• 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.

Would this be agreeable to Convention Delegates?

Vote on prohibition against trolling, baiting and flaming


  • Total voters
    23
I want to thank you for convincing me to stay on for just a little bit longer because you reminded me that there is one important task I need to complete before I resign my office.

Care to guess what it is?

I am delaying my resignation. I will remain in office until Vasuda returns and a VP takes office and we take care of one last thing that needs to be addressed before I resign

I like it.
 
If the officers are only going to push their agenda there's no point to this anyway, is there? There is no difference between this and DMs in the basement or moderators upstairs EXCEPT more safeguards. This will take:
1. The officers in agreement, not just 1 DM or 1 moderator.
2. There has to be warning first.
3. There is the safeguard of then it takes a moderator to do so, who aren't going to go along with this for long if it becomes clear it is just one side's agenda.
4. This also just involves one sub-forum.

So this is a curious concern you have as there are safeguards that don't exist in the basement as any one DM can unilaterally take actions - and many actions that the officers can't do (can't move or change messages or threads nor close any thread down.)

What would your response be if someone was concerned DMs might be unfair? What is there response to those who claim mods are unfair? And DMs and Mods aren't elected either.

That's right. Staff is not elected, they're decided on by other staff and there are a few things they look for before they'll trust you with whatever abilities you get to have.

I've already seen sangha suggest that I'll be the first to go and for what? I'm trying to demonstrate what will happen if the president has a personal problem with you or just really disagrees with you. So far so good I'd say.
 
Not at all. Actually, it simplistic.

Seriously, again, can you point to a thread or a series of posts actually having something to do with the convention that has this extreme trolling?
 
I want to thank you for convincing me to stay on for just a little bit longer because you reminded me that there is one important task I need to complete before I resign my office.

Care to guess what it is?

I am delaying my resignation. I will remain in office until Vasuda returns and a VP takes office and we take care of one last thing that needs to be addressed before I resign

Personally, I would prefer you to stay on and not resign.
 
I vote yes...but ONLY on the condition that the accused has the opportunity to defend his or her alleged actions.
No, if there are to be officers then they should each be a Judge Dredd operating under only one rule "trolling is whatever a given officer thinks it is, live in fear".
 
Last edited:
Moderators are not willing to read through all these messages to decide was does and doesn't break the rules. However, the delegates could set rules by which visitors (not voting delegates) and delegates could be requested to be removed from this Convention Sub-Forum (banned from the Convention). The THREE officers (President, VP and Secretary) would have to vote among themselves to have someone banned from the Convention and if so, they could request forum staff to sub-forum ban that member. It would be up to forum staff, of course, whether or not to agree to this proposition.

The alternative is this Convention becomes more a flame fest than the basement. It also means extreme racist, Nazi or just extremely hateful insults would be allowed. Remember, anyone whether or not a delegate can post and no way to stop it even if they're doing so to try to derail the Convention.

So, this is the poll and it is yes or no.

Yes: it should be a rule of the Constitutional Convention that, if after one or more warning by Convention officers, a person posting on the forum continues to seriously flame, bait or troll other members, the 3 officers as a panel may request forum staff to ban that member from the Convention sub-forum.

No: There will be no prohibition against anyone seriously flaming, baiting, stalking and trolling Constitutional Convention threads.

Folks, make your comments but this is a yes or no vote. Lack of a yes means there will be no rules against personal insults, trolling, flaming, baiting or attempting to derail threads or the Convention by anyone - delegate or not.
Should have made a Social Group for this, then the operator of that Social Group can just warn/ban whomever causes trouble.

You don't even need special mod permissions or anything for that, Social Groups are already a part of DP and the operator of any Social Group can remove people from it for any or no reason.
 
Last edited:
Should have made a Social Group for this, then the operator of that Social Group can just warn/ban whomever causes trouble.

You don't even need special mod permissions or anything for that, Social Groups are already a part of DP and the operator of any Social Group can remove people from it for any or no reason.

Jerry, you seem to have taken an interest in the Convention lately. Would you like to become a member of the convention? If you do, your vote in polls will be counted - otherwise, not
 
Jerry, you seem to have taken an interest in the Convention lately. Would you like to become a member of the convention? If you do, your vote in polls will be counted - otherwise, not

You aren't in the position to offer membership. Kindly step down.
 
Jerry, you seem to have taken an interest in the Convention lately. Would you like to become a member of the convention? If you do, your vote in polls will be counted - otherwise, not
I appreciate the offer but I think my history on this forum would bring a taint to your project; whatever I vote for which is passed will be viewed in the light of some less-than-PC opinions I have expressed, like my deep-seeded distrust of women in general.

I do enjoy debating the different topics, though.
 
I appreciate the offer but I think my history on this forum would bring a taint to your project; whatever I vote for which is passed will be viewed in the light of some less-than-PC opinions I have expressed, like my deep-seeded distrust of women in general.

I do enjoy debating the different topics, though.

In order to pass something must get a majority of votes. I think you're overestimating the importance of your one vote. I think you are the only one who thinks the product will be judged based on your participation.

And I think the convention would benefit from your membership, but it's your decision. If you change your mind, let me know
 
I appreciate the offer but I think my history on this forum would bring a taint to your project; whatever I vote for which is passed will be viewed in the light of some less-than-PC opinions I have expressed, like my deep-seeded distrust of women in general.

I do enjoy debating the different topics, though.

Hey Jerry, nearly all of us who have been around for a while are "tainted," have forum baggage and are strongly identified on certain positions.

I don't anticipate many topics about the nature of women on the Convention. :lol: You are a valuable member upstairs so inherently would be one in the Convention. In case you haven't noticed, being PC isn't a requirement or expectation.
 
Hey Jerry, nearly all of us who have been around for a while are "tainted," have forum baggage and are strongly identified on certain positions.

I don't anticipate many topics about the nature of women on the Convention. :lol: You are a valuable member upstairs so inherently would be one in the Convention. In case you haven't noticed, being PC isn't a requirement or expectation.

I don't know Jerry, so don't know his reputation. But come on aboard, Jerry! If I regret it later, so be it!
 
I don't know Jerry, so don't know his reputation. But come on aboard, Jerry! If I regret it later, so be it!

Jerry's ok and an active forum member. He's conservative on most matters, moderate on others, but not an authoritarian. Has strong opinions. Intelligent. Messages thought out. Generally respectful. He'd be an asset.
 
Last edited:
Should have made a Social Group for this, then the operator of that Social Group can just warn/ban whomever causes trouble.

You don't even need special mod permissions or anything for that, Social Groups are already a part of DP and the operator of any Social Group can remove people from it for any or no reason.

Things not directly on the forum are all but invisible to the forum and have little participation. I would have liked it to have been a subforum on the Constitution board as an obvious placement. The further up the forum, the more the participation.
 
Things not directly on the forum are all but invisible to the forum and have little participation. I would have liked it to have been a subforum on the Constitution board as an obvious placement. The further up the forum, the more the participation.

I admit, I don't know what a social group is
 
Seriously, again, can you point to a thread or a series of posts actually having something to do with the convention that has this extreme trolling?

I'm just looking down the road. You know that time to time, usually noobs, someone will come flying into various areas of the forum for attention whore raging and disruption. You've had to address that, all DMs and mods have time to time. That's what it's about. Nor could the president just remove anyone. It'd take all officers and a mod's final approval. Hopefully it'll never be necessary.
 
I admit, I don't know what a social group is

Almost no one does. That's another problem. It's sort of a like a private message board. Nothing would prevent anyone participating to start one if they wanted to now and then for particular discussions that they wanted to limit participation to or for less than totally apparent discussions, though I don't see that happening.
 
I'm just imagining here... we'll have trolls on the formal threads, spend days discussing whether to remove someone, with endless quoting, thereby setting this exercise back even further.

If the officers remove people injudiciously, we can fire the officers.

And you think the "officers" would just accept that or would anyone calling for them to be "fired" just be the next person to be deemed a troll to be banned? That question has, in fact, already been answered.
 
And you think the "officers" would just accept that or would anyone calling for them to be "fired" just be the next person to be deemed a troll to be banned? That question has, in fact, already been answered.

It is ironic you crying wolf, isn't it? If you got out of line as a DM power tripping the mods would shut you down. If officers got out of line power tripping the mods would shut them down. You know that. Your criticism, on the bottomline, is against forum staff as they are the final authority on everything and is arguing just to argue. Again, the safeguards are obvious and exceed anything else anywhere on the forum.
 
There is only one person I'm aware of being banned from anything on the Convention threads and that was me. I was thread banned for a message with personal attacks. This was not by any officer, but a moderator. I deserved it and didn't cry about it. Despite all, it remains that only the administrator and moderators could ban anyone as only they have software access to do so. This vote doesn't change that. Rather, it gives the elected officers as our democratically selected representatives a voice and working relationship with forum staff - which is obviously a good thing.

This isn't the place for general or specific issues of moderator fairness or their rules/guidelines. There is a sub forum for that elsewhere on the forum and you all know where that is. If you don't, ask one of the DMs (Dungeon Masters). To date, Pirate, Sangha and Vasu have done well and I haven't seen them be unfair to anyone. I suspect a few (very few) are injecting long standing partisan differences on a personal level into these procedural topics. Since the 2 officers elected so far has been one that leans left and one that leans right, this also shows the majority of delegates also recognize a person's partisan stances is not what determines who will be a competent, intelligent and impartial officer.

Whether it be for elections or thread participation, delegate overwhelmingly have done a good showing in my opinion. While I was highly skeptical at first, it has been the actions and efforts of both the delegates and officers that sold me on the Constitutional Convention.
 
And you think the "officers" would just accept that or would anyone calling for them to be "fired" just be the next person to be deemed a troll to be banned? That question has, in fact, already been answered.

X why don't you explain to the convention members why you're so interested in what happens in this forum?

After all, you haven't posted one thing about the constitution in this forum, have you?
 
Back
Top Bottom