep emotions out of this and just go with pure logic, then I think that the project will balance itself. It's not about what any one of thinks, but like the original, it is about what WE think.
 
This seems like an honest question to me.

My honest answer is no. Speech will not be limited in the convention. The debate exchanges will not be moderated, as helix has pointed out.

The only problem that I see is that sangha is stepping down as President. He is probably smarter than I am and sees this as a ploy designed to undermine the convention.

Yes, that does mean "open trolling season" for anyone that got up on the wrong side of the bed.

It will be hard to ignore the type-by trollings. But that is what must be done, and when done properly, will be successful.

Reconsider if you will sangha. If not, welcome to the Presidency vausderatorrent. I shall soon learn to spell your name. lol

I "liked" your post but I want to be clear about one thing. I do not think the DP mods are trying to undermine anything. It's just that when I accepted the position I assumed that DP's regular rules would be in effect. Since that is not the case, I am stepping down.
 
I "liked" your post but I want to be clear about one thing. I do not think the DP mods are trying to undermine anything. It's just that when I accepted the position I assumed that DP's regular rules would be in effect. Since that is not the case, I am stepping down.

So, run that by me please?
 
I "liked" your post but I want to be clear about one thing. I do not think the DP mods are trying to undermine anything. It's just that when I accepted the position I assumed that DP's regular rules would be in effect. Since that is not the case, I am stepping down.

Just FYI, it's no different in the Mafia games. There's all sorts of flaming in those threads. It's part of the charm.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom