FYP.

In the US we don't like our wardens editing our posts, not like you polite, social minded, maple syrup loving Canadians.

Bundy and I agreeing​ as usual.

Make voting mandatory, but give options such as “none of the above” and the ability to just remove a vote from one candidate. I would have been very curious to see the results of 2016 if voters could have -1ed Clinton or trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refused_ballot#Canada

I like the -1 idea, and it will be easy to implement once we start voting through our Facebook accounts.

I swear ya'll are trying to get me to renounce my citizenship before I ever get around to doing anything with it.

I'm coming more around to the idea of electronic voting and particularly digital voting and using, something that we have in Australia now which I'm not sure the US have, which is a government portal where we can access health, welfare and tax information and perform related tasks such as doing tax returns. I wouldn't be opposed if this was an option as I'm satisfied it is secure and reliable enough (in terms of not crashing in peak demand) with the ability to still request a hard copy ballot to return for the computer illiterate and those without any access to the internet.

If you replace Republican with termite and The United States with my wall, that is pretty much the pet issue of most of the Orkin technicians in my house.

If you replace termite with tough grease stain and my wall with these dishes in my sink, that is pretty much the pet issue of most of the kickass dish soap in my cupboard.

If you replace tough grease stain with Jew and these dishes in my sink with Germany 'round 'bout 1930something, that is pretty much the pet issue of most of the Nazis in the Nazi Party.

Strawpoll:

What is The Biggest Threat?

1. Muslims

2. Republicans

3. termites

4. tough grease stains

5. Jews

6. Willful Ignorance

Mmm...maple syrup...


Ooh, I like it!

That is awesome.

Four posts garner one lukewarm response (well now two). Feel important now?

He did point out the flaw in your reasoning in his own inimitable style. I wouldn't take the lack of responses to mean that anyone in particular disagrees with his point.

pwn

pwnage

pwnt

A. Game

B. Set

C. Match

But jjou still squakin

No option 6ix?

A Bat’Leth is a terribly designed weapon that would almost certainly get it’s weilder killed against any standard short sword, or even a dagger, or a few well placed kicks.

AWWWWWW YEAAAHHHHH

BTW, to my knowledge I'm still Vice President of that forum. I'll have to consult with the Prez, but I don't see us taking any actions to change the status quo at this time. If you'd like to send your lobbyists by our office, we are always willing to consider interesting offers.

Forum rule number one begins, "Attack the argument, not the arguer."

Forum rule number four says, "No broad-brush attacks on opposing political parties or ideologies."

I believe that the quality of discourse would improve dramatically if these two rules were strictly enforced.

Hoisted on my own petard.

The problem with both those issues is you would need to crack down even more on the amount of bad faith posting and trolling that goes on.

I don’t think the final result of extreme moderation is the default standard makes for a better discussion area.

I cross the line at times, but I also read a lot of posts, by the letter of the law I should be reporting. I don’t though, for many reasons. One is it is not fair to the moderators. The type of person who would be up for strictly moderating a forum like politics would be a person who should never be in charge of moderating anything.

So instead you build a ball park and play by general guidelines.

Given the nature of American politics rule number 4 doesn’t even make sense and has been an issue actually discussed at great length there. A substantial portion of regular posters are not necessary in favor of continuing the idea of trying to change people’s minds through intellectual discourse.

This all comes back around to people posting in bad faith and trolling. Rule number 1 ONLY works if everyone is participating earnestly.

Oh, I’m enforcing it. I have a log book logging violations of those rules as follows:

1. Every time somebody violates one of those rules they get a demerit;
2. 50 demerits = 1 citation
3. 50 citations = 1 violation
4. 25 violations = a verbal warning;
5. 10 verbal warnings = a written warning;
6. 5 Written Warnings = a disciplinary review;
7. 8 disciplinary reviews = a full deflagulation