Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions
So we should not have had a discussion on how to handle bringing in new people?
There actually was quite a bit of messages about it on the convention threads and elsewhere. For my messages, I kept challenging the legitimacy of it and how such a rule could just be asserted into existence, particularly for how extreme it was. 4 o 5 people just DECIDED to BAN ALL new members and over 99.5% of existing members - and by those few just declaring that it became a rule of the Convention?
How the heck is that legitimate? I even, for fun, just started DECLARING rules myself to make the point.
A rule to exclude people is VERY SERIOUS - and would have to be a proactively created rule, as the core presumption of the entire DP forum, the forum staff and the software all do allow everyone a equal free speech voice and equal voting rights. Equal free speech and voting rights is a core premise of he DP forum.
If anything Sangha has done anything that was "authoritarian" it was making it so a person has to basically register with the Convention officers or their vote won't be counted.
Simply, if restrictions are put on whose vote is not counted and whose is, such a restriction would have to be created by a vote (not sure if 1/2 or 2/3rd) as the status quo of the entire forum is that it is equally open to everyone (except a post count requirement for the Basement and a donation for the Loft.)
You could start a thread on that topic if you wish. Might be a good idea to do so. I oppose a closed Convention because I think then it will slowly die for lack of participation. I am confident the forum staff will not be supportive of a unique, small private club. But that's my opinion of it. You can have your opinion and an opposite one.
My real point is that the exclusionary rule was NEVER legitimately established, so it was proper for Sangha to consider the objection raised to it - and make it clear there is no such rule as an obvious parliamentary ruling. A rule not properly established is a rule not to be followed or enforced by officers. If you explore the history of the notion of excluding people first came, you would find my reflect of where the closed-door convention first originated is accurate. It was just asserted by one person somewhere along the way.
Could I just assert that no one who hasn't posted at least 1500 messages can not be a voting delegate - and if 2 or 3 others post messages agreeing that then is just the new rule? The
very first messages on the poll about a convention repeatedly stated the convention would be for "everyone" to participate. Look back and you'll see that. That condition of the poll or this convention was never changed by any vote or even any motion considering the topic.
Any procedure to BLOCK or BAN anyone needs to legitimately established, be clear, upfront and known. Not just asserted by someone along the way.
As a comparison, the poll on how could a really bad, bad troll be blocked/ban has been laid out in detail:
1. It would have to be for severe trolling, baiting or flaming.
2. The person would have to be warned.
3. The person has a right to tell their side.
4. If the warnings failed, it would take the officers in agreement.
5. If they were, they would make a request to moderation staff.
6. Only moderator staff then could actually do the block/ban.
I think you would agree it would not be legitimate if I posted "let's not count OphanSlug's votes," 3 other members post they agree, and now your votes are disallowed. Yet that is how the exclusionary "rule" was just asserted into existence.
Nor do I make it any secret my own view that unless participation on the Convention is increased, rather than decreased, it will become so small and boring it will just fade away.
Sorry to be so long winded. You seem to have a legitimate concern and I'm telling my side of it, though I have no authority on this of course. I am one of the forum members who raised in numerous ways my "parliamentary objection" to the exclusionary rule just being asserted into existence by a few people in their messages. With that, the executive officer was correct in making his parliamentary ruling. However, to keep it "a Convention," he added a member would have to register as a delegate before their votes would be counted. It seemed reasonable to me.