A Constitution along with amendments.

[Labrocca]

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3004

I have added 2 amendments to the rules which I am now declaring as a constitution of sorts for this site.

Read both amendments A and B please to make sure you understand their repercussions.

[Nitrus]

Right. Ok,

One problem I can see is judging blatant PAs.

And am I right when I assume that If they ignore me and I post a warning like "Please stay on Topic" and they dont, because they ignore me, I can still warn them if they do it again cant i?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Oops, forgot to put nitrus on the ignore list.

I know that's off topic but I've seen even mods make similar posts recently so it should be all right.

My question is how will the posters be protected from moderators giving undeserved warnings, knowing they are on the ignore list?

[Professor]

Seems simple enough.

[Cobra]

How is it a constitution if none of the members got to elect representative to vote to ratify it/ the members ratify it? Not really a constitution if not, just rules handed down by the rulling class in written form.

[Professor]

How is it a constitution if none of the members got to elect representative to vote to ratify it/ the members ratify it? Not really a constitution if not, just rules handed down by the rulling class in written form.


Source: http://www.answers.com/Constitution?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3

con·sti·tu·tion (kŏn'stĭ-tū'shən, -tyū'-)
n.
The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
The document in which such a system is recorded.

[Cobra]

Okay gotcha, I was thinking in line with the US one & this place does use the name democracy forums. It had to be ratified first and so did it's amendments.

[Cobra]

Oh and I am now in open rebellion of this constitution as it in violation of the will/rights of the political forum peoples and is therefore not legitimate. It serves the sole purpose of stifling the voice of the people by denying their free input before its implementation and no freedom loving person should accept it.

[Labrocca]

Oh and I am now in open rebellion of this constitution as it in violation of the will/rights of the political forum peoples and is therefore not legitimate. It serves the sole purpose of stifling the voice of the people by denying their free input before its implementation and no freedom loving person should accept it.


I hope you're joking but if you are not...I did discuss the changes with the staff...consider them your elected officials. :)

Hey...if you guys want to have fun and vote for moderators I might consider it. However I am the King around here...cuz I pay the bills. :)

Personally I don't think we have enough active members to really do that yet. We have about 40 regular posters and of course lots of lurkers and each month we make gains. I would think when the site has 100+ regular posted (1000+ members) we may be able to do something cool like that. I am not against it.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

One thing that would be nice is balanced moderation between left and right, right now the moderation staff is overwhelmingly left, and the single right one seldom does any moderation.

I'm against voting for mods, since the forum has more lefties than righties, unless each party gets to vote for a mod separately.

[Cobra]

I hope you're joking but if you are not...I did discuss the changes with the staff...consider them your elected officials. :)
Not possible, they aren't elected.
Personally I don't think we have enough active members to really do that yet. We have about 40 regular posters and of course lots of lurkers and each month we make gains. I would think when the site has 100+ regular posted (1000+ members) we may be able to do something cool like that. I am not against it.
Yep that would be cool. Everybody remember to remind Lab about this when we get there. Then we can have our nice little monarchy/republic in cyber space.

But until then, I'm still rebelling and yes I was kind of joking as I didn't expect anything to come of my comment.

[Professor]

Hey...if you guys want to have fun and vote for moderators I might consider it.Â*Â*However I am the King around here...cuz I pay the bills.Â*Â*:)


I think this is a good idea. It would give the members of the forum a say in who is in the desicion making processes. Of course there would be a checks and balances system, the winner by the poll would be taken into account when made by mod desicion.

[Cobra]

The only problem is the mods prolly wont like it cuss they could be voted out and loose their position if they can't win re-election when we go democracy. Nobody wants to loose their power.

Then you have the complication of how the voting should go, should it be a true democracy one person one vote or should it be balanced. Like each state(state being consevatives and liberals) gets a set # of mods. Or more depending on the population in the state if we go with representation by population. So the conservativish people get to vote for their representatives and the liberalish people get to vote for theirs and each either get the same set number of reps or # of reps is determined by population in that group.

Like flea said there are more liberal so the liberal would get a larger number of representatives or all of them in a true democracy but with the other two ways I mentioned the conservatives would still get some for their state either way.

All of course ruled by the monarch, our dear leader Lab but the people still get some voice because he will take into account their elected representatives opinions on matters of state. Making life on the the board more fair and just for all. This all of course going into the constitution once it's legitimized by a peoples vote/debate. Sound complicated, it's not just a few choice decision that need making. We may even get to see why the Iraqis are having so much trouble with a democracy they're not used to operating by.

[lily]

The only problem is the mods prolly wont like it cuss they could be voted out and loose their position if they can't win re-election when we go democracy. Nobody wants to loose their power.


Trust me, Cobra.......it's not as glamorous and powerful as it seems!:P

[Labrocca]

Personally Cobra I been toying with the idea recently mostly because I think it would really get us some attention. I don't know of any forums run democratically. It would be appropriate for us to do so given our name.

Of course it would be styled after the Romans where I would be an Emperor of sorts (is there a better word that's not as poor sounding?) as the owner. But we could have a Republic Congress elected here to make new rules, listen to grievances, and attempt to be fair. Anyways...it's just a thought.

[Cobra]

Personally Cobra I been toying with the idea recently mostly because I think it would really get us some attention.Â*Â*I don't know of any forums run democratically.Â*Â*It would be appropriate for us to do so given our name.

Yes it would, DF would be unique in a sea of political. you'd be the first forum I've seen that's done. Most wouldn't because it's bound to be more difficult but could be a lot fun too. I like the idea anyway.
Of course it would be styled after the Romans where I would be an Emperor of sorts (is there a better word that's not as poor sounding?) as the owner.
The dear leader. :D:P

[Labrocca]

Dear Leader...lol I like that because it just sounds so campy. hahah lol

[Nitrus]

Mmm, it would be very interesting if we voted for moderators as a democracy. But It might turn into a popularity contest, and ergo moderators wouldnt punish or warn, just so they could keep the popularity, imho.

[Waffletush]

Mmm, it would be very interesting if we voted for moderators as a democracy. But It might turn into a popularity contest, and ergo moderators wouldnt punish or warn, just so they could keep the popularity, imho.


Sounds like how illegal immigration is dealt with in the US.

Could always do a 'congress' of sorts. Lump together the most stringent posters of each party on the site (Dems, Repubs, Libers, Indy, etc) and vote 1 or 2 of them in, then have an all-encompassing 'at large' vote for 1 or 2 more moderators.

[Professor]

There could be problems with voting them in due to populatity. How about this? First the people apply to be mods. Then the mods look over a list of people who have applied and pick a few that would do the job. Then there is a poll as to who would be right for the job. This way people who the current mods feel would be good are given the jobs and the members of the forum can also be given a voice.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Then the mods look over a list of people who have applied and pick a few that would do the job.


If this is to prevent a popularity contest, it isn't any better because the mods will just pick their friends. Plus the mods have no better idea who would be a good mod than the other posters do.

My biggest issue with a vote is to make sure it is fair. Labrocca has already shown he will edit votes he doesn't like, and something would have to be done to make sure votes were not altered or that alts are not being used to cast votes.

[Professor]

I forgot to put this in earlier: I don't think it matters how many people from each political party we have. In the end, we need a group of open minded, fair people who are willing to do what is right.

[Cobra]

I forgot to put this in earlier: I don't think it matters how many people from each political party we have.Â*Â*In the end, we need a group of open minded, fair people who are willing to do what is right.
If a person is that type, they shouldn't have trouble winning in an election.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I forgot to put this in earlier: I don't think it matters how many people from each political party we have. In the end, we need a group of open minded, fair people who are willing to do what is right.


That's an ideal that doesn't exist in reality. Anyone will be biased against someone they disagree with strongly, even if they won't admit it and even might not realize it.

I've been personally attacked by liberal mods on this board in regular posts, and it's clear to me they cannot separate that political distain from professional action, even if they try.

[Professor]

That's an ideal that doesn't exist in reality. Anyone will be biased against someone they disagree with strongly, even if they won't admit it and even might not realize it.


I disagree. I'll bring this down a few levels. I generally don't agree with Chess. I'm sure he doesn't agree with me. Yet, we are able to both post on a forum without cyber bloodshed.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

That's an ideal that doesn't exist in reality. Anyone will be biased against someone they disagree with strongly, even if they won't admit it and even might not realize it.


I disagree. I'll bring this down a few levels. I generally don't agree with Chess. I'm sure he doesn't agree with me. Yet, we are able to both post on a forum without cyber bloodshed.


However I have reported both lily and alonzo for making personal attacks against me (And I think they were warned for it as well)

Obviously they can't separate themselves from their feelings well enough to moderate without bias.

Since Boogy is the only mod likely to strongly disagree with you, perhaps he is the better man, or perhaps he simply doesn't post as much, but either way he is the exception.

[lily]

What I can't understand is why someone with such hatred and dis-trust of a forum would want to continue to post here.

[Cobra]

I don't know, I posts on forums who system I don't particularly like but can be fun from time to time.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Did a post get deleted? :D

Anyway, I can guess what lily said from cobra's response.

I stay here in spite of the pitiful moderation because I have good debates here on occasion. In fact, if I hadn't bested a few liberals here I imagine I wouldn't be the target of mod bias. This forum needs conservatives and if Labrocca wants to let liberal mods drive conservative posters away he will have to pull that trigger himself, until then I am here to fight the good fight.

[lily]

You see Cobra, that is the difference between you and me.....also I would think that after the rules were changed, just to make me happy I would then calm down and not continue to piss and moan about something so miniscule for a week. I think I'd say thank you and move on to other topics.........but again, that's just me.

[lily]

Did a post get deleted? :D

Anyway, I can guess what lily said from cobra's response.

I stay here in spite of the pitiful moderation because I have good debates here on occasion. In fact, if I hadn't bested a few liberals here I imagine I wouldn't be the target of mod bias. This forum needs conservatives and if Labrocca wants to let liberal mods drive conservative posters away he will have to pull that trigger himself, until then I am here to fight the good fight.


Now, how would you know that Flea.........you have me on ignore. Yes, I deleted that post, to add on..........so read on. You're not fooling anyone. You want to know what is said. How do I know that? Because you were logged out and logged back in to respond.

In fact, if I hadn't bested a few liberals here I imagine I wouldn't be the target of mod bias.

Damn.........I've been found out! Who tipped you off?

[Cobra]

I think I'd say thank you and move on to other topics.........but again, that's just me.

I would to but no ones ever done that for me. I just get told to fuck off lol.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I just get told to fuck off lol.


Me too, I would hope the mods themselves or Labrocca would want to address issues of mod bias, make a better board for everyone, but instead they just want to bury it.

[NortheastCynic]

It's incredible that the mod bias is so liberal and yet no one else seems to be complaining about it...Hmmm.

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

It's incredible that the mod bias is so liberal and yet no one else seems to be complaining about it...Hmmm.

-NC


Not really, there aren't that many vocal right wingers here, and not any others with the post rate I have.

Also, how many other people had reported a liberal poster to lily, only to have not give him warnings for posts that clearly deserved them, deleting the posts instead to keep his warning level out of the suspension range?

Anyone else but me?

Now, this may not be bias, perhaps lily could show that she does this for republican posters as well as liberal ones, but I won't hold my breath.

How many here have had alonzo post false information against them? He posted publically that I had been warned for abusing the report system, that was false, and he told nitrus (according to nitrus) that I was a joke login rather than a real poster.

Couple that with several undeserved warnings (many of which were overturned by Labrocca) and a few other similar incidents...

Have you had similar treatment? Or is this only targeted at vocal republicans?

[ECW]

A whole week of pissing about this... pathetic. Just pathetic.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Anyway, I have asked about these (and other) incidents of apparent mod bias, and not gotten any real answer.

If the mods really have no bias, then why not have a "sunshine" moderation where warnings and the posts they are given for are put in a public forum for open discussion?

Not only would that prove fair, consistent, non biased moderation, it would serve as an example of what does and does not break rules here.

Seems fair to me, and I have no issue with full disclosure from my side.