Nominations for the team of 5

[lazarus]

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

Or are we just chopped liver?

Chopped liver.

btw, if you are a moderate well.....I'm Joe Crews.

[CyberGuy]

Stan I would also suggest a MINIMUN vote of like 50 or 100 to ratify with a 2/3 majority. I would hate to have the vote ratified with say only 10 or 12 votes. That is hardly representitive of the forum.

[David Koot]

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

Or are we just chopped liver?

Traditionally, I think C/A has been strongly liberal--not necessarily admin's beliefs, but the great majority of participants. Conservatives have had a rough go of it at times. Self-proclaimed liberals? Well, there's Neil, for one. Conservatives? Gerry, for one. As for the rest of us? Chopped liver, son, chopped liver. Better solution: set the rules, admin enforce. Kinda like in a church--don't ask church members to take sides. The buck stops with admin, and can't be handed off.

Dave

[Woody]

Glad to meet you Joe.

Please don't get me started on Joe though.

[CyberGuy]

I would suggest 3 liberals and 2 conservatives. Representative yes but not equal power. NO WAY. More so since they are a minority here.

[David Koot]

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.

Yeah, and a lot of stuff would get referred to committe, and not reported out, just like Congress. This is getting way too complicated. Leave the members out of it. This is admin's job.

[Stan]

Welcome here Joe Crews thought you had passed on.

BTW most people view themself as a moderate. Even Him HIM and Her... (Pointing at names)

[Woody]

My conservative credentials are well established. The members here have already voted on this and it was approved.

And by the way ... us conservatives are in the majority as far as I have seen.

PS. If I were in Stan's shoes ... at this point I would just give up.

[David Koot]

I would suggest 3 liberals and 2 conservatives.

Then it would properly be considered a liberal bastion. Not the appearance of fairplay. Scrap the classification. Huge problems with definitions and who really is what.

Dave

[Stan]

Stan I would also suggest a MINIMUN vote of like 50 or 100 to ratify with a 2/3 majority. I would hate to have the vote ratified with say only 10 or 12 votes. That is hardly representitive of the forum.

LOL we do not have close to that in financial supporters

[lazarus]

Where two or three are gathered in my name they will form a committee!

Has this forum gone mad? This does not have to be so convoluted.

As others have said, Admin get together review the rules, make the necessary changes, tell the members, enforce them with grace and authority.

[David Koot]

Admin get together review the rules, make the necessary changes, tell the members, enforce them with grace and authority.

Absolutely. That is how it is done on other forums I am familiar with. That is the job of admin. Don't pass the buck to the members. Enforce the rules 'with grace and authority,' even-handedly. The forum will be healthy and will grow in a positive direction rather than be dysfunctional.

Dave

[Stan]

They are never even-handly to those who receive..

lets not think this admin, or the other two, want to spend so much of their time reforming and defending...

Personally I like the common sense rule, however turns out those who lack common sense.... well you know the rest..

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

I would suggest 3 liberals and 2 conservatives.

Then it would properly be considered a liberal bastion. Not the appearance of fairplay. Scrap the classification. Huge problems with definitions and who really is what.

Dave

You may be right Dave. I am struggling with what catagory to declare myself. I am feeling just a little schizo. That is why I tried on the moderate label. But since that didn't feel good either .... I think I need to stick with what I feel best applies to my life and that is conservative.

[Stan]

I am neither Liberal nor Conservative..

I am an Adventist..

[Stan]

ALSO there have been enough people contact my administration over the years over things that I have done...

I do not want to deal with the complaints during my office hours, other than my breaks and lunch I very seldom post at work.

[Stan]

The RULES are not about posting conservative or liberal it is the manner of presentations.

[Neil D]

3 liberal and 2 conservatives?????

Where are there 3 liberals who are willing to take up this forum????

Oh, and btw, while I may have liberal ideas, that doesn't mean that I am a liberal....

And Dave, don't even go there about me becoming a conservative....[he said pointing the finger at David and Redwood]

[David Koot]

Personally I like the common sense rule, however turns out those who lack common sense.... well you know the rest..

But here are a couple of very simple rules, which would be easy to enforce prima facie

1) Stick to the issues. No personal attacks.

2) No profanity or obscenity.

3) No libel.

These two rules may be enforced on the basis of the denotive meaning of the words. Fairly unequivocal.

Most of the rest is within the province of fair expression, even if repetitive. Freedom of expression within boundaries is important.

I suggest the following calibrated response to violations:

1) First violation: warning and post edited or deleted.

2) Second violation: 24-hr. suspension

3) Third violation: 1-wk. suspension

4) Continuing violation: 1-yr. ban.

5) Etc.

I suggest you implement something like that, across the Board. Put teeth into the rules, and I believe you will find that situations will very quickly settle down. It will be very manageable. And if you base the rules on the words as they appear, then that would be pretty even-handed. Also, I suggest instructing moderators to do the enforcement, if you prefer, and make sure the mods stick to the rules and enforcement scheme across the board. No exceptions.

Dave

[David Koot]

Oh, and btw, while I may have liberal ideas, that doesn't mean that I am a liberal....

I KNEW it. I KNEW it. Neil is a closet conservative. Welcome to the brotherhood!!! I just KNEW you had it in you! good stuff there.

Dave

[David Koot]

Stan, my perception is that a huge problem here has been that whatever rules there may be, (and you have posted some in the past) are not being enforced. Thus, things running amok. Repost the rules, enforce them upon say 24-hrs. notice, put teeth in them, and I submit that things will settle down. Right now, it seems like everyone is a law unto himself/herself, and admin sits there wringing their hands. But the solution is not to hand it over to the members.

[Woody]

They are never even-handly to those who receive..

lets not think this admin, or the other two, want to spend so much of their time reforming and defending...

Personally I like the common sense rule, however turns out those who lack common sense.... well you know the rest..

The reason that people have felt it is not even-handed is because it is based on the momentary common sense rule of some individual person or collection of persons. Who knows what that common sense is?

What happens is that when a moderator thinks he has seen enough ... a BIG BANG BLOW Up happens with ADMIN. The ENTIRE Thread gets blown up because the common sense rule was ignored and not taken care of at an early stage. And whom ever happens to be near by ... gets in trouble.

I am all for a commen sense rule. I don't care what rule you set down. Just enforce it early and evenly. That clearly has not happened. How can anyone know what the commen sense rule means? There is no education going on. We get a little comment like ... Don't talk about that anymore. But no rule is referred to. Oh, is it the common sense rule? I just don't know.

[Stan]

There are 122 forums.

To make this workable we would need a moderator on every forum.. we should have that anyway...

I have seen other forums where the admin controls everything... they do not last..

This must have user input, and not be the playground of just me... that is not an option.

[Woody]

Quote:

1) First violation: warning and post edited or deleted.

2) Second violation: 24-hr. suspension

3) Third violation: 1-wk. suspension

4) Continuing violation: 1-yr. ban.

5) Etc.

This is HARDLY fair. A lot of education would need to go on before you could impose this. You will have rebellion in the camp. We could ALL be out of here in no time because we have no clue what the rules are.

Educate

Educate

Educate

First of all though ... I guess you would have to figure out what you thought was common sense.

[Woody]

There are 122 forums.

To make this workable we would need a moderator on every forum.. we should have that anyway...

I have seen other forums where the admin controls everything... they do not last..

This must have user input, and not be the playground of just me... that is not an option.

It is not that difficult to see where the conflict is. Everyone knows ... except apparently ADMIN.

I don't think you need to monitor all 122 forums. Just go where the trouble is. I have noticed that moderators and Admin. are usually well aware of the trouble. It is just that nothing gets done.