• 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.

Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions?

Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

This began by necessity with Pirate making "edicts." It is necessary for someone to be in charge until officers are elected. Those officers and the delegates then could change anything they want to.

Obvious and easy to understand.

Except that the delegates were not involved, the officers are changing "anything they want to" on their own accord with ability they gave themselves. That is an issue worthy of discussion, else why bother with a convention?
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

WHOA, wait a minute...

Let's ponder the history of this complaint...

Initially the Convention was going to open to "everyone."

Then US Conservative just DECLARED ("edict") it was open only to those who voted yes on a poll. Somehow, that just become the EDICT of the Convention - that had never been voted on by anyone nor by any elected officer either. Upon HIS edict, 1/4th of those who voted yes dropped out formally and over 1/2 stopped participation. Closing the convention locked out 100% of new members and 99+% of all members, for which forum staff pretty much then blew off the Convention too.

Creating a way by which others could join into the Convention (also necessary to keep it dwindling down to nothing) lead to the staff allowing some abilities to the officers. The EDICT of US Conservative was dooming this Convention and has done a great deal of harm that hopefully can be undone.

So US Conservative, more than anyone else, is not in a position to complaint of edicts by the ELECTED officer(s), particularly since all decisions by Sangha and Vascu have been stated on the forum after discussion on the forum.

In defense of myself, Pirate not only offered that I could join, he even offered me to take his place - all before the "EDICT" just declared by US Conservative locking almost everyone out. He has never been an officer or in a position to declare any rules or exclusions whatsoever. Pirate, Sangha and Vasu also offered this - and I accepted.


Here's the REAL bottomline: Election of officers needs to be completed promptly, during this all the Convention needs to keep moving (which Sangha has been doing despite many obsticles), and people need to be invited and encouraged to rejoin or join in participation to maximize diversity of opinions, lively debate and discussion.

US Conservative, you can post your views on anything you want freely to your heart's content. But do you have authority to make edicts and demands? No. It is time to move beyond all that.

Why keep the convention moving if officers can change anything they want?
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

Please stand back while I take a big whizz on your book. Is that acceptable to you? I'm guessing that you having contacted our former President didn't involve a PM. Isn't that true?

You're posting this thread is not you having valid concerns for the Constitutional convention. You're just here to stir up ****. Well, you are what you stir. You're ****. You've always been ****, you're **** now, and you will always be ****.

Have fun with it!

Why do I get the feeling that this flaming and baiting is perfectly acceptable to the current "officer(s)". Lol.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

Why keep the convention moving if officers can change anything they want?

US Conservative just announcing along the way that 99.5+% of forum members and 100% of all new members are excluded NEVER had been that a rule in the first place, did it? Did he and 4 other people have the ability to just declare that established? Of course not. Personally when they did that I just laughed at it in "who does he think he is to just take over and dictate to everyone?"

Sangha made a parliamentary decision - and the correct one. That rule had NEVER been legitimately established by ANY elected officer OR by any vote. Therefore, as a point of order it wasn't a rule. Sangha didn't CHANGE anything. There was never such a legitimate rule in the first place.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

US Conservative just announcing along the way that 99.5+% of forum members and 100% of all new members are excluded NEVER had been that a rule in the first place, did it? Did he and 4 other people have the ability to just declare that established? Of course not. Personally when they did that I just laughed at it in "who does he think he is to just take over and dictate to everyone?"

Sangha made a parliamentary decision - and the correct one. That rule had NEVER been legitimately established by ANY elected officer OR by any vote. Therefore, as a point of order it wasn't a rule. Sangha didn't CHANGE anything. There was never such a legitimate rule in the first place.

So we should not have had a discussion on how to handle bringing in new people?
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

Why do I get the feeling that this flaming and baiting is perfectly acceptable to the current "officer(s)". Lol.

This isn't the loft. Nor the basement. Yes, that message wasn't the best choice in my opinion. I don't see any officer giving a "like" to that message. Do you?

But now we test your concerns. Can the officers BAN him for it? Infract him? Give him points? No. All they could do is warn and ask to stop. Might be a good idea to do.

The Convention is a bit short on officers right now. Did YOU report the message to Sangha? Or Vasu? Isn't that what you'd ask on any other sub-forum or thread? Wouldn't that be your suggestion? If it bothers a person the member should report it? So, did you report it? :confused:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

Please stand back while I take a big whizz on your book. Is that acceptable to you? I'm guessing that you having contacted our former President didn't involve a PM. Isn't that true?

You're posting this thread is not you having valid concerns for the Constitutional convention. You're just here to stir up ****. Well, you are what you stir. You're ****. You've always been ****, you're **** now, and you will always be ****.

Have fun with it!

As of my last post, I had contacted him twice. If you think blatant disregard for the convention and its rules is stirring things up than so be it. I consider following of committee rules to be important.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

Here is another example of a parliamentary objection made and Sangha making a parliamentary ruling. In the election for secretary, and after the election already started and voting underway, it was just asserted that the second place candidate would become VP if receiving 1/3rd of the vote.

How'd that just pop into existence?! Winning by losing? And announcing that after-the-fact of voting already going? 1/3rd of the officers who became an officer by being voted against? Objection (ie Parliamentary Objection) was raised to this. However, by the election that didn't turn out to happen, so no decision really had to be made.

Rules can't just be asserted by a few members in messages and POOF - it's a rule. And BANNING/EXCLUDING people and ELECTING OFFICERS is where that most applies.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

Those officers and the delegates then could change anything they want to.

Anything they want? :doh This is what gets me-that was not agreed to or voted upon. Its interesting that the President seems to have a fan club who all want to allow him to do things he was not elected to do, though.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

As of my last post, I had contacted him twice. If you think blatant disregard for the convention and its rules is stirring things up than so be it. I consider following of committee rules to be important.

That's the thing to do. Express your concerns on the forum and, if not to annoy, to officers privately too.

However, the Convention doesn't have a full slate of officers yet, Vasu in on holiday and Sangha isn't 24/7. It can take hours to a day or two for any moderator to read a message too.

Oh, WHAT COMMITTEE???
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

WHOA, wait a minute...

Let's ponder the history of this complaint...

Initially the Convention was going to open to "everyone."

Thats not true at all, if it was there would be no need for you to join, and frankly we wouldn't even need closed voting for convention members, it would be open to all people and would essentially just be a poll, not a vote.

Now, once again-Im fine with allowing additional members in if thats approved-whats NOT ok, and the point of this thread is one member (president or not) making that decision for the forum-thats no good.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

This is a mental exercise and a way to organize thoughts on the topics, and consider serious political issues, plus Internet interaction. We are real people. What you wrote applies to the entire forum. Nothing of the forum carries real weight out there. Only with each of us, such as it is for each person. It is about US, individually and personally, not the whole world.

Maybe I'm different in that quitting when things aren't as I want them isn't my nature. Maybe its stubbornness, ego, being a fighter, I dunno. I don't get run off easily. That's what quitting is.

The purpose is to debate and vote on Constitutional issues, not build a private clique or personal pecking order tit-for-tats, Officers are necessary to organize topics and put together impartially worded polls so those participating can build a Constitution and Bill of Rights for people to debate and vote on. That should be the essence and that is what people are interested in.

Joko, you are free to start your own constitution thread/polls at any time and it will be open to all. This convention predates your involvement and you are not a member, so keep that in mind.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

This thread is like watching Star Wars fans debate Star Trek fans, and each side thinks it is really important.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

Anything they want? :doh This is what gets me-that was not agreed to or voted upon. Its interesting that the President seems to have a fan club who all want to allow him to do things he was not elected to do, though.

What was NEVER voted on was YOU just DECLARING that everyone who didn't vote yes in a poll about starting a convention would forever be banned from voting in it. YOU show me ANYWHERE where that radical desire of yours to have a private little club excluding 100% of new members and over 99.5% of existing members was EVER voted on?

You can't. Your messages now seem a fury that, upon review, it was decided as a Parliamentary decision that NO, you were never CZAR of the forum and NO, the rule was NEVER properly created.

What you are complaining of is what you did! Just declared rules with no authority whatsoever to do so.

Yes, within forum rules, allowances of forum staff, and what forum software allows, the delegates and officers can make this Convention what WE wish it to be. What doesn't happen is that YOU just declare who's in and who's out. You tried that, got away with it for a while too, until it realized what was really going on. Now you go on and on complaining that you didn't get away with what was ultimately torpedoing the Convention by assuring it would die for lack of participation.

While I am posting politely to you, the core motive of your now repetitious messages continues to seem to be simply to wreck the convention once it clear you don't control it afterall.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

This thread is like watching Star Wars fans debate Star Trek fans, and each side thinks it is really important.

In the context of this Convention it is important. Maybe not to you.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

Why keep the convention moving if officers can change anything they want?

And how is it a delegation if its open to anyone at anytime? The irony is that they are advocating for no rules while writing up the core documents of a nation-essentially they are saying anything goes that is the will of a few-thats not good enough.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

Of course not. Personally when they did that I just laughed at it in "who does he think he is to just take over and dictate to everyone?"

Mother of all irony. I think you are projecting here.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

The Convention is a bit short on officers right now. Did YOU report the message to Sangha?

I did, twice. As you aren't a convention member I will not discuss the results with you.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

I think that by comparing the conventions activity and support both before and after my election, two things becomes clear:

1) There are people who are more interested in focusing on rules and procedures and those who prefer discussing the substance of the issues

2) The former leads to people leaving the convention while the latter leads to people wanting to join the convention

Without rules and structure then you have no grounds to complain about trolls, it is that plain and simply. Not only are the rules needed but without any structure we look like a bunch of idiots. Your point in resigning is what? Because you fear the placement in the games forum will open the doors to trolls? So to combat that we have no rules? And then we just pretend that all will be well?
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

Joko, you are free to start your own constitution thread/polls at any time and it will be open to all. This convention predates your involvement and you are not a member, so keep that in mind.

I am a member. There was never any legitimate basis to excluding anyone, despite how many times you declare that you make all the rules and you decide who is in and who is out. You wanted to be the all powerful big deal, but you aren't and folks know it. In fact, from the start, I've been more involved in these topics than you. Mostly, by my raising objections to the junk you were trying to establish by your edicts - which are worthless and have no effect.

You tried to take over the Convention. You tried to lock virtually everyone out to kill it - and you lost as you should have. You have NEVER had ANY standing to declare who may or may not be in the Convention, have you?
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

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.

This is lovely but you aren't a convention member, so its immaterial.

I do however have a legal phrase for you to read up on. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
 
Re: Where did the DP CC President get the power to make impromptu executive decisions

And how is it a delegation if its open to anyone at anytime? The irony is that they are advocating for no rules while writing up the core documents of a nation-essentially they are saying anything goes that is the will of a few-thats not good enough.

IOW, if you think a rule makes sense, it's OK for someone to impose it unilaterally without a vote.

But only if *you* think it makes sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom