Nominations for the team of 5

[Stan]

To define and enforce the 'rules'

Actually only need 4, have already appointed The Cricket...

A private forum will be set up for them to hash things out.

PLEASE a variety of people.. some in 'that camp' and some in "the other camp"

[Lil Star]

We have tried this before and all that does is get things all fired up and then someone (most of the time me) will get banned at the request of someone. So, what would be the point of another forum just to "hash things out"?

[Woody]

Is there a way to do this in private without ridicule from the nominations made?

[Lil Star]

Is there a way to do this in private without ridicule from the nominations made?

Redwood, not to overstep my boundaries here.

Where in the world did you get the idea that I was ridiculing the nominations being made? I made a statement that this has been done before and all that happened was that people were banned for sharing their ideas. Nothing derogatory about that. It was the simple truth. My mom always used to say, sometimes the truth hurts worse than a lie. I guess she might have been right.

[Neil D]

I second what Redwood suggested for a variety of reasons...

1] while it is prudent that nominations should be public, deliberations need to be private away from the prying public.

2] By keeping the deliberation away from the public, distractors who would be upset and make big complaints would be kept to a minimum.

3] After having gone thru one ruckus, I would prefer to keep my deliberation out of the public eye...I want to have fun, not be a policeman all the time..

4] Lil Star, what Redwood suggested was not directed at you. You are not the center of the his universe, of that, I can assure you. So allay your fears...

[Lil Star]

Oh trust me, I hope I'm not. Pretty sure I'm not nor do I want to be. I have someone very important to me that I'd rather have be the center of his universe. I have a life outside of here. Mostly why I do not come here often until as of late. Because I have a job that has flexible hours I am able to be online more often.

As I stated before, this has been tried before only to get people banned for stating their beliefs or thoughts or opinions. What is the point to have a room like this if it turns out to be the same as the one before? Remember Neil? It has been done before. I think you were one of those that were involved in that private room as well. I know I was.

[CyberGuy]

Is this such a good idea?

This is starting to sound like a dictatorship with a forum of five dictating what can be discussed and what cannot be discussed. What next. Banning a person bercause their views are to liberal?

[Neil D]

Quote:

As I stated before, this has been tried before only to get people banned for stating their beliefs or thoughts or opinions. What is the point to have a room like this if it turns out to be the same as the one before? Remember Neil? It has been done before. I think you were one of those that were involved in that private room as well. I know I was.

I suspect that maybe you are misunderstanding what these rooms are for...It is to hash out the rules of this BBS...something that all can live with...You nominate a representative [or yourself for that matter] and they will decide which rules are to be enforced or not....

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this...Stan, a bit of clarification ...if I am wrong?

[lazarus]

This is starting to sound like a dictatorship with a forum of five dictating what can be discussed and what cannot be discussed. What next. Banning a person bercause their views are to liberal?

There's a movie that this whole thing reminds me of....The Star Chamber!!!!

[CyberGuy]

To define and enforce the 'rules'

Actually only need 4, have already appointed The Cricket...

A private forum will be set up for them to hash things out.

PLEASE a variety of people.. some in 'that camp' and some in "the other camp"

I would suggest that we as a forum have to ratify whatever the forum of five votes on as rules. 2/3 vote ratifies the rules. Otherwise it is defeated. That way we as the forum members have a vote to overRule a rule. A 2/3rd vote keeps the majority from stomping on the minority viewpoints.

[David Koot]

Good point, Cyberguy. I see a lot of potential for influence-peddling, unfairness and abuse. Probably better to have clearly-stated rules and have admin deal with enforcement, rather than have members do so.

[Stan]

Interesting concept.. a wise one..

I would add to that, the people who have access should be those who believe in this kind of community enough to be some kind of current financially supporter.

That will solve the problem of those who might get 5 names to vote, and keep trollers aways..

If people are not willing to provide 10 cents a day to cover the expenses.. then...

THOUGHTS?

[David Koot]

Is this such a good idea?

This is starting to sound like a dictatorship with a forum of five dictating what can be discussed and what cannot be discussed. What next. Banning a person bercause their views are to liberal?

I agree. Or, banning someone because their views are too conservtive. I recall one active member who said recently to the effect that this is a playground for liberals, and made it clear that conservatives are not welcome.

[Lissa]

I'm new here, so I don't know, but anyways, what is this topic about?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Is there a way to do this in private without ridicule from the nominations made?

Redwood, not to overstep my boundaries here.

Where in the world did you get the idea that I was ridiculing the nominations being made? I made a statement that this has been done before and all that happened was that people were banned for sharing their ideas. Nothing derogatory about that. It was the simple truth. My mom always used to say, sometimes the truth hurts worse than a lie. I guess she might have been right.

Not directed at you in any way. It was a response to Stan's request. Sorry.

[CyberGuy]

Interesting concept.. a wise one..

I would add to that, the people who have access should be those who believe in this kind of community enough to be some kind of current financially supporter.

That will solve the problem of those who might get 5 names to vote, and keep trollers aways..

If people are not willing to provide 10 cents a day to cover the expenses.. then...

THOUGHTS?

True you would have to have a poll in a PRIVATE forum that only paying members have access to.

That would work

[David Koot]

The Star Chamber!!!!

Hear, hear. And there is no appeal of the Chamber's decisions. Sounds like a reversion to feudal times. I would also point out the extreme danger of 'the five' being subjected to a barrage of PM's by interest groups, in an attempt to sway their votes. This whole thing seems problematic. Alternatively, simply set the rules and the moderators or admins enforce them, like most other forums. I belong to a few. That is how it is done there. Emphasis on enforcement, fairly and even-handedly.

Dave

[Stan]

The people making the rules, should not be doing so on theological positions but BEHAVIOR positions.

2 self proclaimed Conservatives

and

2 self proclaimed Liberals.

[Lil Star]

thank you for clarifying Redwood

[CyberGuy]

The people making the rules, should not be doing so on theological positions but BEHAVIOR positions.

2 self proclaimed Conservatives

and

2 self proclaimed Liberals.

Tell me why in the world would we need 2 Liberals and 2 conservatives. After all the vast majority here are liberals not conservative. Besides Stan you said the rules should be on BEHAVIOR positions NOT theological so Liberal vs conservative should not be an issue.

[Woody]

What about us Moderates ... Don't we count?

Or are we just chopped liver?

[Stan]

YOU are right

EXCEPT I would rather not have the followers of 'one camp' feel they have not be treated fairly, or not represented..

[Stan]

Now I have to figure out who is supporting financially.

PM me if you are, and i will give access when we create that..

OK

[CyberGuy]

YOU are right

EXCEPT I would rather not have the followers of 'one camp' feel they have not be treated fairly, or not represented..

LOL. Well then Stan why not have a house and a senate. The house would be the forum vote and the senate would be equal conservatives and Liberals. Any rule would have to be approved by popular vote and the committee. 2/3 vote of the popular vote.

[lazarus]

Stan, you are kidding right?

2 libs/2 conservatives?