Politics version 7.0 discussion safe space
03-03-2017
, 09:04 PM
03-15-2017
, 06:54 AM
Hello all! I'd like to start by asking a question?
Does everybody have an equal voice?
I think it's obvious to everything that there are a lot of problems with the Politics 7.0 forum.
To be blunt and upfront, chezlaw is terrible and he just makes **** up out of nowhere.
[
chezlaw is completely illogical, and illegitimate as a moderator. He is incredibly arbitrary, abusive, inconsistent, and he is stifling legitimate, abuse-free expression and discussion.
The forum's second rule, the PC rule, is completely illogical, and illegitimate. It states:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...017-a-1646823/
First of all, it's incredibly vague and arbitrary. What exactly is a PC bias, and why should the forum have one? What is and isn't PC will change in time? According to who, and how does it change? This open-ended script leaves entirely too much room for arbitrary authority, which is obvious that this is a huge problem with this forum.
There is only one thing about this rule that is concrete:
This is crystal clear. Discussion is explicitly welcome and permitted regarding what is or isn't PC.
I would argue that the intent of the rule, is fairly clear.
OK, that seems somewhat clear. Don't be offensive to vulnerable groups, which is undefined. But still, the spirit of rule is somewhat clear.
Why then, was I banned the other night for violating the PC rule? Let me explain to you how I violated it. Someone made the claim that Breitbart was a good source of information, and I made the claim that no, Breitbart is in fact not a credible source of information, because they publish falsehoods. I linked to two examples of published falsehoods by Breitbart, and linked to two articles detailing exactly how their assertions were false.
The reason I linked to the original article on Breitbart, is because this is how I learned to use the English language in College. I have taken English Composition I, and English Composition II, and in both classes, we were tasked with writing Critical Analysis pieces, critiquing other published works. In these assignments, like all other assignments, we were required to cite published works we referenced, and we are also required to provide a direct citation for the article that we were critiquing. These are journalistic standards, and this is how you use the English language properly.
After I made my post critiquing Breitbart, chezlaw deleted it, as well a response I had made to whosnext, stating I had violated the PC rule. I, and SenorKeeed, both asked him probably close to fifteen timesk
chezlaw never even attempted to answer this question. When I continued to ask him, WHILE CITING THE SECTION OF RULE #2 EXPLICITLY ALLOWING ME TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS OR ISN'T "PC", he banned me in a completely arbitrary manner.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=198
He had absolutely no authorization or justification, it was absolutely baseless. In fact, it defied specifically what he had stated about the rule:
So as I said, he never told me specifically how I broke the PC rule by citing Breitbart in my criticial analysis of their publication. But he didn't even bother to try to explain to me how I went against the spirit of the PC rule, by citing Breitbart. The spirit of the PC rule being
I detailed how Breitbart publishes falsehoods by citing two examples, and he didn't even bother to try to explain how I broke the spirit of the rule. It's because I didn't break the rule, and he banned me completely arbitrarily.
But it's not just me, many people have had many complaints about him.
I think the biggest problem with chezlaw, is that he is completely illogical. For example, the other night we were discussing the Breitbart link issue, and he stated this:
Does anyone else see an issue with this? The conclusion does not logically follow the premise.
The premise is that the mods are not banning Breitbart, and also that they don't have the power to. The conclusion is that the links are banned because of the incredibly vague PC rule. The conclusion is also that the links are indeed banned.
This is illogical, the conclusion does not logically follow the premise.
Another example:
The premise is that the sanctions for violating the PC rule do not include bans. But yet I was banned because I cited Breitbart in my critical analysis of them, and after he deleted post I asked him specifically how I broke the PC rule by linking to Breitbart, which he never even attempted to answer.
Premise - sanctions for violations of PC rule do not include bans
Conclusion - banned
This is illogical. The conclusion does not logically follow the premise.
chezlaw is completely illogical, and illegitimate.
Aside from the issue of the the moderator and the rules, another big issue with the forum is that the users themselves clearly want to have a voice, and to contribute, but not only does the structure not exist for them to have meaningful dialogue and input, but they are actively stifled by what could only be described as a very Trumpish mod.
The people want input, they want a voice.
Lots of people have lots of ideas, but currently there does not exist a formal process for these ideas to become actualized. Currently it is Tyranny of the Logical Fallacy. One man deciding who lives and dies on the whims of his thoughtless emotions. Unable to formulate and interpret rules in a logical way, unable to maintain benevolence towards those he disagrees with, our forum is not structured in a logical, rational manner. As such, we do not have just law, we have Trumplaw.
Does everybody have an equal voice? Does everybody feel like they can actually affect change? Does anybody feel like they have any input at all into how their lives on these forums are ran? I know I don't. I was silenced for criticizing Breitbart, banned for pointing out logical fallacies.
This creates an environment and culture of irrationality. One dominated by spur of the moment emotions, while logic, reason, evidence, and journalistic standards go out the window.
We need a new environment, and a new culture. One where the voice of the individual is celebrated, and the users themselves are affirmed as being valuable, unique, insightful members.
Through Direct Action, and logically working with others through Direct Democracy, each and every poster on this site can affect actual change in how things are around here. We shouldn't give up and let our community become polluted with fallacy, fraud, and Authoritarianism. We should all band together and take action to make meaningful change together, and improve the condition of our environment.
So now I again must ask:
Please take a look at the following, and ask yourself
Does everybody have an equal voice? And then speak, and take action!
Does everybody have an equal voice?
I think it's obvious to everything that there are a lot of problems with the Politics 7.0 forum.
To be blunt and upfront, chezlaw is terrible and he just makes **** up out of nowhere.
[
chezlaw is completely illogical, and illegitimate as a moderator. He is incredibly arbitrary, abusive, inconsistent, and he is stifling legitimate, abuse-free expression and discussion.
The forum's second rule, the PC rule, is completely illogical, and illegitimate. It states:
Quote:
2. The forum will have a PC bias. This isn't censorship of ideas. It means posters making an effort to avoid offence to vulnerable groups. Some very extreme topics won't be allowed but in general if there's some political merit to the topic then it's welcome in this forum. What is or isn't PC will change with time - discussion about it will be welcome.
First of all, it's incredibly vague and arbitrary. What exactly is a PC bias, and why should the forum have one? What is and isn't PC will change in time? According to who, and how does it change? This open-ended script leaves entirely too much room for arbitrary authority, which is obvious that this is a huge problem with this forum.
There is only one thing about this rule that is concrete:
Quote:
discussion about it will be welcome.
I would argue that the intent of the rule, is fairly clear.
Quote:
It means posters making an effort to avoid offence to vulnerable groups
Why then, was I banned the other night for violating the PC rule? Let me explain to you how I violated it. Someone made the claim that Breitbart was a good source of information, and I made the claim that no, Breitbart is in fact not a credible source of information, because they publish falsehoods. I linked to two examples of published falsehoods by Breitbart, and linked to two articles detailing exactly how their assertions were false.
The reason I linked to the original article on Breitbart, is because this is how I learned to use the English language in College. I have taken English Composition I, and English Composition II, and in both classes, we were tasked with writing Critical Analysis pieces, critiquing other published works. In these assignments, like all other assignments, we were required to cite published works we referenced, and we are also required to provide a direct citation for the article that we were critiquing. These are journalistic standards, and this is how you use the English language properly.
After I made my post critiquing Breitbart, chezlaw deleted it, as well a response I had made to whosnext, stating I had violated the PC rule. I, and SenorKeeed, both asked him probably close to fifteen timesk
Quote:
You just censored my criticism of Breitbart by deleting my post, which detailed how Breitbart is not a credible organization, or source of news, and you're using your position of privilege to bully me.
How specifically did my critical analysis of Breitbart violate the PC rule?
How specifically did my critical analysis of Breitbart violate the PC rule?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=198
He had absolutely no authorization or justification, it was absolutely baseless. In fact, it defied specifically what he had stated about the rule:
Quote:
So as I said, he never told me specifically how I broke the PC rule by citing Breitbart in my criticial analysis of their publication. But he didn't even bother to try to explain to me how I went against the spirit of the PC rule, by citing Breitbart. The spirit of the PC rule being
Quote:
It means posters making an effort to avoid offence to vulnerable groups.
I detailed how Breitbart publishes falsehoods by citing two examples, and he didn't even bother to try to explain how I broke the spirit of the rule. It's because I didn't break the rule, and he banned me completely arbitrarily.
But it's not just me, many people have had many complaints about him.
Quote:
I don't want to put words in noodle's mouth lest he try and get me contained again but perhaps the way the decision was made seemed to impact people who you are not fans of more than people you are fans of. Meanwhile you make opposite decisions when they would impact people you are fans more than those who are not on your fan list.
I think the biggest problem with chezlaw, is that he is completely illogical. For example, the other night we were discussing the Breitbart link issue, and he stated this:
The premise is that the mods are not banning Breitbart, and also that they don't have the power to. The conclusion is that the links are banned because of the incredibly vague PC rule. The conclusion is also that the links are indeed banned.
This is illogical, the conclusion does not logically follow the premise.
Another example:
Quote:
The premise is that the sanctions for violating the PC rule do not include bans. But yet I was banned because I cited Breitbart in my critical analysis of them, and after he deleted post I asked him specifically how I broke the PC rule by linking to Breitbart, which he never even attempted to answer.
Premise - sanctions for violations of PC rule do not include bans
Conclusion - banned
This is illogical. The conclusion does not logically follow the premise.
chezlaw is completely illogical, and illegitimate.
Aside from the issue of the the moderator and the rules, another big issue with the forum is that the users themselves clearly want to have a voice, and to contribute, but not only does the structure not exist for them to have meaningful dialogue and input, but they are actively stifled by what could only be described as a very Trumpish mod.
The people want input, they want a voice.
Quote:
Moderators,
I notice that a number of posts you've deleted today in the Trump thread have been the same kinds of posts (in some cases verbatim repeats) you've deleted before. It seems that your current moderation approach of "delete no content posts and do nothing else" is doing nothing to dissuade posters from violating the rules of content threads, and is contributing to them being cesspools of the same dumb, petty back-and-forths we see in !!! threads.
I notice that a number of posts you've deleted today in the Trump thread have been the same kinds of posts (in some cases verbatim repeats) you've deleted before. It seems that your current moderation approach of "delete no content posts and do nothing else" is doing nothing to dissuade posters from violating the rules of content threads, and is contributing to them being cesspools of the same dumb, petty back-and-forths we see in !!! threads.
Quote:
I would like to recommend that if Posting links from Breitbart is not allowed then neither should links from CNN. CNN is clearly biased in their reporting against our President.
I also think the words "safe space" should no longer be allowed since it is so overly used and most often not correctly applied.
If these changes can go into affect immediately, that would be great.
Thanks.
I also think the words "safe space" should no longer be allowed since it is so overly used and most often not correctly applied.
If these changes can go into affect immediately, that would be great.
Thanks.
Quote:
He's right though. Banning Breitbart is indefensible.
I've googled a topic, multiple stories exactly the same from multiple sources including Breitbart, I make sure I don't use the Breitbart link.
Complete stupidity. I mean, we know they are all using the associated press feed, but because it's from breitbart it's "fake"? Lol.
I've googled a topic, multiple stories exactly the same from multiple sources including Breitbart, I make sure I don't use the Breitbart link.
Complete stupidity. I mean, we know they are all using the associated press feed, but because it's from breitbart it's "fake"? Lol.
Quote:
I'm not objecting to the ban on linking to hate speech. I'm objecting to banning linking anything from Breitbart. The first of these can be determined on a case-by-case basis, and while hate speech can be a fuzzy category, is potentially workable. The second requires a political judgement that anything directly associated with Breitbart is inherently offensive to vulnerable groups. That judgement might be correct. But it is a substantive political judgement that a significant portion of the GOP, which identifies with the general Breitbart outlook on things, is so offensive that it shouldn't be allowed a place within normal democratic discourse. Such a decision should not be left to the discretion of the moderators alone, but should also require approval from at least P7 regs as well. At minimum, the moderators should have solicited input from posters before censoring one of the biggest news providers in America.
After all, has a justification been offered that all linking to Breitbart is offensive to vulnerable groups? No doubt there are many articles on Breitbart that would be offensive. But many articles are not. For instance, shouldn't a discussion of the Republican health care plan be able to link to the critical comments of Breitbart.com to the plan? How is that offensive to vulnerable groups?
After all, has a justification been offered that all linking to Breitbart is offensive to vulnerable groups? No doubt there are many articles on Breitbart that would be offensive. But many articles are not. For instance, shouldn't a discussion of the Republican health care plan be able to link to the critical comments of Breitbart.com to the plan? How is that offensive to vulnerable groups?
Lots of people have lots of ideas, but currently there does not exist a formal process for these ideas to become actualized. Currently it is Tyranny of the Logical Fallacy. One man deciding who lives and dies on the whims of his thoughtless emotions. Unable to formulate and interpret rules in a logical way, unable to maintain benevolence towards those he disagrees with, our forum is not structured in a logical, rational manner. As such, we do not have just law, we have Trumplaw.
Does everybody have an equal voice? Does everybody feel like they can actually affect change? Does anybody feel like they have any input at all into how their lives on these forums are ran? I know I don't. I was silenced for criticizing Breitbart, banned for pointing out logical fallacies.
This creates an environment and culture of irrationality. One dominated by spur of the moment emotions, while logic, reason, evidence, and journalistic standards go out the window.
We need a new environment, and a new culture. One where the voice of the individual is celebrated, and the users themselves are affirmed as being valuable, unique, insightful members.
Through Direct Action, and logically working with others through Direct Democracy, each and every poster on this site can affect actual change in how things are around here. We shouldn't give up and let our community become polluted with fallacy, fraud, and Authoritarianism. We should all band together and take action to make meaningful change together, and improve the condition of our environment.
So now I again must ask:
Please take a look at the following, and ask yourself
Does everybody have an equal voice? And then speak, and take action!
03-15-2017
, 08:36 AM
03-15-2017
, 08:43 AM
03-15-2017
, 09:01 AM
All of the following is writ law of The General Assembly, of The People's State of Direct Action and Democracy:
STATEMENT
I now declare the creation of a new State. The People's State of Direct Action and Democracy!
The process of this new State is Direct Action, and Direct Democracy. This writ law is an engine of change, powered by the Direct Action of the people.
Before starting this engine, you should talk with your fellow posters and detail exactly how you will start it and run it, and where you want it to go. You should consider the input and the output of the engine, and recognize that in order to get something great out of the engine, you have to put in great effort.
If you find this engine to be great, take it with you, and share it with others, where ever you may go.
Please respect yourself, others, the process, the inputs, and the outputs, lest ye deny yourself the power to change the world.
ROLES
* Facilitator
* Users
* Moderators
* The Facilitator acts as the interface between the engine and the users. The Facilitator is responsible for duties such as outlining where in the process The General Assembly is, counting votes, acknowledging user actions, etc. and provides users all the information needed and the mechanism for user input. The Facilitator is also responsible for maintaining the integrity and functionality of The General Assembly, and may be allowed to ignore actions (but not votes) of users that are clearly trying to sabotage the process. The Facilitator must reject known malicious input. The Facilitator must use blue text when acting as facilitator.
New Facilitators can be voted in with the %10 vs. %90 rule, and voted out the same. These votes cannot be blocked. The original Facilitator cannot be voted out. The Facilitator cannot be a Moderator. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Users are the people, all roles are users. People are the fuel for the Engine. The desire from a user to right a wrong, or to fix a mistake, or to improve the environment, this is what makes The General Assembly work. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Moderators do one thing: carry out the will of the people. Moderators must defend the interest and rights of the people against opposing adversaries, including other Moderators. Moderators are elected by proposal and vote of the people. Moderators must hold elections once every six months. Normal voting rules apply in these elections. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act. The Moderator also is responsible for being the interface/liaison between The General Assembly and all users, and the Administrators of the site: ie. Mat Sklansky
PROCESS
1. There is Open Discussion where anyone can discuss anything. Ideally it would be used for formulating proposals. Like anyone can discuss anything, anyone can propose anything. A user formally makes a proposal (defined/outlined) to start The General Assembly. (only one proposal can be processed through the GA at a time)
2. As soon as a proposal is made, The General Assembly opens. Open discussion remains all throughout the process of the GA.
3. The proposal is then automatically opened for amendments, for a duration of 48 hours. During the Amendment Period, anyone can offer any amendment. As soon as an amendment is offered, it triggers a (vote). The proposal remains open for further amendments until the end of the 48 hour Amendment Period.
4. (Vote)
5. During the Amendment period as Amendments either pass, or fail, more Amendments can be offered and then voted on.
6. End of Amendment Period. When the Amendment Period ends, the entire proposal (with any attached Amendments) is voted on.
7. (VOTE)
8. If the proposal is passed, it is enacted, generally through the Moderator. The moderator's only two proper functions is to carry out the will of the people, and the Moderator generally does the enacting. It the proposal fails, it is not enacted by the Moderator.
9. The General Assembly closes
10. Go back to Open Discussion
MAKING PROPOSALS
Only one user per account, and also only one user per IP address can participate in The General Assembly. A person cannot participate with multiple twoplustwo accounts, and a person cannot participate with multiple IP addresses. Users cannot participate with proxies.
While in Open Discussion, or during the Amendment Period, users can propose proposals or amendments. When they do so, they must bold the title of their text, and make it plainly clear.
Example:
I am making a proposal. I propose ....
VOTING
Votes will be conducted and carried out by posting, the Facilitator is responsible for the vote count. Users can only vote once, per vote set. In order to cast a vote, or perform an action, a user must make it bold and clear, to make sure the Facilitator sees it.
Examples:
Vote Yes
I raise a POP The process ....
While voting, and only while voting, users can choose three vote options:
a. Vote Yes
b. Vote No
c. Abstain
If a user abstains, they will not be counted in the vote count. Users do not have to state they are abstaining.
Users can also perform four actions while voting, and only while voting:
1. Point of Information (POI) - A POI is raised when a member feels like they have important information that was unaddressed, and they need to make everyone aware of it.
2. Point of Process (POP) - A POP is raised when what is occurring does not follow the established rules of procedure.
3. Question or Clarification (QOC) - A QOC is raised when a member is unsure about a detail in the proposal or amendment.
4. Block - A block is raised when what is happening in the GA might be very bad, or it might go against the safety of the users, or it might lead to some bad consequence like serious legal action taken against users or the owners of the site, or something like that. A block is not a no vote, and is not merely a disagreement, a block is a safety check on the integrity of the GA.
Whenever one of these four actions is taken, the vote is halted, reset, and a revote occurs.
VOTING RULES
The normal voting rule is a Simple Majority voting rule, meaning simply a majority is needed for a proposal or amendment to pass. Voting periods last 48 hours. Votes cannot be changed; after a vote is cast, it remains. A user cannot change their vote, and a user cannot take their vote back. Using one of the voting actions to change or take back a vote is considered malicious.
%10 vs. %90
If a user performs a block action, after the vote is reset, the rule changes to a 10 vs. 90 rule. In this rule, %90 of the voters have to vote yes for it to pass. If more than %10 of voters vote no, it fails.
Text in can be changed by a vote of the people under normal voting rules.
STATEMENT
I now declare the creation of a new State. The People's State of Direct Action and Democracy!
The process of this new State is Direct Action, and Direct Democracy. This writ law is an engine of change, powered by the Direct Action of the people.
Before starting this engine, you should talk with your fellow posters and detail exactly how you will start it and run it, and where you want it to go. You should consider the input and the output of the engine, and recognize that in order to get something great out of the engine, you have to put in great effort.
If you find this engine to be great, take it with you, and share it with others, where ever you may go.
Please respect yourself, others, the process, the inputs, and the outputs, lest ye deny yourself the power to change the world.
ROLES
* Facilitator
* Users
* Moderators
* The Facilitator acts as the interface between the engine and the users. The Facilitator is responsible for duties such as outlining where in the process The General Assembly is, counting votes, acknowledging user actions, etc. and provides users all the information needed and the mechanism for user input. The Facilitator is also responsible for maintaining the integrity and functionality of The General Assembly, and may be allowed to ignore actions (but not votes) of users that are clearly trying to sabotage the process. The Facilitator must reject known malicious input. The Facilitator must use blue text when acting as facilitator.
New Facilitators can be voted in with the %10 vs. %90 rule, and voted out the same. These votes cannot be blocked. The original Facilitator cannot be voted out. The Facilitator cannot be a Moderator. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Users are the people, all roles are users. People are the fuel for the Engine. The desire from a user to right a wrong, or to fix a mistake, or to improve the environment, this is what makes The General Assembly work. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Moderators do one thing: carry out the will of the people. Moderators must defend the interest and rights of the people against opposing adversaries, including other Moderators. Moderators are elected by proposal and vote of the people. Moderators must hold elections once every six months. Normal voting rules apply in these elections. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act. The Moderator also is responsible for being the interface/liaison between The General Assembly and all users, and the Administrators of the site: ie. Mat Sklansky
PROCESS
1. There is Open Discussion where anyone can discuss anything. Ideally it would be used for formulating proposals. Like anyone can discuss anything, anyone can propose anything. A user formally makes a proposal (defined/outlined) to start The General Assembly. (only one proposal can be processed through the GA at a time)
2. As soon as a proposal is made, The General Assembly opens. Open discussion remains all throughout the process of the GA.
3. The proposal is then automatically opened for amendments, for a duration of 48 hours. During the Amendment Period, anyone can offer any amendment. As soon as an amendment is offered, it triggers a (vote). The proposal remains open for further amendments until the end of the 48 hour Amendment Period.
4. (Vote)
5. During the Amendment period as Amendments either pass, or fail, more Amendments can be offered and then voted on.
6. End of Amendment Period. When the Amendment Period ends, the entire proposal (with any attached Amendments) is voted on.
7. (VOTE)
8. If the proposal is passed, it is enacted, generally through the Moderator. The moderator's only two proper functions is to carry out the will of the people, and the Moderator generally does the enacting. It the proposal fails, it is not enacted by the Moderator.
9. The General Assembly closes
10. Go back to Open Discussion
MAKING PROPOSALS
Only one user per account, and also only one user per IP address can participate in The General Assembly. A person cannot participate with multiple twoplustwo accounts, and a person cannot participate with multiple IP addresses. Users cannot participate with proxies.
While in Open Discussion, or during the Amendment Period, users can propose proposals or amendments. When they do so, they must bold the title of their text, and make it plainly clear.
Example:
I am making a proposal. I propose ....
VOTING
Votes will be conducted and carried out by posting, the Facilitator is responsible for the vote count. Users can only vote once, per vote set. In order to cast a vote, or perform an action, a user must make it bold and clear, to make sure the Facilitator sees it.
Examples:
Vote Yes
I raise a POP The process ....
While voting, and only while voting, users can choose three vote options:
a. Vote Yes
b. Vote No
c. Abstain
If a user abstains, they will not be counted in the vote count. Users do not have to state they are abstaining.
Users can also perform four actions while voting, and only while voting:
1. Point of Information (POI) - A POI is raised when a member feels like they have important information that was unaddressed, and they need to make everyone aware of it.
2. Point of Process (POP) - A POP is raised when what is occurring does not follow the established rules of procedure.
3. Question or Clarification (QOC) - A QOC is raised when a member is unsure about a detail in the proposal or amendment.
4. Block - A block is raised when what is happening in the GA might be very bad, or it might go against the safety of the users, or it might lead to some bad consequence like serious legal action taken against users or the owners of the site, or something like that. A block is not a no vote, and is not merely a disagreement, a block is a safety check on the integrity of the GA.
Whenever one of these four actions is taken, the vote is halted, reset, and a revote occurs.
VOTING RULES
The normal voting rule is a Simple Majority voting rule, meaning simply a majority is needed for a proposal or amendment to pass. Voting periods last 48 hours. Votes cannot be changed; after a vote is cast, it remains. A user cannot change their vote, and a user cannot take their vote back. Using one of the voting actions to change or take back a vote is considered malicious.
%10 vs. %90
If a user performs a block action, after the vote is reset, the rule changes to a 10 vs. 90 rule. In this rule, %90 of the voters have to vote yes for it to pass. If more than %10 of voters vote no, it fails.
Text in can be changed by a vote of the people under normal voting rules.
Last edited by AllCowsEatGrass; 03-15-2017 at 09:26 AM.
Reason: editing:
03-15-2017
, 09:06 AM
Quote:
All of the following is writ law of The General Assembly, of The People's State of Direct Democracy:
STATEMENT
I now declare the creation of a new State. The People's State of Direct Democracy!
The process of this new State is Direct Action, and Direct Democracy. This writ law is an engine of change, powered by the Direct Action of the people.
Before starting this engine, you should talk with your fellow posters and detail exactly how you will start it and run it, and where you want it to go. You should consider the input and the output of the engine, and recognize that in order to get something great out of the engine, you have to put in great effort.
If you find this engine to be great, take it with you, and share it with others, where ever you may go.
Please respect yourself, others, the process, the inputs, and the outputs, lest ye deny yourself the power to change the world.
ROLES
* Facilitator
* Users
* Moderators
* The Facilitator acts as the interface between the engine and the users. The Facilitator is responsible for duties such as outlining where in the process The General Assembly is, counting votes, acknowledging user actions, etc. and provides users all the information needed and the mechanism for user input. The Facilitator is also responsible for maintaining the integrity and functionality of The General Assembly, and may be allowed to ignore actions (but not votes) of users that are clearly trying to sabotage the process. The Facilitator must reject known malicious input. The Facilitator must use blue text when acting as facilitator.
New Facilitators can be voted in with the 10 vs. 90 rule, and voted out the same. These votes cannot be blocked. The original Facilitator cannot be voted out. The Facilitator cannot be a Moderator. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Users are the people, all roles are users. People are the fuel for the Engine. The desire from a user to right a wrong, or to fix a mistake, or to improve the environment, this is what makes The General Assembly work. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Moderators do one thing: carry out the will of the people. Moderators must defend the interest and rights of the people against opposing adversaries, including other Moderators. Moderators are elected by proposal and vote of the people. Moderators must hold elections once every six months. Normal voting rules apply in these elections. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
PROCESS
1. There is Open Discussion where anyone can discuss anything. Ideally it would be used for formulating proposals. Like anyone can discuss anything, anyone can propose anything. A user formally makes a proposal (defined/outlined) to start The General Assembly. (only one proposal can be processed through the GA at a time)
2. As soon as a proposal is made, The General Assembly opens. Open discussion remains all throughout the process of the GA.
3. The proposal is then automatically opened for amendments, for a duration of 48 hours. During the Amendment Period, anyone can offer any amendment. As soon as an amendment is offered, it triggers a (vote). The proposal remains open for further amendments until the end of the 48 hour Amendment Period.
4. (Vote)
5. During the Amendment period as Amendments either pass, or fail, more Amendments can be offered and then voted on.
6. End of Amendment Period. When the Amendment Period ends, the entire proposal (with any attached Amendments) is voted on.
7. (VOTE)
8. If the proposal is passed, it is enacted, generally through the Moderator. The moderator's only two proper functions is to carry out the will of the people, and the Moderator generally does the enacting. It the proposal fails, it is not enacted by the Moderator. The Moderator also is responsible for being the interface/liaison between The General Assembly and all users, and the Administrators of the site: ie. Mat Sklansky
9. The General Assembly closes
10. Go back to Open Discussion
MAKING PROPOSALS
Only one user per ********* account, and also only one user per IP address can participate in The General Assembly. A person cannot participate with multiple twoplustwo accounts, and a person cannot participate with multiple IP addresses. Users cannot participate with proxies.
While in Open Discussion, or during the Amendment Period, users can propose proposals or amendments. When they do so, they must bold the title of their text, and make it plainly clear.
Example:
I am making a proposal. I propose ....
VOTING
Votes will be conducted and carried out by posting, the Facilitator is responsible for the vote count. Users can only vote once, per vote set. In order to cast a vote, or perform an action, a user must make it bold and clear, to make sure the Facilitator sees it.
Examples:
Vote Yes
I raise a POP The process ....
While voting, and only while voting, users can choose three vote options:
a. Vote Yes
b. Vote No
c. Abstain
If a user abstains, they will not be counted in the vote count. Users do not have to state they are abstaining.
Users can also perform four actions while voting, and only while voting:
1. Point of Information (POI) - A POI is raised when a member feels like they have important information that was unaddressed, and they need to make everyone aware of it.
2. Point of Process (POP) - A POP is raised when what is occurring does not follow the established rules of procedure.
3. Question or Clarification (QOC) - A QOC is raised when a member is unsure about a detail in the proposal or amendment.
4. Block - A block is raised when what is happening in the GA might be very bad, or it might go against the safety of the users, or it might lead to some bad consequence like serious legal action taken against users or the owners of the site, or something like that. A block is not a no vote, and is not merely a disagreement, a block is a safety check on the integrity of the GA.
Whenever one of these four actions is taken, the vote is halted, reset, and a revote occurs.
VOTING RULES
The normal voting rule is a Simple Majority voting rule, meaning simply a majority is needed for a proposal or amendment to pass. Voting periods last 48 hours. Votes cannot be changed; after a vote is cast, it remains. A user cannot change their vote, and a user cannot take their vote back. Using one of the voting actions to change or take back a vote is considered malicious.
%10 vs. %90
If a user performs a block action, after the vote is reset, the rule changes to a 10 vs. 90 rule. In this rule, %90 of the voters have to vote yes for it to pass. If more than %10 of voters vote no, it fails.
Text in can be changed by a vote of the people under normal voting rules.
STATEMENT
I now declare the creation of a new State. The People's State of Direct Democracy!
The process of this new State is Direct Action, and Direct Democracy. This writ law is an engine of change, powered by the Direct Action of the people.
Before starting this engine, you should talk with your fellow posters and detail exactly how you will start it and run it, and where you want it to go. You should consider the input and the output of the engine, and recognize that in order to get something great out of the engine, you have to put in great effort.
If you find this engine to be great, take it with you, and share it with others, where ever you may go.
Please respect yourself, others, the process, the inputs, and the outputs, lest ye deny yourself the power to change the world.
ROLES
* Facilitator
* Users
* Moderators
* The Facilitator acts as the interface between the engine and the users. The Facilitator is responsible for duties such as outlining where in the process The General Assembly is, counting votes, acknowledging user actions, etc. and provides users all the information needed and the mechanism for user input. The Facilitator is also responsible for maintaining the integrity and functionality of The General Assembly, and may be allowed to ignore actions (but not votes) of users that are clearly trying to sabotage the process. The Facilitator must reject known malicious input. The Facilitator must use blue text when acting as facilitator.
New Facilitators can be voted in with the 10 vs. 90 rule, and voted out the same. These votes cannot be blocked. The original Facilitator cannot be voted out. The Facilitator cannot be a Moderator. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Users are the people, all roles are users. People are the fuel for the Engine. The desire from a user to right a wrong, or to fix a mistake, or to improve the environment, this is what makes The General Assembly work. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Moderators do one thing: carry out the will of the people. Moderators must defend the interest and rights of the people against opposing adversaries, including other Moderators. Moderators are elected by proposal and vote of the people. Moderators must hold elections once every six months. Normal voting rules apply in these elections. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
PROCESS
1. There is Open Discussion where anyone can discuss anything. Ideally it would be used for formulating proposals. Like anyone can discuss anything, anyone can propose anything. A user formally makes a proposal (defined/outlined) to start The General Assembly. (only one proposal can be processed through the GA at a time)
2. As soon as a proposal is made, The General Assembly opens. Open discussion remains all throughout the process of the GA.
3. The proposal is then automatically opened for amendments, for a duration of 48 hours. During the Amendment Period, anyone can offer any amendment. As soon as an amendment is offered, it triggers a (vote). The proposal remains open for further amendments until the end of the 48 hour Amendment Period.
4. (Vote)
5. During the Amendment period as Amendments either pass, or fail, more Amendments can be offered and then voted on.
6. End of Amendment Period. When the Amendment Period ends, the entire proposal (with any attached Amendments) is voted on.
7. (VOTE)
8. If the proposal is passed, it is enacted, generally through the Moderator. The moderator's only two proper functions is to carry out the will of the people, and the Moderator generally does the enacting. It the proposal fails, it is not enacted by the Moderator. The Moderator also is responsible for being the interface/liaison between The General Assembly and all users, and the Administrators of the site: ie. Mat Sklansky
9. The General Assembly closes
10. Go back to Open Discussion
MAKING PROPOSALS
Only one user per ********* account, and also only one user per IP address can participate in The General Assembly. A person cannot participate with multiple twoplustwo accounts, and a person cannot participate with multiple IP addresses. Users cannot participate with proxies.
While in Open Discussion, or during the Amendment Period, users can propose proposals or amendments. When they do so, they must bold the title of their text, and make it plainly clear.
Example:
I am making a proposal. I propose ....
VOTING
Votes will be conducted and carried out by posting, the Facilitator is responsible for the vote count. Users can only vote once, per vote set. In order to cast a vote, or perform an action, a user must make it bold and clear, to make sure the Facilitator sees it.
Examples:
Vote Yes
I raise a POP The process ....
While voting, and only while voting, users can choose three vote options:
a. Vote Yes
b. Vote No
c. Abstain
If a user abstains, they will not be counted in the vote count. Users do not have to state they are abstaining.
Users can also perform four actions while voting, and only while voting:
1. Point of Information (POI) - A POI is raised when a member feels like they have important information that was unaddressed, and they need to make everyone aware of it.
2. Point of Process (POP) - A POP is raised when what is occurring does not follow the established rules of procedure.
3. Question or Clarification (QOC) - A QOC is raised when a member is unsure about a detail in the proposal or amendment.
4. Block - A block is raised when what is happening in the GA might be very bad, or it might go against the safety of the users, or it might lead to some bad consequence like serious legal action taken against users or the owners of the site, or something like that. A block is not a no vote, and is not merely a disagreement, a block is a safety check on the integrity of the GA.
Whenever one of these four actions is taken, the vote is halted, reset, and a revote occurs.
VOTING RULES
The normal voting rule is a Simple Majority voting rule, meaning simply a majority is needed for a proposal or amendment to pass. Voting periods last 48 hours. Votes cannot be changed; after a vote is cast, it remains. A user cannot change their vote, and a user cannot take their vote back. Using one of the voting actions to change or take back a vote is considered malicious.
%10 vs. %90
If a user performs a block action, after the vote is reset, the rule changes to a 10 vs. 90 rule. In this rule, %90 of the voters have to vote yes for it to pass. If more than %10 of voters vote no, it fails.
Text in can be changed by a vote of the people under normal voting rules.
03-15-2017
, 09:41 AM
OK I'm going to go ahead and propose this.
Logic and facts have no bias, and they have no murkiness. They are clear, and definite, unbiased, and fair, and I think they make an excellent foundation for this new State.
I propose The People's Rights of Logic
This is the foundation of our law, and this affirms the rights of the people.
1. The people have a right to be logical. So long as their speech violates none of these fallacies, it shall stand.
2. The people have a right to be defended against Logical Fallacies. If a moderator sees a logical fallacy presented in an argument, they shall edit the post and red!, and tell the illogical poster how they are illogical.
Logic and facts have no bias, and they have no murkiness. They are clear, and definite, unbiased, and fair, and I think they make an excellent foundation for this new State.
I propose The People's Rights of Logic
This is the foundation of our law, and this affirms the rights of the people.
1. The people have a right to be logical. So long as their speech violates none of these fallacies, it shall stand.
2. The people have a right to be defended against Logical Fallacies. If a moderator sees a logical fallacy presented in an argument, they shall edit the post and red!, and tell the illogical poster how they are illogical.
Last edited by AllCowsEatGrass; 03-15-2017 at 09:46 AM.
03-15-2017
, 10:24 AM
Quote:
All of the following is writ law of The General Assembly, of The People's State of Direct Action and Democracy:
STATEMENT
I now declare the creation of a new State. The People's State of Direct Action and Democracy!
The process of this new State is Direct Action, and Direct Democracy. This writ law is an engine of change, powered by the Direct Action of the people.
Before starting this engine, you should talk with your fellow posters and detail exactly how you will start it and run it, and where you want it to go. You should consider the input and the output of the engine, and recognize that in order to get something great out of the engine, you have to put in great effort.
If you find this engine to be great, take it with you, and share it with others, where ever you may go.
Please respect yourself, others, the process, the inputs, and the outputs, lest ye deny yourself the power to change the world.
ROLES
* Facilitator
* Users
* Moderators
* The Facilitator acts as the interface between the engine and the users. The Facilitator is responsible for duties such as outlining where in the process The General Assembly is, counting votes, acknowledging user actions, etc. and provides users all the information needed and the mechanism for user input. The Facilitator is also responsible for maintaining the integrity and functionality of The General Assembly, and may be allowed to ignore actions (but not votes) of users that are clearly trying to sabotage the process. The Facilitator must reject known malicious input. The Facilitator must use blue text when acting as facilitator.
New Facilitators can be voted in with the %10 vs. %90 rule, and voted out the same. These votes cannot be blocked. The original Facilitator cannot be voted out. The Facilitator cannot be a Moderator. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Users are the people, all roles are users. People are the fuel for the Engine. The desire from a user to right a wrong, or to fix a mistake, or to improve the environment, this is what makes The General Assembly work. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Moderators do one thing: carry out the will of the people. Moderators must defend the interest and rights of the people against opposing adversaries, including other Moderators. Moderators are elected by proposal and vote of the people. Moderators must hold elections once every six months. Normal voting rules apply in these elections. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act. The Moderator also is responsible for being the interface/liaison between The General Assembly and all users, and the Administrators of the site: ie. Mat Sklansky
PROCESS
1. There is Open Discussion where anyone can discuss anything. Ideally it would be used for formulating proposals. Like anyone can discuss anything, anyone can propose anything. A user formally makes a proposal (defined/outlined) to start The General Assembly. (only one proposal can be processed through the GA at a time)
2. As soon as a proposal is made, The General Assembly opens. Open discussion remains all throughout the process of the GA.
3. The proposal is then automatically opened for amendments, for a duration of 48 hours. During the Amendment Period, anyone can offer any amendment. As soon as an amendment is offered, it triggers a (vote). The proposal remains open for further amendments until the end of the 48 hour Amendment Period.
4. (Vote)
5. During the Amendment period as Amendments either pass, or fail, more Amendments can be offered and then voted on.
6. End of Amendment Period. When the Amendment Period ends, the entire proposal (with any attached Amendments) is voted on.
7. (VOTE)
8. If the proposal is passed, it is enacted, generally through the Moderator. The moderator's only two proper functions is to carry out the will of the people, and the Moderator generally does the enacting. It the proposal fails, it is not enacted by the Moderator.
9. The General Assembly closes
10. Go back to Open Discussion
MAKING PROPOSALS
Only one user per account, and also only one user per IP address can participate in The General Assembly. A person cannot participate with multiple twoplustwo accounts, and a person cannot participate with multiple IP addresses. Users cannot participate with proxies.
While in Open Discussion, or during the Amendment Period, users can propose proposals or amendments. When they do so, they must bold the title of their text, and make it plainly clear.
Example:
I am making a proposal. I propose ....
VOTING
Votes will be conducted and carried out by posting, the Facilitator is responsible for the vote count. Users can only vote once, per vote set. In order to cast a vote, or perform an action, a user must make it bold and clear, to make sure the Facilitator sees it.
Examples:
Vote Yes
I raise a POP The process ....
While voting, and only while voting, users can choose three vote options:
a. Vote Yes
b. Vote No
c. Abstain
If a user abstains, they will not be counted in the vote count. Users do not have to state they are abstaining.
Users can also perform four actions while voting, and only while voting:
1. Point of Information (POI) - A POI is raised when a member feels like they have important information that was unaddressed, and they need to make everyone aware of it.
2. Point of Process (POP) - A POP is raised when what is occurring does not follow the established rules of procedure.
3. Question or Clarification (QOC) - A QOC is raised when a member is unsure about a detail in the proposal or amendment.
4. Block - A block is raised when what is happening in the GA might be very bad, or it might go against the safety of the users, or it might lead to some bad consequence like serious legal action taken against users or the owners of the site, or something like that. A block is not a no vote, and is not merely a disagreement, a block is a safety check on the integrity of the GA.
Whenever one of these four actions is taken, the vote is halted, reset, and a revote occurs.
VOTING RULES
The normal voting rule is a Simple Majority voting rule, meaning simply a majority is needed for a proposal or amendment to pass. Voting periods last 48 hours. Votes cannot be changed; after a vote is cast, it remains. A user cannot change their vote, and a user cannot take their vote back. Using one of the voting actions to change or take back a vote is considered malicious.
%10 vs. %90
If a user performs a block action, after the vote is reset, the rule changes to a 10 vs. 90 rule. In this rule, %90 of the voters have to vote yes for it to pass. If more than %10 of voters vote no, it fails.
Text in can be changed by a vote of the people under normal voting rules.
STATEMENT
I now declare the creation of a new State. The People's State of Direct Action and Democracy!
The process of this new State is Direct Action, and Direct Democracy. This writ law is an engine of change, powered by the Direct Action of the people.
Before starting this engine, you should talk with your fellow posters and detail exactly how you will start it and run it, and where you want it to go. You should consider the input and the output of the engine, and recognize that in order to get something great out of the engine, you have to put in great effort.
If you find this engine to be great, take it with you, and share it with others, where ever you may go.
Please respect yourself, others, the process, the inputs, and the outputs, lest ye deny yourself the power to change the world.
ROLES
* Facilitator
* Users
* Moderators
* The Facilitator acts as the interface between the engine and the users. The Facilitator is responsible for duties such as outlining where in the process The General Assembly is, counting votes, acknowledging user actions, etc. and provides users all the information needed and the mechanism for user input. The Facilitator is also responsible for maintaining the integrity and functionality of The General Assembly, and may be allowed to ignore actions (but not votes) of users that are clearly trying to sabotage the process. The Facilitator must reject known malicious input. The Facilitator must use blue text when acting as facilitator.
New Facilitators can be voted in with the %10 vs. %90 rule, and voted out the same. These votes cannot be blocked. The original Facilitator cannot be voted out. The Facilitator cannot be a Moderator. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Users are the people, all roles are users. People are the fuel for the Engine. The desire from a user to right a wrong, or to fix a mistake, or to improve the environment, this is what makes The General Assembly work. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act.
* Moderators do one thing: carry out the will of the people. Moderators must defend the interest and rights of the people against opposing adversaries, including other Moderators. Moderators are elected by proposal and vote of the people. Moderators must hold elections once every six months. Normal voting rules apply in these elections. All users have equal voice and equal ability to act. The Moderator also is responsible for being the interface/liaison between The General Assembly and all users, and the Administrators of the site: ie. Mat Sklansky
PROCESS
1. There is Open Discussion where anyone can discuss anything. Ideally it would be used for formulating proposals. Like anyone can discuss anything, anyone can propose anything. A user formally makes a proposal (defined/outlined) to start The General Assembly. (only one proposal can be processed through the GA at a time)
2. As soon as a proposal is made, The General Assembly opens. Open discussion remains all throughout the process of the GA.
3. The proposal is then automatically opened for amendments, for a duration of 48 hours. During the Amendment Period, anyone can offer any amendment. As soon as an amendment is offered, it triggers a (vote). The proposal remains open for further amendments until the end of the 48 hour Amendment Period.
4. (Vote)
5. During the Amendment period as Amendments either pass, or fail, more Amendments can be offered and then voted on.
6. End of Amendment Period. When the Amendment Period ends, the entire proposal (with any attached Amendments) is voted on.
7. (VOTE)
8. If the proposal is passed, it is enacted, generally through the Moderator. The moderator's only two proper functions is to carry out the will of the people, and the Moderator generally does the enacting. It the proposal fails, it is not enacted by the Moderator.
9. The General Assembly closes
10. Go back to Open Discussion
MAKING PROPOSALS
Only one user per account, and also only one user per IP address can participate in The General Assembly. A person cannot participate with multiple twoplustwo accounts, and a person cannot participate with multiple IP addresses. Users cannot participate with proxies.
While in Open Discussion, or during the Amendment Period, users can propose proposals or amendments. When they do so, they must bold the title of their text, and make it plainly clear.
Example:
I am making a proposal. I propose ....
VOTING
Votes will be conducted and carried out by posting, the Facilitator is responsible for the vote count. Users can only vote once, per vote set. In order to cast a vote, or perform an action, a user must make it bold and clear, to make sure the Facilitator sees it.
Examples:
Vote Yes
I raise a POP The process ....
While voting, and only while voting, users can choose three vote options:
a. Vote Yes
b. Vote No
c. Abstain
If a user abstains, they will not be counted in the vote count. Users do not have to state they are abstaining.
Users can also perform four actions while voting, and only while voting:
1. Point of Information (POI) - A POI is raised when a member feels like they have important information that was unaddressed, and they need to make everyone aware of it.
2. Point of Process (POP) - A POP is raised when what is occurring does not follow the established rules of procedure.
3. Question or Clarification (QOC) - A QOC is raised when a member is unsure about a detail in the proposal or amendment.
4. Block - A block is raised when what is happening in the GA might be very bad, or it might go against the safety of the users, or it might lead to some bad consequence like serious legal action taken against users or the owners of the site, or something like that. A block is not a no vote, and is not merely a disagreement, a block is a safety check on the integrity of the GA.
Whenever one of these four actions is taken, the vote is halted, reset, and a revote occurs.
VOTING RULES
The normal voting rule is a Simple Majority voting rule, meaning simply a majority is needed for a proposal or amendment to pass. Voting periods last 48 hours. Votes cannot be changed; after a vote is cast, it remains. A user cannot change their vote, and a user cannot take their vote back. Using one of the voting actions to change or take back a vote is considered malicious.
%10 vs. %90
If a user performs a block action, after the vote is reset, the rule changes to a 10 vs. 90 rule. In this rule, %90 of the voters have to vote yes for it to pass. If more than %10 of voters vote no, it fails.
Text in can be changed by a vote of the people under normal voting rules.
03-15-2017
, 11:07 AM
Well it's very streamlined, and quite simple actually. The best thing about it, I think, is that every poster has equal voice and equal input to the outcomes. You yourself can actually affected the change you want to see. Another best thing about it, is users that engage in the process are actually engaging in politics. And we actual kind of are right now. Doesn't it make sense for posters in a politics forum to actually engage in forum politics?
I mean ... I kinda see the problem with it though. It's not sitting around arguing over the same old bull**** time and time again like what's been going on for .. how long?
Do you disagree with my assertions about this system? Which btw is an idea taken from the General Assembly used at Occupy Wall Street.
My assertions are that all posters have equal voice and input into the outcomes, and can take direct action to directly influence the outcomes.
My second assertion is that it's completely different than anything you've ever tried.
03-15-2017
, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Well it's very streamlined, and quite simple actually. The best thing about it, I think, is that every poster has equal voice and equal input to the outcomes. You yourself can actually affected the change you want to see. Another best thing about it, is users that engage in the process are actually engaging in politics. And we actual kind of are right now. Doesn't it make sense for posters in a politics forum to actually engage in forum politics?
I mean ... I kinda see the problem with it though. It's not sitting around arguing over the same old bull**** time and time again like what's been going on for .. how long?
Do you disagree with my assertions about this system? Which btw is an idea taken from the General Assembly used at Occupy Wall Street.
My assertions are that all posters have equal voice and input into the outcomes, and can take direct action to directly influence the outcomes.
My second assertion is that it's completely different than anything you've ever tried.
Well it's very streamlined, and quite simple actually. The best thing about it, I think, is that every poster has equal voice and equal input to the outcomes. You yourself can actually affected the change you want to see. Another best thing about it, is users that engage in the process are actually engaging in politics. And we actual kind of are right now. Doesn't it make sense for posters in a politics forum to actually engage in forum politics?
I mean ... I kinda see the problem with it though. It's not sitting around arguing over the same old bull**** time and time again like what's been going on for .. how long?
Do you disagree with my assertions about this system? Which btw is an idea taken from the General Assembly used at Occupy Wall Street.
My assertions are that all posters have equal voice and input into the outcomes, and can take direct action to directly influence the outcomes.
My second assertion is that it's completely different than anything you've ever tried.