The Flat Earth Society

The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: Pete Svarrior on December 27, 2014, 08:57:16 PM

Title: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 27, 2014, 08:57:16 PM
The time has come. After many months of discussion, we believe the negotiations between tfes.org and theflatearthsociety.org have reached a point of conclusion, and we would like now to present our reunification proposal. The support (or lack thereof) presented in this thread will determine whether or not we proceed. Please see the proposal below:


Reunification Proposal
Author: pizaaplanet
Version: 1

Assuming the approval of our members, we would like to reunite the two societies under the following conditions:


Version history:
#DescriptionDateAuthor
1:Initial version27/12/2014pizaaplanet


What happens now?
As agreed previously, it is now the time for our community to discuss the proposal and suggest modifications. Everyone's input is welcome. Please post your comments below. We (tfes.org administrators) will avoid getting too involved in the discussion proper so as to avoid skewing it, but we will happily respond to any questions. We will also notify Daniel and Wilmore about this thread, so they may be able to answer questions directed at them, should they choose to do so.

The discussion/suggestions period will last for no less than 7 days since the time of this post. At that point, assuming we've reached a sensible consensus, the final version of the proposal would be put to a vote. Provisionally, I would like to suggest that all members who registered and made 50 posts prior to this post. These rules are open for suggestions and amendments on the same conditions as the rest of the proposal.

Thank you for reading, and thanks for flying Flat Earth.
~pizaaplanet
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on December 27, 2014, 08:58:47 PM
I think it sounds great.


If it plays out how you've described it above then I have no issues with this whatsoever. I suppose we'll be keeping our current post count and whatnot. Is there any way to merge my account from the other forum with this one? If not, it's not a big deal, but it would be cool if that was possible.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 27, 2014, 09:06:14 PM
I'm all for it.  The sooner we get this done, the better.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Blanko on December 27, 2014, 09:07:13 PM
ey p. neat
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on December 27, 2014, 09:24:10 PM
Let's do this!
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Foxbox on December 27, 2014, 09:42:28 PM
Sounds good to me.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Vongeo on December 27, 2014, 09:54:40 PM
What of post counts and e-peens and other such things. :P
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 27, 2014, 10:05:06 PM
I suppose we'll be keeping our current post count and whatnot. Is there any way to merge my account from the other forum with this one? If not, it's not a big deal, but it would be cool if that was possible.
What of post counts and e-peens and other such things. :P
We hope to merge everything we can. Assuming we overcome potential technical difficulties (which I'm confident we can do), we should be able to merge people's accounts from both forums, preserving their posts, post counts, etc.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Rama Set on December 27, 2014, 10:58:14 PM
Sounds great.  Get 'er done!
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Vindictus on December 27, 2014, 11:17:18 PM
inb4 Thork
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tau on December 27, 2014, 11:49:13 PM
Sounds great to me.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Particle Person on December 27, 2014, 11:53:25 PM
Sounds excellent.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: markjo on December 28, 2014, 12:59:58 AM
Daniel will retain veto power over the ZC's decisions.
Just out of curiosity, will ZC decisions need to be approved by Daniel, or will they stand unless he uses his veto power?  Is there any time limit for Daniel to use his veto power before he's stuck with the ZC's decisions?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on December 28, 2014, 01:15:06 AM
  • The Society
    • President/VP - Daniel will be the President of the reunited society. Lord Wilmore will be the Vice President. These positions are at Daniel's discretion.
      • The Zetetic Council - A democratically-elected body of 5 members will be electable yearly. They will be officially recognised as such within the Society and will therefore be expected to act as its legitimate representatives. Their exact remit and structure of the council will be established post-reunification (and pre-election) through a general agreement of all members of the Society and forum regulars (unless they deem that such a body is unnecessary). In principle, they will be a decision-making organ of the society wherever possible (e.g. not in charge of membership and merchandise - see below). Daniel will retain veto power over the ZC's decisions.
So the council has to be elected but the president doesn't? And nor does his Vice? How does that work?

If we have a despot in charge, call him that. Presidents are elected. Also, we've had Daniel for 10 years and he does very little. Even the United States gets rid of a president after 8 years. Lets have a change. Why are we stuck with Daniel? He does nothing, contributes nothing, doesn't know anything about flat earth history or the theories ... why are we stuck with him forever and ever? Fuck him. We don't need him.


  • Merchandise - This remains within Daniel's remit and will likely operate as it does currently on theflatearthsociety.org, under the condition that it will be performed at no profit. After reunification, we may investigate alternative pathways (e.g. Zazzle/CafePress), should there be significant demand for such a development.
So the most flaky, unreliable and perpetually absent member of the society is the person we put in charge of distributing goods when people give REAL money for them? Come on. This is ridiculous. It has always been a great source of embarrassment how people can give money to the society and Daniel trousers it for 4 months and no one can get hold of him. Give the job to someone else.

There. Not so bad. Only disliked two of the suggestions so we aren't a million miles away.

The thing is, Daniel hasn't moved a jot. He still wants to be the President, still wants control over the main site and all financial control. He wants it all, and wants everyone else to just run it all for him whilst he does very little other than get in the way. Why are we so desperate to put up with all his crap again? If you like his way of doing things, post over there. If you don't, stay here. Why are our choices being limited? I don't want Daniel in charge of a site that I like using. He will not change, he will not compromise, he is just a domain squatter. We don't need him or Wilmore. Neither contribute anything any more. Its time they handed over the reigns. They won't. Leave them to rot over there.

The problem with Daniel is that he isn't accountable to anyone, and he doesn't give a shit about anyone else's opinions. Lets not put him in that position of power again. He abuses it.

[/list][/list]
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2014, 02:11:02 AM
Just out of curiosity, will ZC decisions need to be approved by Daniel, or will they stand unless he uses his veto power?  Is there any time limit for Daniel to use his veto power before he's stuck with the ZC's decisions?
Their decision would stand unless vetoed. In principle, he could always overturn a decision.

So the council has to be elected but the president doesn't? And nor does his Vice? How does that work?
Many people (in the reunification thread, but also Daniel himself) used the "Queen of England" analogy. Not all leaders are elected. This deal gives you a Parliament.

As for your questioning of the appropriateness of the title of "president":

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President
A president is the leader of a country or a division or part of a country, typically a republic, a democracy, or a dictatorship. The title "president" is sometimes used by extension for leaders of other groups.

I feel that the rest of your concerns have been done to death by now, and I have nothing to add on the subjects of "We don't need Daniel" or "Daniel is terrible". I understand that you're not happy with the answers, but unless your views become the majority views, we can't act solely on them.

EDIT:
I don't want Daniel in charge of a site that I like using.
I believe the original proposal makes it clear that we would remain in charge of the forum.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: junker on December 28, 2014, 02:35:16 AM
I agree with the idea of reunification, but I do share some of Thork's sentiment regarding the old guard (though not as passionately). I suppose I'd want to know what fail-safe there is in the event that Daniel decides he doesn't like the current state of affairs, and wants to run everything again and de-admins us all? We could always spin off again, but no sister FES forum has ever done as well as this one, and that's coming from someone who made his own with Parsifal years ago. I agree with secret user that we are closer than I can ever recall. But, if everyone agrees this is where we should go then I'm on board. I have a feeling a lot of people feel as Thork does (again, not as strongly). If they didn't feel that way, I don't see how this place would've thrived for the past year plus. Anyway, just my two cents. Let's do it.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2014, 02:39:09 AM
I agree with the idea of reunification, but I do share some of Thork's sentiment regarding the old guard (though not as passionately). I suppose I'd want to know what fail-safe there is in the event that Daniel decides he doesn't like the current state of affairs, and wants to run everything again and de-admins us all? We could always spin off again, but no sister FES forum has ever done as well as this one, and that's coming from someone who made his own with Parsifal years ago. I agree with secret user that we are closer than I can ever recall. But, if everyone agrees this is where we should go then I'm on board. I have a feeling a lot of people feel as Thork does (again, not as strongly). If they didn't feel that way, I don't see how this place would've thrived for the past year plus. Anyway, just my two cents. Let's do it.

Daniel can try but he'll have a tough time demodding the people with database access.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2014, 02:45:08 AM
I suppose I'd want to know what fail-safe there is in the event that Daniel decides he doesn't like the current state of affairs, and wants to run everything again and de-admins us all?
The forum would run on our servers, not his. Even with admin privileges, he couldn't do anything we couldn't undo.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: junker on December 28, 2014, 02:45:47 AM
I get that, I just envision a time in the future where friction may occur since there isn't much trust (admitted by Wilmore) from Daniel. Then what happens? I know I may be pessimistic in that regard, but we have built something good here and I do care about it.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2014, 02:50:18 AM
That strongly depends on the nature of the friction. I feel that it's entirely too early to worry about that. He's giving us full control of the reunified forum. He's putting himself in a position where retaking that control would be a tall order.

Daniel and Wilmore proposed that they should only have an advisory function on the forum. They've literally deprived themselves of having a say in how the forum runs.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: junker on December 28, 2014, 03:03:53 AM

That strongly depends on the nature of the friction. I feel that it's entirely too early to worry about that. He's giving us full control of the reunified forum. He's putting himself in a position where retaking that control would be a tall order.

Daniel and Wilmore proposed that they should only have an advisory function on the forum. They've literally deprived themselves of having a say in how the forum runs.

I'd say that alleviates my primary concern. If he's sincere in that regard then there's nothing to worry about. I understand Thork's position, but in the case you've laid out, it won't be any different than the current situation, we will just have moar noobs. Nobody is doing merchandising here now and the ZC hasn't done anything, so those don't qualify as concerns to me
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on December 28, 2014, 03:17:42 AM
I also do not see a need for the ZC. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on December 28, 2014, 03:23:05 AM
I agree with Thork. Things are going fine here, and I don't see a need to change that. We've never been as close knit of a community as this past year.
Agreed.

I don't feel particularly strong one way or the other, but if the forum community changes too much then I might really hate it. This place feels more supportive and comfortable than the other site ever did.

And:
I also do not see a need for the ZC. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
I'm still not even sure what it does or why it's necessary. It just seems like a weird, political, Thork (did he even come up with it? it seems like something he would) brainchild with no real purpose.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2014, 03:24:49 AM
To keep the discussion on topic: the ZC is something that would be considered after the reunification. The proposal already includes the option of the community deeming it unnecessary.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Vindictus on December 28, 2014, 03:25:16 AM
From what I can tell, it's a holdover from the past that exists just because.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 28, 2014, 04:53:06 AM
A few people have voiced concerns about wanting to preserve the community we have here.  While I share their sense of loyalty and camaraderie, the sad fact is that no community ever stays entirely consistent over a prolonged period of time.  I've been a member of FES for almost eight years now, and I've seen the core group of "regulars" go through dramatic changes in membership several times since then.  It goes without saying that very few of us from back then are still around now.  What I'm getting at here is that because members quit, we need to be able to replace them, for lack of a better word, with new ones.  And it's there that this website struggles, because we simply aren't getting any new members beyond fleeting angry noobs.  There's just too much competition with Daniel's site, which is of course the one that's gotten all the mainstream media attention and therefore the bulk of the traffic.  We'll be the ones getting that traffic if we merge, and given the capable leadership we have here, we might very well be able to turn it into something far greater than Daniel ever did.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Parsifal on December 28, 2014, 08:25:51 AM
From what I can tell, it's a holdover from the past that exists just because.

Not entirely. Its inclusion in the proposal arose out of concerns raised in the other thread, beginning here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1722.msg35901#msg35901).
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on December 28, 2014, 02:22:41 PM
No one seems to have commented on Daniel's running of all the merch. A task he has failed at repeatedly and as mentioned is a source of major embarrassment. Can't we make 3rd partying it a part of the negotiation? He obviously finds it a chore anyway, which is why he does it so infrequently.

I hate it that someone who puts so little in, is leader forever. I don't think I'm going to win that argument. I just think its wrong that someone who hasn't bothered with the society since its first year still runs it 9 years later. How do you ever get rid of such a person? The only answer we found was to go elsewhere.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on December 28, 2014, 02:32:53 PM
I also do not see a need for the ZC. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
The ZC was ill thought out. We had 5 people with very little power to do anything on it.

It should have had Parsifal who ran the website, PP who ran the forums and wiki, someone who did merch and membership, a press-officer and a social media person.
Between the 5 of them, they could have actually got stuff done. What could Tom Bishop or I do? We had no actual power to improve anything.

I think at its inception everyone was a little frightened of how PP and Parsifal might run the place. We had left a place where there was zero trust. Trust is actually something we have here now. and it took a long time to build and is likely the reason people feel the society has a good feeling about it over here. Going back and putting Daniel in charge of things will vaporise that. If we have another ZC or similar in the future, people should be elected into positions. Not just on a board of talking heads.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Parsifal on December 28, 2014, 02:45:04 PM
I also do not see a need for the ZC. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
The ZC was ill thought out. We had 5 people with very little power to do anything on it.

It should have had Parsifal who ran the website, PP who ran the forums and wiki, someone who did merch and membership, a press-officer and a social media person.
Between the 5 of them, they could have actually got stuff done. What could Tom Bishop or I do? We had no actual power to improve anything.

I think at its inception everyone was a little frightened of how PP and Parsifal might run the place. We had left a place where there was zero trust. Trust is actually something we have here now. and it took a long time to build and is likely the reason people feel the society has a good feeling about it over here. Going back and putting Daniel in charge of things will vaporise that. If we have another ZC or similar in the future, people should be elected into positions. Not just on a board of talking heads.

If you'd like to discuss why all of this is completely wrong, feel free to create a new thread. Either way, please stop derailing this one with your opinions about what we should have done a year ago. This thread is about the future, not the past.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on December 28, 2014, 02:51:15 PM
please stop derailing this one with your opinions

Everyone's input is welcome.



This thread is about the future, not the past.

If we have another ZC or similar in the future ...
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2014, 02:54:29 PM
Thork, stop. I've already explained why ZC is off-topic. We appreciate input from everyone, including hard-liners such as yourself, but even you are expected to play by the rules.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2014, 03:00:05 PM
For off-topic ZC chat:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1715.0
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Rushy on December 28, 2014, 04:44:28 PM
The only problem I have is that I like this site's theme and logo infinitely more than the old site's.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Parsifal on December 28, 2014, 04:50:11 PM
The only problem I have is that I like this site's theme and logo infinitely more than the old site's.

The themes are identical, aside from the small improvements we've made since the split. Are you referring to the board read/unread icons, which are derived from each board's logo?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Rushy on December 28, 2014, 05:02:27 PM
The themes are identical, aside from the small improvements we've made since the split. Are you referring to the board read/unread icons, which are derived from each board's logo?

Hmm, I thought I remembered the other site having a stark white background. Anyway I guess just the logo then, not the theme.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: spoon on December 28, 2014, 06:50:46 PM

This place feels more supportive and comfortable than the other site ever did.


I would attribute that entirely to PP and Parsifal. With them in charge of the forum, we get frequent updates, improvements, and great communication. Not much would change forum-wise. All it means is moar noobs, as far as I can tell. I'm all for that.

Count me in!
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Snupes on December 28, 2014, 06:56:42 PM
I suppose we'll be keeping our current post count and whatnot. Is there any way to merge my account from the other forum with this one? If not, it's not a big deal, but it would be cool if that was possible.
What of post counts and e-peens and other such things. [emoji14]
We hope to merge everything we can. Assuming we overcome potential technical difficulties (which I'm confident we can do), we should be able to merge people's accounts from both forums, preserving their posts, post counts, etc.
Are you going to do this on an individual-by-individual basis, or based on usernames (or something else)?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2014, 08:59:54 PM
Are you going to do this on an individual-by-individual basis, or based on usernames (or something else)?
We will most likely ask people to tell us which accounts they'd like merged closer to the date. A brief look at what's possible suggests that we should be able to merge existing accounts as well as attribute posts from deleted accounts to users (e.g. Thork's old posts). But, of course, we won't do anything people wouldn't want, so an individual basis sounds safest.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Hoppy on December 28, 2014, 10:08:38 PM
I agree with Thork. Things are going fine here, and I don't see a need to change that. We've never been as close knit of a community as this past year.
Nor have you ever talked so little of FET.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Snupes on December 28, 2014, 10:09:16 PM
Are you going to do this on an individual-by-individual basis, or based on usernames (or something else)?
We will most likely ask people to tell us which accounts they'd like merged closer to the date. A brief look at what's possible suggests that we should be able to merge existing accounts as well as attribute posts from deleted accounts to users (e.g. Thork's old posts). But, of course, we won't do anything people wouldn't want, so an individual basis sounds safest.

Awesome. :]
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Hoppy on December 28, 2014, 10:20:21 PM
No one seems to have commented on Daniel's running of all the merch. A task he has failed at repeatedly and as mentioned is a source of major embarrassment. Can't we make 3rd partying it a part of the negotiation? He obviously finds it a chore anyway, which is why he does it so infrequently.

I hate it that someone who puts so little in, is leader forever. I don't think I'm going to win that argument. I just think its wrong that someone who hasn't bothered with the society since its first year still runs it 9 years later. How do you ever get rid of such a person? The only answer we found was to go elsewhere.
Why are you so intnt on thowing out the owner of the website. Did you throw kids out of their own sandboxes when you were a child? So you could be the boss. If Daniel wanted to give away his rights and oownership, he would have done it. Everyone should work together to make the best FE website that we can. If you don't like Daniels, then start another new FE website and see if yours is better.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Parsifal on December 28, 2014, 11:40:01 PM
Are you going to do this on an individual-by-individual basis, or based on usernames (or something else)?
We will most likely ask people to tell us which accounts they'd like merged closer to the date. A brief look at what's possible suggests that we should be able to merge existing accounts as well as attribute posts from deleted accounts to users (e.g. Thork's old posts). But, of course, we won't do anything people wouldn't want, so an individual basis sounds safest.

We would probably do it based on usernames as well, especially since otherwise we'd end up with multiple accounts that have the same name, and that would be really confusing. People with different usernames would certainly be handled on a case-by-case basis, though.

Edit: I'm actually working on the code to merge the forums at the moment. Once I have something that seems to work well, I'll post the details of the merge logic in advance of the actual merge so that people can raise any concerns with the merging strategy. So if you're concerned about us merging accounts you don't want merged, we're not just going to dump a new forum on you without telling you what's coming.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Vongeo on December 29, 2014, 12:20:34 AM
Can I not have an alt of the same username?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 29, 2014, 12:50:13 AM
Can I not have an alt of the same username?
No. You would have no way to choose which account you'd be logging in to, since your username is the only way to choose.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: markjo on December 29, 2014, 12:53:20 AM
What about the spambot/DoS accounts?  Will they get merged too?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 29, 2014, 12:57:09 AM
What about the spambot/DoS accounts?  Will they get merged too?
We'll purge what we can, i.e. hopefully everything. The recent spambots are all 0-post accounts with very clear characteristics, so we should be able to do it manually. There might be some old spam posts on the other forum that would probably be merged as parts of ancient threads, but we should be able to delete the accounts and stop new ones from appearing.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tau on December 29, 2014, 03:59:38 AM
I also do not see a need for the ZC. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
I'm still not even sure what it does or why it's necessary. It just seems like a weird, political, Thork (did he even come up with it? it seems like something he would) brainchild with no real purpose.

My understanding of the ZC is that it's supposed to be a group which can be depended upon to actually do things. To be an official group which is actually online when you need them and can get shit done when it's necessary. To keep track of official membership and the store (if Daniel ever gave up on it), and to take the lead in things like the Wiki or Tintagel's annotated ENaG.

The current incarnation of the ZC has been an abject failure, due to the apathy of several of its members and of the forum as a whole. But I think it's probably a useful group if we design it right.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 29, 2014, 04:24:42 AM
Can we please wait to talk about the ZC until after this issue is settled?  It's more important now that we decide, as a forum, whether or not we agree to merge.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: beardo on December 29, 2014, 04:41:10 AM
Reunion please.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: DuckDodgers on December 29, 2014, 03:45:42 PM
I also share Thork's concern about the merchandise, but with no one here haven taken up the merch role I suppose it's moot. Let the merger begin.

Edit:  I just saw the T-shirt thread.  I like that idea much better than Daniel running the merchandise.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Blanko on December 29, 2014, 03:49:01 PM
I also share Thork's concern about the merchandise, but with no one here haven taken up the merch role I suppose it's moot. Let the merger begin.

ayy lmao
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: markjo on December 29, 2014, 07:24:19 PM
I vote that we go ahead with reunification, if for no other reason than to piss Thork off.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tau on December 29, 2014, 07:48:52 PM
It looks like we have an overwhelming majority approval, judging from the tone of this thread. Is that good enough? Should we have a poll or something to be sure? I can see if I can get the ZC to actually do something if that'll be useful.

Pizaa, do you need anything in particular from us to make this happen?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 29, 2014, 08:00:09 PM
As explained in the OP, the discussion will be open at least until 7 days have elapsed. Assuming there are no major conflicts by then, we'll move to a vote.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on December 29, 2014, 08:31:09 PM
@Pizaa

What of the concerns? Merchandising, web control, membership, etc?

Are you just looking to get a general yes and push through without addressing these, or will you go back with the community concerns and try to renegotiate?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 29, 2014, 08:53:31 PM
The majority of us seem to be in favor of proceeding with the merge, although there are still a few more days for other people to weigh in.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 29, 2014, 09:25:32 PM
What of the concerns? Merchandising, web control, membership, etc?
We're addressing them as they're brought up. You brought your concerns up months ago, and they've been addressed. Restating them over and over and crying won't change that.

Are you just looking to get a general yes and push through without addressing these, or will you go back with the community concerns and try to renegotiate?
Those accusations have also gotten pretty old. I'm not going to respond to them anymore, unless literally anyone other than Thork thinks they're justified.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Hoppy on December 29, 2014, 10:10:28 PM
I'm for the merger  :)
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on December 30, 2014, 03:16:40 PM
The two societies' forums will be merged by way of tfes.org inheriting theflatearthsociety.org's database. The resultant forum will remain under the current administration, moderation and rules of tfes.org.

Does this mean that I will be effectively demodded?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Parsifal on December 30, 2014, 03:37:06 PM
The two societies' forums will be merged by way of tfes.org inheriting theflatearthsociety.org's database. The resultant forum will remain under the current administration, moderation and rules of tfes.org.

Does this mean that I will be effectively demodded?

All else being equal, yes, but we will be reviewing the moderator selection to account for reunification at some stage (possibly on tfes.org before actual reunification takes place). We will most likely keep the most active moderators from both forums, but this will be treated separately from reunification because the merged forum will be under our control.

What precisely this means I can't say, because we haven't yet made any decisions on this matter, so I can't say for certain whether you would still be a moderator post-reunification.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on December 30, 2014, 03:58:02 PM
The two societies' forums will be merged by way of tfes.org inheriting theflatearthsociety.org's database. The resultant forum will remain under the current administration, moderation and rules of tfes.org.

Does this mean that I will be effectively demodded?
I forgot you existed.

That's a pretty harsh response after all the EXCELLENT moderating I did for you in regards to harassment issues in the past.

For what it's worth, mod or not, I'm still in favor of reunification.  The under forums are so stale without all you Morlocks.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on December 30, 2014, 04:29:03 PM
That's a pretty harsh response after all the EXCELLENT moderating I did for you in regards to harassment issues in the past.

For what it's worth, mod or not, I'm still in favor of reunification.  The under forums are so stale without all you Morlocks.
Yeah, I remember that now. I removed the comment because I realized you must just be moding/active on the other forum which I never go to anymore. Carry on.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 03, 2015, 07:55:50 PM
Okay, it seems like the discussion is mostly over now, and the one-week period has passed. Despite some concerns raised, I can't see a way to amend the proposal to satisfy those while still keeping things realistic and acceptable to the other side's stakeholders. If you feel that we haven't addressed an issue sufficiently, feel free to raise it again, but please avoid simply restating something or saying "I still don't like <x>". We're also still happy to answer questions if anything seems unclear.

Let's move to a vote. To keep things transparent, please vote by way of posting yes or no here (ideally in bold). We'll tally the votes no sooner than 7 days from now. Simple majority wins, and abstentions are functionally identical to not voting at all.

That said, I will be abstaining myself.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Blanko on January 03, 2015, 07:56:20 PM
yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 03, 2015, 08:02:36 PM
yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Foxbox on January 03, 2015, 08:04:01 PM
Yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2015, 08:34:25 PM
Yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: spoon on January 03, 2015, 08:39:57 PM
Yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: markjo on January 03, 2015, 08:53:25 PM
Tak
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on January 03, 2015, 08:56:18 PM
Yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 03, 2015, 08:56:55 PM
Tak
I can make a good guess as to what you're doing, but that word can mean either "yes" or "not" (among many other things) in various languages. Can we please keep it simple?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 03, 2015, 09:03:06 PM
Yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: markjo on January 03, 2015, 09:10:49 PM
Tak
I can make a good guess as to what you're doing, but that word can mean either "yes" or "not" (among many other things) in various languages. Can we please keep it simple?
Better?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Hoppy on January 03, 2015, 11:37:54 PM
yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Vongeo on January 04, 2015, 02:12:01 AM
No because I'm different.


But actually Yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Particle Person on January 04, 2015, 02:26:11 AM
Yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Sean on January 04, 2015, 04:44:32 AM
YES
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Rama Set on January 04, 2015, 07:12:23 AM
Yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: jroa on January 04, 2015, 12:35:58 PM
YES
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on January 04, 2015, 01:53:23 PM
No
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tau on January 04, 2015, 03:34:01 PM
Yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tintagel on January 04, 2015, 05:30:24 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: beardo on January 04, 2015, 06:15:22 PM
Ja.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: gotham on January 04, 2015, 08:26:18 PM
Yes
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Parsifal on January 08, 2015, 09:07:32 PM
Just to let people know, I'm leaving for New Zealand (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2115.0) in two days, so reunification won't actually be able to happen for another couple of weeks.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2015, 11:45:57 PM
Just to let people know, I'm leaving for New Zealand (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2115.0) in two days, so reunification won't actually be able to happen for another couple of weeks.
That's not strictly accurate. The reunification of the societies can happen immediately after the conclusion of the vote. It's merely the merging of the fora that might be delayed.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Vindictus on January 10, 2015, 12:52:47 AM
Literally worse than daniel
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Roundy on January 11, 2015, 06:54:46 PM
Happy to see this is happening.  How much longer?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2015, 07:33:34 PM
Okay, time for a summary of the votes!

Yes (total: 17):
Blanko
Vauxhall
Foxbox
Tom Bishop
spoon
markjo
Lord Dave
Saddam Hussein
Hoppy
Vongeo
Particle Person
Sean
Rama Set
jroa
Tausami
Tintagel
beardo

No (total: 2):
Secret User
Thork

Abstentions and invalid votes (total: 2):
pizaaplanet (abstained)
gotham (did not meet the 50 post quota prior to the proposal)

With that in mind, by a very clear majority vote, I'm pleased to announce that tfes.org accepts the proposal. Assuming theflatearthsociety.org accepts it as well (which I believe they already did, but I'll ask for a formal confirmation), we'll begin working on the forum merger as soon as possible. This will be slowed down by several factors:

But, for the time being, as soon as I get confirmation from Daniel that their side accepts these terms, the societies are formally reunified!
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2015, 12:14:52 AM
How will the other side vote?  They haven't had any real discussion yet.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 12, 2015, 12:40:00 AM
The other side is Daniel and Wilmore.  There isn't going to be any voting.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on January 12, 2015, 01:29:09 AM
The other side is Daniel and Wilmore.  There isn't going to be any voting.
Doesn't that tell you everything? We are going to end up being 'Daniel and Wilmore'. And neither are present very often. I know you all think we can have the kind of service over here and be a part of the community over there, but the only reason we never had good service over there is because everything is decided by 'Daniel and Wilmore'. And you all voted to go back to that.
There's a reason we came here. It was 'Daniel and Wilmore'. And the instant we go back, Daniel and Wilmore are going to see it as the 'Daniel and Wilmore' show again.
I dislike Daniel's attitude so much that I don't want to generate content for his site. That includes posts. I don't think I can follow you all. I never created a dual account over there. I never missed that site. If you want to post there, do it. Why am I being forced to? You are all free to go over there any time you like ... and you don't.  :'(
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2015, 01:58:06 AM
I left due to the admins not fixing the forum and server and such.  Not how it was run politically.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 12, 2015, 02:11:41 AM
The other side is Daniel and Wilmore.  There isn't going to be any voting.
Doesn't that tell you everything? We are going to end up being 'Daniel and Wilmore'. And neither are present very often. I know you all think we can have the kind of service over here and be a part of the community over there, but the only reason we never had good service over there is because everything is decided by 'Daniel and Wilmore'. And you all voted to go back to that.
There's a reason we came here. It was 'Daniel and Wilmore'. And the instant we go back, Daniel and Wilmore are going to see it as the 'Daniel and Wilmore' show again.
I dislike Daniel's attitude so much that I don't want to generate content for his site. That includes posts. I don't think I can follow you all. I never created a dual account over there. I never missed that site. If you want to post there, do it. Why am I being forced to? You are all free to go over there any time you like ... and you don't.  :'(

But it's not going to be Daniel's site any more.  That's the whole point.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on January 12, 2015, 02:40:09 AM
I didn't vote but I kinda agree with Thork. I really hate Daniel and Wilmore's attitudes toward the forum. I stopped posting on that site completely after the split.

I know it's what everyone else wants, which is why I didn't vote, but unless it's vastly different than what it was I may not be posting too much either.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 12, 2015, 02:45:30 AM
I didn't vote but I kinda agree with Thork. I really hate Daniel and Wilmore's attitudes toward the forum. I stopped posting on that site completely after the split.

I know it's what everyone else wants, which is why I didn't vote, but unless it's vastly different than what it was I may not be posting too much either.


Well this just sucks.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2015, 03:13:14 AM
I'm struggling to understand some of the sentiments voiced here. We are taking over the forum. They don't get to change it in any way. Any comments about Daniel and Wilmore are simply irrelevant, because they won't be doing anything to the forum. It's gonna be on our server, with our administration, and running our software. The only change to the forum is that we'll inherit their userbase and post history.

It doesn't matter what Daniel and Wilmore will "see" this as, because they are not relevant parties as far as running the forum is concerned. I don't understand why people suddenly started taking Thork's tantrums seriously, especially now after we've secured more power than we originally planned.

Also, not voting on a proposal you're opposed to is the least productive thing possible. We can't hope to accurately represent what people want if they actively hold themselves back from telling us what they want.

I also don't understand why people are acting like it would be us taking Daniel's site and changing it somehow. That's not at all what we're doing. What we're doing is taking our site, leaving it exactly as it is, importing a shitton of old posts and accounts and redirecting the other forum's members here. Will things be significantly different than they are on Daniel's site? Yes. They will be exactly as different as they already are.

Please, instead of throwing unfounded negativity into the ether (or, worse still, founding your negativity on Thork's unfounded tantrums), voice your concerns and ask questions. I'm confident that no one here has any reasons to worry (unless you really hate some of the active posters from the old forum, since, welp, we'll probably be getting them), but I'm happy to discuss things at length to make sure that everyone is informed and satisfied. Just, please, don't succumb to random panic.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: junker on January 12, 2015, 03:44:43 AM
Your previous post was interesting. I'll be curious to see if #2 ever happens. I'll be fine with the outcome either way.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: markjo on January 12, 2015, 03:56:58 AM
ITT: People think that the forum and the society are one and the same.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 12, 2015, 08:17:47 AM
I don't really care about an absent owner. What is there to care about? As long as the forum can operate autonomously on its own, it doesn't matter if he exists or not. An absent owner is just static, in the background, not contributing or posting to the forums. I would rather not be concerned with "being the better FES," or any fruitless competition between websites, but taking a unified FES to the next level and to new heights in the face of adversity.

Why be jealous of Daniel? He's not the person the everyone on the forum is interested in and wants to talk to. People want to talk to the Flat Earthers who argue for FET. Instead feel sad for Daniel, that he is putting money into a website for an unearned title with no one interested in talking to him. Accept his existence as owner of the website, and forget the matter. There are better things to do.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on January 12, 2015, 11:25:36 AM
I'm not panicking. And if they're coming here then that is vastly different and I don't mind reunification. See how easy that was? I don't care terribly one way or the other but I'm still hesitant to see the outcome.

Why would voting be productive if everyone else wants this? I already said how I felt before the vote. It's just and wait and see thing for me.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2015, 11:27:58 AM
Why would voting be productive if everyone else wants this
Because if more people share this sentiment, then it suddenly becomes something that not everyone wants.

I'm not panicking. And if they're coming here then that is vastly different and I don't mind reunification. See how easy that was?
It was as easy as reading the OP before spreading FUD.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on January 12, 2015, 11:34:44 AM
No one else agreed when the 3 of us said this before the vote, so obviously no one shares the sentiment.

I did read the OP, but it's still a wait and see thing for me. I like this forum and I wasn't crazy about the other one. When we're merged I'm not sure how much I'll like it.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2015, 11:35:45 AM
ok
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Vongeo on January 12, 2015, 03:47:09 PM
I don't understand why people suddenly started taking Thork's tantrums seriously, especially now after we've secured more power than we originally planned.

Thork's tantrums are made a powerful enemy
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tau on January 12, 2015, 05:05:18 PM
If we don't want Daniel and Wilmore in charge of everything, make a strong ZC. That's the whole point of the ZC. Don't let what happened to UA happen to it. Between our wise, benevolent administration and modified the zetetic council proposed by Tom, I don't think there's all that much room for Daniel to screw things up.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 06:22:48 PM
Also, not voting on a proposal you're opposed to is the least productive thing possible. We can't hope to accurately represent what people want if they actively hold themselves back from telling us what they want.

I'm sure you mean accurately represent what people want who fell on your side of the schism.


...I'm happy to discuss things at length to make sure that everyone is informed and satisfied. Just, please, don't succumb to random panic.

Again, everyone with 50 or more posts on tfes.org prior to ~Dec 27th right?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Particle Person on January 12, 2015, 06:30:48 PM
Also, not voting on a proposal you're opposed to is the least productive thing possible. We can't hope to accurately represent what people want if they actively hold themselves back from telling us what they want.

I'm sure you mean accurately represent what people want who fell on your side of the schism.


...I'm happy to discuss things at length to make sure that everyone is informed and satisfied. Just, please, don't succumb to random panic.

Again, everyone with 50 or more posts on tfes.org prior to ~Dec 27th right?

Yes, this thread is for members of this website to vote on the proposition.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 12, 2015, 06:33:36 PM
Also, not voting on a proposal you're opposed to is the least productive thing possible. We can't hope to accurately represent what people want if they actively hold themselves back from telling us what they want.

I'm sure you mean accurately represent what people want who fell on your side of the schism.


...I'm happy to discuss things at length to make sure that everyone is informed and satisfied. Just, please, don't succumb to random panic.

Again, everyone with 50 or more posts on tfes.org prior to ~Dec 27th right?

Do you take offense with the fact that no one at .org got to vote? That seems like your problem. Get your admins together and make your own poll.

Oh wait...
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 06:35:05 PM
Oh, so it's not really about reuniting a community as much as getting the .org with the higher Google results?  That's fine if that's what it is, but it really shouldn't be called a reunification proposal.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on January 12, 2015, 06:36:56 PM
Are they talking about this merger at all on the other forum?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2015, 06:40:14 PM
Oh, so it's not really about reuniting a community as much as getting the .org with the higher Google results?  That's fine if that's what it is, but it really shouldn't be called a reunification proposal.
There is a thread about it on the other forum.

However, as we are not full members there (not all of us anyway) we do not have a say in the political procedures.  Daniel, Wilmore, and Davis are the ones who should be talking to you about it, making a poll, etc...

You can't expect us to do this work for you when it's not our forum.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on January 12, 2015, 06:41:50 PM
Can someone link me to the thread over there? I couldn't find it.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 06:42:28 PM
Are they talking about this merger at all on the other forum?

A few members are but the administration has remained characteristically taciturn.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61930.0#.VLQVxtLF-Gc
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 12, 2015, 06:42:57 PM
Oh, so it's not really about reuniting a community as much as getting the .org with the higher Google results?  That's fine if that's what it is, but it really shouldn't be called a reunification proposal.

Please try to stay on topic. This is about reunification, not google results or anything else. If you want to discuss that then make a new thread.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 06:59:16 PM
Oh, so it's not really about reuniting a community as much as getting the .org with the higher Google results?  That's fine if that's what it is, but it really shouldn't be called a reunification proposal.
There is a thread about it on the other forum.

However, as we are not full members there (not all of us anyway) we do not have a say in the political procedures.  Daniel, Wilmore, and Davis are the ones who should be talking to you about it, making a poll, etc...

You can't expect us to do this work for you when it's not our forum.

I'm sure that the natives in the Mid-Americas would have liked to have been consulted when France sold a large landmass to the United States government.  Does it make it okay because the French government sucked?  Does it make the voices of the purchased less meaningful?  Did they feel okay about being acquired because their comments fell upon the deaf ears of their government?

Or, do you think that it would have been nice if there were even allowed to vote?  It's not like we're talking about strangers, these are people engaged in a community that is about to be merged and because our "government" is ineffective and aloof we get no say.  And when one tries to make their voice heard, their vote is stricken away.  Gotham isn't a stranger either, we all know him (or at least of him).

I have no experience with how these forums are ran, but it seems to me that we will be replacing one tyrant for another. 


I will be perfectly happy to have Gotham's vote unstricken.  I feel it will show that the administration of this forum is at least amiable to the wants of the members of the "old" forum.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2015, 07:15:46 PM
Oh, so it's not really about reuniting a community as much as getting the .org with the higher Google results?  That's fine if that's what it is, but it really shouldn't be called a reunification proposal.
There is a thread about it on the other forum.

However, as we are not full members there (not all of us anyway) we do not have a say in the political procedures.  Daniel, Wilmore, and Davis are the ones who should be talking to you about it, making a poll, etc...

You can't expect us to do this work for you when it's not our forum.

I'm sure that the natives in the Mid-Americas would have liked to have been consulted when France sold a large landmass to the United States government.  Does it make it okay because the French government sucked?  Does it make the voices of the purchased less meaningful?  Did they feel okay about being acquired because their comments fell upon the deaf ears of their government?

Or, do you think that it would have been nice if there were even allowed to vote?  It's not like we're talking about strangers, these are people engaged in a community that is about to be merged and because our "government" is ineffective and aloof we get no say.  And when one tries to make their voice heard, their vote is stricken away.  Gotham isn't a stranger either, we all know him (or at least of him).

I have no experience with how these forums are ran, but it seems to me that we will be replacing one tyrant for another. 


I will be perfectly happy to have Gotham's vote unstricken.  I feel it will show that the administration of this forum is at least amiable to the wants of the members of the "old" forum.

Why?
This vote is for this forum's members.  Why not just make a poll on your end?  Based on what I know about the admins here, if there was a sizable "no" on that end, they'd probably bring that issue up before the merger.

Or would you prefer I do it for you?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 07:30:27 PM
Because we all know that a poll on my end will be as effective as... well as effective as the incumbent administration.

To carry my analogy further, what I'm doing is lobbying the American government (sorry for the comparison) to at least hear us.  The American population seems to not care about the voices of the ones their government is taking over (not sorry for that one, it's too accurate).  In fact, they care so little, they object to a vote be unstricken that won't even change the outcome.  Is the notion of us even be given a meaningless token to acknowledge the administration is listening really that much of an affront to you?  It seems to me like a very reasonable request.


On a side, if I have indeed misread all of this and the thread is truly only for people on this site with >50 posts as of late December, I am sorry and I will quietly await our "unification".
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 12, 2015, 07:34:33 PM
Because we all know that a poll on my end will be as effective as... well as effective as the incumbent administration.

I don't understand. Make a poll, or contact your admins to make a poll. This isn't really our problem. If your admins refuse to acknowledge the userbase on their own forum then there's not much we can do to help you.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on January 12, 2015, 07:59:27 PM
Because we all know that a poll on my end will be as effective as... well as effective as the incumbent administration.

I don't understand. Make a poll, or contact your admins to make a poll. This isn't really our problem. If your admins refuse to acknowledge the userbase on their own forum then there's not much we can do to help you.
Of course, very shortly half of them will be our admins ... and still just as unconcerned about our opinions, and it really will be our problem.

I think all this boils down to Daniel noticing our presence on Wikipedia and then facebook and not liking the idea that this half was on its way to being more successful. He wants to either remain in charge, or slow our progress which is now very apparent by everything being left until "after reunification". A process he will be in no hurry to resolve. I can't fathom pizaaplanet's motives. Why he'd rather be confined to Daniel's terms than doing whatever he sees as best here, I can't work out. He obviously has some motive that he won't share and its likely dark and evil because that is the type of mischievous little git that he is.  >:(

I know pizaaplanet will rush in here to tell everyone my opinion is that of a crazed loon and not to listen and that I've had my say, but it seems despite Pongo confirming my suspicions about the attitudes and motives of our new overlords, no one is listening. Hearing yes, listening, no. I cannot have my way on this as I am in the minority, but I'd very much like to store up a huge "I told you so" and this is part of it.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 08:03:06 PM
Oh, so it's not really about reuniting a community as much as getting the .org with the higher Google results?  That's fine if that's what it is, but it really shouldn't be called a reunification proposal.
There is a thread about it on the other forum.

However, as we are not full members there (not all of us anyway) we do not have a say in the political procedures.  Daniel, Wilmore, and Davis are the ones who should be talking to you about it, making a poll, etc...

You can't expect us to do this work for you when it's not our forum.

I'm sure that the natives in the Mid-Americas would have liked to have been consulted when France sold a large landmass to the United States government.  Does it make it okay because the French government sucked?  Does it make the voices of the purchased less meaningful?  Did they feel okay about being acquired because their comments fell upon the deaf ears of their government?

Or, do you think that it would have been nice if there were even allowed to vote?  It's not like we're talking about strangers, these are people engaged in a community that is about to be merged and because our "government" is ineffective and aloof we get no say.  And when one tries to make their voice heard, their vote is stricken away.  Gotham isn't a stranger either, we all know him (or at least of him).

I have no experience with how these forums are ran, but it seems to me that we will be replacing one tyrant for another. 


I will be perfectly happy to have Gotham's vote unstricken.  I feel it will show that the administration of this forum is at least amiable to the wants of the members of the "old" forum.

Why?
This vote is for this forum's members.  Why not just make a poll on your end?  Based on what I know about the admins here, if there was a sizable "no" on that end, they'd probably bring that issue up before the merger.

Or would you prefer I do it for you?

It's your problem because of this, "It's not our problem" attitude.  A significant portion of the people being effected by the merger have no voice in it whatsoever (Their side doesn't listen and their vote is taken away by the side that expounds its benevolence to the users -- Am I seriously the only one that sees the irony in that?) and when that issue is addressed we get a response that amounts to "lol, not our problem."

Try imagining it in reverse; Saddam posts a link on these forums that says the "old" site is going to merge with this site and all the rules from theirs will override.  The admins on the site you actively post on are non-existent (remember, you're pretending) and when you wander over to the other to see if your voice matters, you are told that only posters that have >50 posts on this site can vote (mind you that the deadline to obtain 50 posts was set in the past).  You say that this is going to effect you and you should at the very least have a say and all you get are replies saying, "Sorry, not our problem.  Try talking to your admins that we all know don't respond to anyone."

Do you begin to at least see the point of view I'm raising?  Do you begin to see why, "it's not our problem" sounds indecorous in light of the position we are in?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Particle Person on January 12, 2015, 08:05:24 PM
Because we all know that a poll on my end will be as effective as... well as effective as the incumbent administration.

I don't understand. Make a poll, or contact your admins to make a poll. This isn't really our problem. If your admins refuse to acknowledge the userbase on their own forum then there's not much we can do to help you.
Of course, very shortly half of them will be our admins ... and still just as unconcerned about our opinions, and it really will be our problem.

I think all this boils down to Daniel noticing our presence on Wikipedia and then facebook and not liking the idea that this half was on its way to being more successful. He wants to either remain in charge, or slow our progress which is now very apparent by everything being left until "after reunification". A process he will be in no hurry to resolve. I can't fathom pizaaplanet's motives. Why he'd rather be confined to Daniel's terms than doing whatever he sees as best here, I can't work out. He obviously has some motive that he won't share and its likely dark and evil because that is the type of mischievous little git that he is.  >:(

I know pizaaplanet will rush in here to tell everyone my opinion is that of a crazed loon and not to listen and that I've had my say, but it seems despite Pongo confirming my suspicions about the attitudes and motives of our new overlords, no one is listening. Hearing yes, listening, no. I cannot have my way on this as I am in the minority, but I'd very much like to store up a huge "I told you so" and this is part of it.

Have you actually read the proposal as it's written in the OP of this thread?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 12, 2015, 08:05:54 PM
Because we all know that a poll on my end will be as effective as... well as effective as the incumbent administration.

I don't understand. Make a poll, or contact your admins to make a poll. This isn't really our problem. If your admins refuse to acknowledge the userbase on their own forum then there's not much we can do to help you.
Of course, very shortly half of them will be our admins ... and still just as unconcerned about our opinions, and it really will be our problem.

I think all this boils down to Daniel noticing our presence on Wikipedia and then facebook and not liking the idea that this half was on its way to being more successful. He wants to either remain in charge, or slow our progress which is now very apparent by everything being left until "after reunification". A process he will be in no hurry to resolve. I can't fathom pizaaplanet's motives. Why he'd rather be confined to Daniel's terms than doing whatever he sees as best here, I can't work out. He obviously has some motive that he won't share and its likely dark and evil because that is the type of mischievous little git that he is.  >:(

I know pizaaplanet will rush in here to tell everyone my opinion is that of a crazed loon and not to listen and that I've had my say, but it seems despite Pongo confirming my suspicions about the attitudes and motives of our new overlords, no one is listening. Hearing yes, listening, no. I cannot have my way on this as I am in the minority, but I'd very much like to store up a huge "I told you so" and this is part of it.

You seem to be missing the point. pizaaplanet and Parsifal will be running the forum after reunification. It's as if you're ignoring this point on purpose.


Do you begin to at least see the point of view I'm raising?  Do you begin to see why, "it's not our problem" sounds indecorous in light of the position we are in?

No, I don't. It's not our problem because we can't control your admins or mods. Get your own things together and create a poll. If that poll shows that the userbase at .org does not want to unify, then I'm sure the matter will be brought to the attention of PP and Parsifal and appropriate measures will be taken. All you're doing now is whining. Do something productive.

You are aware that theflatearthsociety.org and tfes.org are different sites right?

Since you seem to be just as inactive as Daniel in getting your issues resolved. I'll make the damn poll for you. Stay tuned.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on January 12, 2015, 08:11:01 PM
No, I don't. It's not our problem because we can't control your admins or mods. Get your own things together and create a poll. If that poll shows that the userbase at .org does not want to unify, then I'm sure the matter will be brought to the attention of PP and Parsifal and appropriate measures will be taken. All you're doing now is whining. Do something productive.

You are aware that theflatearthsociety.org and tfes.org are different sites right?

Since you seem to be just as inactive as Daniel in getting your issues resolved. I'll make the damn poll for you. Stay tuned.
A history lesson for Vauxy. The old site has been run badly for many many years. Those with the get up and go to try something else came here. Those with no desire to do anything about the shit state of affairs on the other site, stayed. Pongo stayed. How then do you think he is going to muster the energy with all the other can't be bothered to change anything members of his site to actually change something? All the people who would do anything about the mistreatment of users on the other site are already here.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 08:16:34 PM
I know pizaaplanet will rush in here to tell everyone my opinion is that of a crazed loon and not to listen and that I've had my say, but it seems despite Pongo confirming my suspicions about the attitudes and motives of our new overlords, no one is listening. Hearing yes, listening, no. I cannot have my way on this as I am in the minority, but I'd very much like to store up a huge "I told you so" and this is part of it.

I appreciate your words and agree with you on most points, but to be fair, I'm being steamrolled by the members here, not the administration.  I think that I've articulately presented my point and I wait the feelings and comments of people that can speak for the merger -- not at the merger. 

I'm lingering to try and clarify my position and get the people self-admitting ignorance to at least see my point of view.  It's easy to not be empathetic when you're in the majority, but I'll see what I can do about that.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 12, 2015, 08:22:58 PM
A history lesson for Vauxy. The old site has been run badly for many many years. Those with the get up and go to try something else came here. Those with no desire to do anything about the shit state of affairs on the other site, stayed. Pongo stayed. How then do you think he is going to muster the energy with all the other can't be bothered to change anything members of his site to actually change something? All the people who would do anything about the mistreatment of users on the other site are already here.

I've been a member since 2007. I am aware of the concerns.


I have created the poll.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62575.0#.VLQtACvF9fQ
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 08:28:43 PM
A history lesson for Vauxy. The old site has been run badly for many many years. Those with the get up and go to try something else came here. Those with no desire to do anything about the shit state of affairs on the other site, stayed. Pongo stayed. How then do you think he is going to muster the energy with all the other can't be bothered to change anything members of his site to actually change something? All the people who would do anything about the mistreatment of users on the other site are already here.

I've been a member since 2007. I am aware of the concerns.


I have created the poll.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62575.0#.VLQtACvF9fQ

What are you trying to prove with that poll?  All it shows me is your inability to listen to my concerns and responses as you bull ahead with your initial proposal that's already been addressed as flawed.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 12, 2015, 08:31:56 PM
A history lesson for Vauxy. The old site has been run badly for many many years. Those with the get up and go to try something else came here. Those with no desire to do anything about the shit state of affairs on the other site, stayed. Pongo stayed. How then do you think he is going to muster the energy with all the other can't be bothered to change anything members of his site to actually change something? All the people who would do anything about the mistreatment of users on the other site are already here.

I've been a member since 2007. I am aware of the concerns.


I have created the poll.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62575.0#.VLQtACvF9fQ

What are you trying to prove with that poll?  All it shows me is your inability to listen to my concerns and responses as you bull ahead with your initial proposal that's already been addressed as flawed.

I am taking action to determine if .org supports reunification, which is something you refuse to do or are simply too lazy to do. This is not personal.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on January 12, 2015, 08:33:27 PM
What are you trying to prove with that poll?  All it shows me is your inability to listen to my concerns and responses as you bull ahead with your initial proposal that's already been addressed as flawed.
Well what are your concerns then? You're angry that no one is listening and then get angry when someone tries to make a poll about it on that site - what is it that you want to be heard?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 08:42:32 PM
What are you trying to prove with that poll?  All it shows me is your inability to listen to my concerns and responses as you bull ahead with your initial proposal that's already been addressed as flawed.
Well what are your concerns then? You're angry that no one is listening and then get angry when someone tries to make a poll about it on that site - what is it that you want to be heard?

The poll is clearly a farce.  It's patronizing and as relevant as a poll on your favorite ice cream flavor if the results aren't used for anything.  Vauxhall can't assure anyone that the poll is anything other than hot air.  Has any administrator of either site said they would factor in the results of this poll?  It's like telling me you'll listen to me after you lock me in a soundproof room and frankly, your obtusity in matter is insulting.

If I just wanted to hear myself talk I would post in CN.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on January 12, 2015, 08:43:51 PM
What are your concerns about the merger?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Particle Person on January 12, 2015, 08:44:58 PM
What are you trying to prove with that poll?  All it shows me is your inability to listen to my concerns and responses as you bull ahead with your initial proposal that's already been addressed as flawed.
Well what are your concerns then? You're angry that no one is listening and then get angry when someone tries to make a poll about it on that site - what is it that you want to be heard?

The poll is clearly a farce.  It's patronizing and as relevant as a poll on your favorite ice cream flavor if the results aren't used for anything.  Vauxhall can't assure anyone that the poll is anything other than hot air.  Has any administrator of either site said they would factor in the results of this poll?  It's like telling me you'll listen to me after you lock me in a soundproof room and frankly, your obtusity in matter is insulting.

If I just wanted to hear myself talk I would post in CN.

The only people who could make a meaningful poll, then, are Daniel and Wilmore, right? So why are you complaining to us?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Blanko on January 12, 2015, 08:48:02 PM
I don't think you understand, Pongo. Your voice isn't being heard because your administration decided it doesn't need to be heard. It's not our problem how Daniel decides how things are run on his site, and it's not our job to invite people from Daniel's site to raise their concerns in regards to how our site is run. I'm sorry, but it just seems to me like you have a problem with Daniel, not us. He's the one who's decided to not give his community the courtesy of making this kind of decision for themselves.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 12, 2015, 08:57:37 PM
The poll is limited to people who had made at least fifty posts prior to Dec 27th simply to ensure that everyone voting is at least reasonably invested in the community here.  It sucks that gotham's vote can't be counted, as we all know that he's sincere despite his low post count, but I can't think of a better way to make sure that the voting is representative of our community, and it would be something of a slippery slope to start making exceptions on an individual basis.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2015, 09:20:09 PM
Oh, so it's not really about reuniting a community as much as getting the .org with the higher Google results?  That's fine if that's what it is, but it really shouldn't be called a reunification proposal.
There is a thread about it on the other forum.

However, as we are not full members there (not all of us anyway) we do not have a say in the political procedures.  Daniel, Wilmore, and Davis are the ones who should be talking to you about it, making a poll, etc...

You can't expect us to do this work for you when it's not our forum.

I'm sure that the natives in the Mid-Americas would have liked to have been consulted when France sold a large landmass to the United States government.  Does it make it okay because the French government sucked?  Does it make the voices of the purchased less meaningful?  Did they feel okay about being acquired because their comments fell upon the deaf ears of their government?

Or, do you think that it would have been nice if there were even allowed to vote?  It's not like we're talking about strangers, these are people engaged in a community that is about to be merged and because our "government" is ineffective and aloof we get no say.  And when one tries to make their voice heard, their vote is stricken away.  Gotham isn't a stranger either, we all know him (or at least of him).

I have no experience with how these forums are ran, but it seems to me that we will be replacing one tyrant for another. 


I will be perfectly happy to have Gotham's vote unstricken.  I feel it will show that the administration of this forum is at least amiable to the wants of the members of the "old" forum.

Why?
This vote is for this forum's members.  Why not just make a poll on your end?  Based on what I know about the admins here, if there was a sizable "no" on that end, they'd probably bring that issue up before the merger.

Or would you prefer I do it for you?

It's your problem because of this, "It's not our problem" attitude.  A significant portion of the people being effected by the merger have no voice in it whatsoever (Their side doesn't listen and their vote is taken away by the side that expounds its benevolence to the users -- Am I seriously the only one that sees the irony in that?) and when that issue is addressed we get a response that amounts to "lol, not our problem."

Try imagining it in reverse; Saddam posts a link on these forums that says the "old" site is going to merge with this site and all the rules from theirs will override.  The admins on the site you actively post on are non-existent (remember, you're pretending) and when you wander over to the other to see if your voice matters, you are told that only posters that have >50 posts on this site can vote (mind you that the deadline to obtain 50 posts was set in the past).  You say that this is going to effect you and you should at the very least have a say and all you get are replies saying, "Sorry, not our problem.  Try talking to your admins that we all know don't respond to anyone."

Do you begin to at least see the point of view I'm raising?  Do you begin to see why, "it's not our problem" sounds indecorous in light of the position we are in?
I understand your point.  Now here's mine.

You chose to stay.  You chose admins who don't give a damn.  You chose a poorly run forum.  This isn't like two countries: you could move with the ease of a few clicks.  Hell, you could have posted in BOTH forums and we wouldn't care.    The way I see it, you basically said "Yes, I will let Daniel decide the forum."  It was your choice and now that Daniel is doing it, you're being angry.  I'm sorry but Daniel is your representative in the forum merger just like PP and Parsifal is ours.

Though if you think a poll would be useless, why do you want to vote here?  It would be equally useless then, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 09:20:48 PM
The poll is limited to people who had made at least fifty posts prior to Dec 27th simply to ensure that everyone voting is at least reasonably invested in the community here.  It sucks that gotham's vote can't be counted, as we all know that he's sincere despite his low post count, but I can't think of a better way to make sure that the voting is representative of our community, and it would be something of a slippery slope to start making exceptions on an individual basis.

I agree.

I don't think you understand, Pongo. Your voice isn't being heard because your administration decided it doesn't need to be heard. It's not our problem how Daniel decides how things are run on his site, and it's not our job to invite people from Daniel's site to raise their concerns in regards to how our site is run. I'm sorry, but it just seems to me like you have a problem with Daniel, not us. He's the one who's decided to not give his community the courtesy of making this kind of decision for themselves.

I've already addressed the "it's not our problem" argument.

What are you trying to prove with that poll?  All it shows me is your inability to listen to my concerns and responses as you bull ahead with your initial proposal that's already been addressed as flawed.
Well what are your concerns then? You're angry that no one is listening and then get angry when someone tries to make a poll about it on that site - what is it that you want to be heard?

The poll is clearly a farce.  It's patronizing and as relevant as a poll on your favorite ice cream flavor if the results aren't used for anything.  Vauxhall can't assure anyone that the poll is anything other than hot air.  Has any administrator of either site said they would factor in the results of this poll?  It's like telling me you'll listen to me after you lock me in a soundproof room and frankly, your obtusity in matter is insulting.

If I just wanted to hear myself talk I would post in CN.

The only people who could make a meaningful poll, then, are Daniel and Wilmore, right? So why are you complaining to us?

I've already addressed the "it's not our problem" argument.

What are your concerns about the merger?

About the merger specifically?  Nothing really.  My concerns are about the way a significant portion of the people effected are being steamrolled while at the same time people are throwing around worlds like "community," "unity," "unification."  It all seems so dichotomous when people say things like "We're merging whether you like it our not and it's not our problem if no one will listen to you.  We are going to hold a vote to determine if the will happen but you can only vote if you have 50 or more posts in our club.  It's no matter if you have been a member of society as a greater, if you don't have 50 posts in our club you cannot be heard.  We will not even grant you a token of friendship by allowing 1 meaningless vote; it's 50 posts or you may as well be a stump.  No matter that we are about to merge with you, we simply don't care what you have to say.  Perhaps if you have 50 posts in our club then we would hear you, but you don't.  Sorry (not really sorry though).  But don't feel bad, of the two societies we are the one that cares about the users*"

If all else were equal and things were reversed I know the users here would voice a concern.

I guess in the end, it's nice that your community gets a voice.  Never mind that it's soon to be our community.



*Users with 50 or more posts in our club mind you.  The rest can all bugger yourselves for it's not our problem that you didn't make your 50 arbitrary posts before our arbitrary deadline we set in the past.  And it's not our problem your administration sucks.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 09:24:55 PM
Oh, so it's not really about reuniting a community as much as getting the .org with the higher Google results?  That's fine if that's what it is, but it really shouldn't be called a reunification proposal.
There is a thread about it on the other forum.

However, as we are not full members there (not all of us anyway) we do not have a say in the political procedures.  Daniel, Wilmore, and Davis are the ones who should be talking to you about it, making a poll, etc...

You can't expect us to do this work for you when it's not our forum.

I'm sure that the natives in the Mid-Americas would have liked to have been consulted when France sold a large landmass to the United States government.  Does it make it okay because the French government sucked?  Does it make the voices of the purchased less meaningful?  Did they feel okay about being acquired because their comments fell upon the deaf ears of their government?

Or, do you think that it would have been nice if there were even allowed to vote?  It's not like we're talking about strangers, these are people engaged in a community that is about to be merged and because our "government" is ineffective and aloof we get no say.  And when one tries to make their voice heard, their vote is stricken away.  Gotham isn't a stranger either, we all know him (or at least of him).

I have no experience with how these forums are ran, but it seems to me that we will be replacing one tyrant for another. 


I will be perfectly happy to have Gotham's vote unstricken.  I feel it will show that the administration of this forum is at least amiable to the wants of the members of the "old" forum.

Why?
This vote is for this forum's members.  Why not just make a poll on your end?  Based on what I know about the admins here, if there was a sizable "no" on that end, they'd probably bring that issue up before the merger.

Or would you prefer I do it for you?

It's your problem because of this, "It's not our problem" attitude.  A significant portion of the people being effected by the merger have no voice in it whatsoever (Their side doesn't listen and their vote is taken away by the side that expounds its benevolence to the users -- Am I seriously the only one that sees the irony in that?) and when that issue is addressed we get a response that amounts to "lol, not our problem."

Try imagining it in reverse; Saddam posts a link on these forums that says the "old" site is going to merge with this site and all the rules from theirs will override.  The admins on the site you actively post on are non-existent (remember, you're pretending) and when you wander over to the other to see if your voice matters, you are told that only posters that have >50 posts on this site can vote (mind you that the deadline to obtain 50 posts was set in the past).  You say that this is going to effect you and you should at the very least have a say and all you get are replies saying, "Sorry, not our problem.  Try talking to your admins that we all know don't respond to anyone."

Do you begin to at least see the point of view I'm raising?  Do you begin to see why, "it's not our problem" sounds indecorous in light of the position we are in?
I understand your point.  Now here's mine.

You chose to stay.  You chose admins who don't give a damn.  You chose a poorly run forum.  This isn't like two countries: you could move with the ease of a few clicks.  Hell, you could have posted in BOTH forums and we wouldn't care.    The way I see it, you basically said "Yes, I will let Daniel decide the forum."  It was your choice and now that Daniel is doing it, you're being angry.  I'm sorry but Daniel is your representative in the forum merger just like PP and Parsifal is ours.

Though if you think a poll would be useless, why do you want to vote here?  It would be equally useless then, wouldn't it?

I understand most of your point (more on that later) and have been trying to get people to realize that this merger feels like a slap in the face.  Like no one cares what we think or how we feel.  And it sets a poor prescience for the pending merger.  I'm sorry I didn't make 50 arbitrary posts here before Dec 27th.  Perhaps if I had people would see me as one of them, not one of the others.

I don't understand your question about the poll.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 12, 2015, 09:26:31 PM
The merger will result in a unified community with better administration. You obviously dislike the way Daniel is handling things, and this unification will hopefully resolve that. I don't understand your concerns.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2015, 09:29:05 PM
Oh, so it's not really about reuniting a community as much as getting the .org with the higher Google results?  That's fine if that's what it is, but it really shouldn't be called a reunification proposal.
There is a thread about it on the other forum.

However, as we are not full members there (not all of us anyway) we do not have a say in the political procedures.  Daniel, Wilmore, and Davis are the ones who should be talking to you about it, making a poll, etc...

You can't expect us to do this work for you when it's not our forum.

I'm sure that the natives in the Mid-Americas would have liked to have been consulted when France sold a large landmass to the United States government.  Does it make it okay because the French government sucked?  Does it make the voices of the purchased less meaningful?  Did they feel okay about being acquired because their comments fell upon the deaf ears of their government?

Or, do you think that it would have been nice if there were even allowed to vote?  It's not like we're talking about strangers, these are people engaged in a community that is about to be merged and because our "government" is ineffective and aloof we get no say.  And when one tries to make their voice heard, their vote is stricken away.  Gotham isn't a stranger either, we all know him (or at least of him).

I have no experience with how these forums are ran, but it seems to me that we will be replacing one tyrant for another. 


I will be perfectly happy to have Gotham's vote unstricken.  I feel it will show that the administration of this forum is at least amiable to the wants of the members of the "old" forum.

Why?
This vote is for this forum's members.  Why not just make a poll on your end?  Based on what I know about the admins here, if there was a sizable "no" on that end, they'd probably bring that issue up before the merger.

Or would you prefer I do it for you?

It's your problem because of this, "It's not our problem" attitude.  A significant portion of the people being effected by the merger have no voice in it whatsoever (Their side doesn't listen and their vote is taken away by the side that expounds its benevolence to the users -- Am I seriously the only one that sees the irony in that?) and when that issue is addressed we get a response that amounts to "lol, not our problem."

Try imagining it in reverse; Saddam posts a link on these forums that says the "old" site is going to merge with this site and all the rules from theirs will override.  The admins on the site you actively post on are non-existent (remember, you're pretending) and when you wander over to the other to see if your voice matters, you are told that only posters that have >50 posts on this site can vote (mind you that the deadline to obtain 50 posts was set in the past).  You say that this is going to effect you and you should at the very least have a say and all you get are replies saying, "Sorry, not our problem.  Try talking to your admins that we all know don't respond to anyone."

Do you begin to at least see the point of view I'm raising?  Do you begin to see why, "it's not our problem" sounds indecorous in light of the position we are in?
I understand your point.  Now here's mine.

You chose to stay.  You chose admins who don't give a damn.  You chose a poorly run forum.  This isn't like two countries: you could move with the ease of a few clicks.  Hell, you could have posted in BOTH forums and we wouldn't care.    The way I see it, you basically said "Yes, I will let Daniel decide the forum."  It was your choice and now that Daniel is doing it, you're being angry.  I'm sorry but Daniel is your representative in the forum merger just like PP and Parsifal is ours.

Though if you think a poll would be useless, why do you want to vote here?  It would be equally useless then, wouldn't it?

I understand most of your point (more on that later) and have been trying to get people to realize that this merger feels like a slap in the face.  Like no one cares what we think or how we feel.  And it sets a poor prescience for the pending merger.  I'm sorry I didn't make 50 arbitrary posts here before Dec 27th.  Perhaps if I had people would see me as one of them, not one of the others.

I don't understand your question about the poll.
Ok so:
the poll.  You want to vote.  Ok.  We let you vote here.  So we gotta let everyone on the .org forum vote here too.
Why would that be any different than posting a poll there?  The same people would vote for the same thing.  They'd just have to register an account to do so.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Particle Person on January 12, 2015, 09:30:34 PM
The only people who could make a meaningful poll, then, are Daniel and Wilmore, right? So why are you complaining to us?

I've already addressed the "it's not our problem" argument.

I never said that it isn't our problem. The problem, as I understand it, is that the input regarding the merger from theflatearthsociety.org users is not being taken into account. I think that's a problem for all of us. What can anybody here do, though? None of us are administrators there. You're complaining to the wrong people.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2015, 09:33:19 PM
The only people who could make a meaningful poll, then, are Daniel and Wilmore, right? So why are you complaining to us?

I've already addressed the "it's not our problem" argument.

I never said that it isn't our problem. The problem, as I understand it, is that the input regarding the merger from theflatearthsociety.org users is not being taken into account. I think that's a problem for all of us. What can anybody here do, though? None of us are administrators there. You're complaining to the wrong people.
No, he wants our administration to let the .org people vote here instead of over there because doing so would be useless.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 12, 2015, 09:36:02 PM
The only people who could make a meaningful poll, then, are Daniel and Wilmore, right? So why are you complaining to us?

I've already addressed the "it's not our problem" argument.

I never said that it isn't our problem. The problem, as I understand it, is that the input regarding the merger from theflatearthsociety.org users is not being taken into account. I think that's a problem for all of us. What can anybody here do, though? None of us are administrators there. You're complaining to the wrong people.
No, he wants our administration to let the .org people vote here instead of over there because doing so would be useless.

I disagree. I believe pizaaplanet is nice enough to take the other forum's opinion into account. My poll can help with that.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Blanko on January 12, 2015, 09:36:31 PM
It's no matter if you have been a member of society as a greater[...]

This seems to be the mistake you're making. You think we're part of the same society, when that is simply not the case. And since we're discussing reunifying the two societies it's especially important that the voices and opinions of the two societies are kept separate.

Our society is only going to decide on matters regarding our society, and conversely Daniel's society is only going to decide on matters regarding his society. That's why we're not asking what users of theflatearthsociety.org think in a poll that's asking what the users of tfes.org think.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Particle Person on January 12, 2015, 09:38:29 PM
The only people who could make a meaningful poll, then, are Daniel and Wilmore, right? So why are you complaining to us?

I've already addressed the "it's not our problem" argument.

I never said that it isn't our problem. The problem, as I understand it, is that the input regarding the merger from theflatearthsociety.org users is not being taken into account. I think that's a problem for all of us. What can anybody here do, though? None of us are administrators there. You're complaining to the wrong people.
No, he wants our administration to let the .org people vote here instead of over there because doing so would be useless.

Yes, I should have addressed that. We shouldn't have to host a vote for users of the other website here. It makes no sense for them to come here to vote rather than do it on the website that they already use, so very few of them have. I think it would be reasonable to validate Gotham's vote and allow Pongo to vote, since they bothered to show up and we know them, but it doesn't really matter now anyway.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Vindictus on January 12, 2015, 09:42:53 PM
Internet forums are serious business.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2015, 09:45:08 PM
Internet forums are serious business.
You are not wrong.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 10:16:16 PM
The merger will result in a unified community with better administration. You obviously dislike the way Daniel is handling things, and this unification will hopefully resolve that. I don't understand your concerns.

And I fear you may never. However, I find myself repeating arguments so I'll abstain from further comments on the topic. I feel that I stated my opinion as well as I could and we may be forced to accept our misunderstandings are at an impass.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: junker on January 12, 2015, 10:17:27 PM
I assume PP and Parsifal will catch up and see the discussion that is taking place over there. I will recommend that results of a vote at the other site are at least looked at, although I can't say any additional action would take place regardless of the outcome of a vote over there. It may be unfortunate, but if the administration over there doesn't give the community a voice, there isn't much that can be done about that from our perspective currently. After reunification, everyone will have a voice, just like they do here.

It can't be anything but helpful to engage in extra discussion. Ultimately, the voice for tfes.org has been heard and the vote from this side favors reuniting the fora.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2015, 10:34:57 PM
The merger will result in a unified community with better administration. You obviously dislike the way Daniel is handling things, and this unification will hopefully resolve that. I don't understand your concerns.

And I fear you may never. However, I find myself repeating arguments so I'll abstain from further comments on the topic. I feel that I stated my opinion as well as I could and we may be forced to accept our misunderstandings are at an impass.
I would, honestly, still like to know what the difference between voting here and voting there is.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on January 12, 2015, 10:36:05 PM
The merger will result in a unified community with better administration. You obviously dislike the way Daniel is handling things, and this unification will hopefully resolve that. I don't understand your concerns.

And I fear you may never. However, I find myself repeating arguments so I'll abstain from further comments on the topic. I feel that I stated my opinion as well as I could and we may be forced to accept our misunderstandings are at an impass.
I would, honestly, still like to know what the difference between voting here and voting there is.
Its the difference between sex and masturbation.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: junker on January 12, 2015, 10:40:40 PM
The merger will result in a unified community with better administration. You obviously dislike the way Daniel is handling things, and this unification will hopefully resolve that. I don't understand your concerns.

And I fear you may never. However, I find myself repeating arguments so I'll abstain from further comments on the topic. I feel that I stated my opinion as well as I could and we may be forced to accept our misunderstandings are at an impass.
I would, honestly, still like to know what the difference between voting here and voting there is.
Its the difference between sex and masturbation.

If you aren't going to add anything useful, please refrain from posting in this thread.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Particle Person on January 12, 2015, 11:04:59 PM
I wish we would continue to use our logo. It's so much easier to look at.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2015, 11:07:35 PM
Oh boy, this is what happens when I sleep during the day. This post will specifically focus on Pongo's remarks. After I've posted this, I'll re-read the 2 or so pages of posts that came around today and respond to anything that remains, so please stand by.

Pongo, the reason we're not asking theflatearthsociety.org members for their votes is because it's outside of our remit. We have no control there, and no right to make formal decisions on your side's behalf... yet. Mind you, I've been asking for their opinions for quite a while - I've been active in the thread started by PP2 and did my best to satisfy people's concerns. I also invited people from theflatearthsociety.org to join the discussion as early as on the 3rd of August.

As many others pointed out, right now we're separate sites with separate administrations. I have previously suggested that Daniel should consult you guys on this, but right now it's simply his choice, not ours. I believe that I've done everything I can to ensure that the members of theflatearthsociety.org's members are listened to. The only opportunity you didn't get is to take part in the formal vote.

I agree that the "not our problem" attitude is nonsense. This is our problem, since a large chunk of the userbase we'll have to work for will soon come from the merger. I cannot, however, agree with your narrative of "evil Parsifal and pizaa are taking arr' jerbs and ain't even asking us about it!" - that's simply not what's happening.

Personally, I take particular offence with statements like this:
...I'm happy to discuss things at length to make sure that everyone is informed and satisfied. Just, please, don't succumb to random panic.

Again, everyone with 50 or more posts on tfes.org prior to ~Dec 27th right?

But hey, let's humour you. No, literally everyone is welcome to discuss and ask questions about the proposal. What you don't get to do is vote on it, for at least two reasons now. Is the distinction clear now, or should I alternate between bold and regular fonts for a little longer?

Dammit Pongo, you've seen how this stuff works. I can't help but feel that you're only here to stir pointless drama. If you have actual concerns about the proposal, drop them here or PM me.

Now, why did I arbitrarily (and I agree, it's largely arbitrary) choose to restrict the vote to people with 50+ posts? Really, it was mostly to stop people from gaming the system. I worried that there might be some people who would start making alts, or that some randoms with no interest in the tfes.org community would come along and start skewing the vote. Bear in mind that the conditions of the vote were open for amendments (see OP, towards the bottom of the post) and no one mentioned even a trace of disagreement at the time.

Long story short, the things you're complaining about don't even exist, at least to my understanding. We've done everything we humanly could to keep the members of the other side informed and to consult them. Given that you have more power on theflatearthsociety.org than I do, you may want to take matters in your own hands if you feel your side of the schism isn't playing nicely. Or, if you have any suggestions for what I can personally do to make things nicer over there, hey, I'm happy to try; but I'm not going to circumvent Daniel at a time where our mutual understanding is so crucial.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Blanko on January 12, 2015, 11:15:09 PM
I wish we would continue to use our logo. It's so much easier to look at.

It's okay, you'll still be able to buy a t-shirt.  :-*
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 12, 2015, 11:26:25 PM
Oh boy, this is what happens when I sleep during the day. This post will specifically focus on Pongo's remarks. After I've posted this, I'll re-read the 2 or so pages of posts that came around today and respond to anything that remains, so please stand by.

Pongo, the reason we're not asking theflatearthsociety.org members for their votes is because it's outside of our remit. We have no control there, and no right to make formal decisions on your side's behalf... yet. Mind you, I've been asking for their opinions for quite a while - I've been active in the thread started by PP2 and did my best to satisfy people's concerns. I also invited people from theflatearthsociety.org to join the discussion as early as on the 3rd of August.

As many others pointed out, right now we're separate sites with separate administrations. I have previously suggested that Daniel should consult you guys on this, but right now it's simply his choice, not ours. I believe that I've done everything I can to ensure that the members of theflatearthsociety.org's members are listened to. The only opportunity you didn't get is to take part in the formal vote.

I agree that the "not our problem" attitude is nonsense. This is our problem, since a large chunk of the userbase we'll have to work for will soon come from the merger. I cannot, however, agree with your narrative of "evil Parsifal and pizaa are taking arr' jerbs and ain't even asking us about it!" - that's simply not what's happening.

Personally, I take particular offence with statements like this:
...I'm happy to discuss things at length to make sure that everyone is informed and satisfied. Just, please, don't succumb to random panic.

Again, everyone with 50 or more posts on tfes.org prior to ~Dec 27th right?

But hey, let's humour you. No, literally everyone is welcome to discuss and ask questions about the proposal. What you don't get to do is vote on it, for at least two reasons now. Is the distinction clear now, or should I alternate between bold and regular fonts for a little longer?

Dammit Pongo, you've seen how this stuff works. I can't help but feel that you're only here to stir pointless drama. If you have actual concerns about the proposal, drop them here or PM me.

Now, why did I arbitrarily (and I agree, it's largely arbitrary) choose to restrict the vote to people with 50+ posts? Really, it was mostly to stop people from gaming the system. I worried that there might be some people who would start making alts, or that some randoms with no interest in the tfes.org community would come along and start skewing the vote. Bear in mind that the conditions of the vote were open for amendments (see OP, towards the bottom of the post) and no one mentioned even a trace of disagreement at the time.

Long story short, the things you're complaining about don't even exist, at least to my understanding. We've done everything we humanly could to keep the members of the other side informed and to consult them. Given that you have more power on theflatearthsociety.org than I do, you may want to take matters in your own hands if you feel your side of the schism isn't playing nicely. Or, if you have any suggestions for what I can personally do to make things nicer over there, hey, I'm happy to try; but I'm not going to circumvent Daniel at a time where our mutual understanding is so crucial.

This is a very well written post to address my concerns and in hindsight I wish I had waited for this response before I engaged in the bickering.

A few points I have to make.  I apologize for the remarks that offended you.  They weren't meant as slights but as a way to get my point across.  I do see why, in sight of your handwork over here that one would deservingly take offense.

I know you are powerless to hold polls at theflatearthsociety.org (or at least polls with meaning), and I would never suggest that.  I was mainly upset that the 50 post limit precluded people who identify themselves as members of The Flat Earth Society from voting regardless of the board they post on.  There is a bunch of member crossover and still friends between the two sites.  However, I now understand your reasoning behind preventing people from gaming the system, and our votes would be largely irrelevant.

I did see your post limit when I first read your post a couple weeks ago.  I didn't say anything then because I got the impression it wasn't set in stone.  Though I did complain about it on the "old" site, I can hardly expect you to stay on top of that.  The fault's mine there for sure.

My intent was not to stir up drama.  I felt I had legitimate concerns that did exist and I wish there was a good way to resolve them.  In lieu of that, I thank you for the reply and not balking at my points.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
Pongo: I'm glad we were able to clear this out. No long-term offence taken, your remark just irked me at the time of reading. :)

Now, to continue the "pizaaplanet drops walls of text" show:

Oh, hey, it's a Thork post. Yay.

Of course, very shortly half of them will be our admins ... and still just as unconcerned about our opinions, and it really will be our problem.
Admins in name only. They don't get to make decisions. We do. Whether they're concerned or not affects nothing.

I think all this boils down to Daniel noticing our presence on Wikipedia and then facebook and not liking the idea that this half was on its way to being more successful. He wants to either remain in charge, or slow our progress which is now very apparent by everything being left until "after reunification". A process he will be in no hurry to resolve.
He won't need to be in any hurry at all, since we're giving the community a decision-making body of his own. Hopefully, we'll be able to create one that's more effective than the current ZC (which, arguably, was less active than Daniel as far as political goals are concerned).

I can't fathom pizaaplanet's motives. Why he'd rather be confined to Daniel's terms than doing whatever he sees as best here, I can't work out. He obviously has some motive that he won't share and its likely dark and evil because that is the type of mischievous little git that he is.  >:(
I'm literally being paid all the money to do this.

I'm sorry, I really don't know how to address this anymore. I and many others went over the reasons for why this proposal has benefits for both sides. Of course, it also has cons, and if you don't believe that the pros outweigh them, then I'm genuinely sorry. I hope that in time I'll be able to show you that you didn't have to worry. Believe it or not, I actually care about this place. I wouldn't propose anything that I believe to be bad for our community, and I wouldn't do anything without popular support.

I know pizaaplanet will rush in here to tell everyone my opinion is that of a crazed loon and not to listen and that I've had my say, but it seems despite Pongo confirming my suspicions about the attitudes and motives of our new overlords, no one is listening. Hearing yes, listening, no. I cannot have my way on this as I am in the minority, but I'd very much like to store up a huge "I told you so" and this is part of it.
It's difficult to do anything other than hear and not listen to you, because what you're claiming directly contradicts what's being proposed. You starting off with the assumption that the earth is round, and everything that follows from that assumption is just wrong. Several times now you've suggested that Daniel would be an admin and that this would somehow affect us. And I've responded several times, pointing out that this simply isn't the case. There's nothing more I can do.

(Everyone, please let me know if I've missed any major posts that need addressing from today. I feel that this covers the bulk of it, but I may have missed something)
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 12, 2015, 11:40:52 PM
(Everyone, please let me know if I've missed any major posts that need addressing from today. I feel that this covers the bulk of it, but I may have missed something)

I made this poll  (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62575.0#.VLQtACvF9fQ)out of Pongo's concerns that members on .org were being ignored..


If the results of this poll are overwhelming negative...  will this be taken into consideration?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tau on January 13, 2015, 12:38:57 AM
Looks like we don't have to worry about that. The poll is overwhelmingly positive, so far
 
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost of V on January 13, 2015, 12:42:28 AM
Looks like we don't have to worry about that. The poll is overwhelmingly positive, so far

I'm just hoping that all those votes aren't from members here. I'd like to see what the .org only members think specifically, but didn't want to make the poll too restrictive.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2015, 01:00:55 AM
If the results of this poll are overwhelming negative...  will this be taken into consideration?
I can't answer that with authority, since if it happened we'd have to talk it through with Daniel, but personally I wouldn't want to force our administration upon the other site's members if they really don't want it.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tau on January 13, 2015, 03:34:29 AM
Looks like we don't have to worry about that. The poll is overwhelmingly positive, so far

I'm just hoping that all those votes aren't from members here. I'd like to see what the .org only members think specifically, but didn't want to make the poll too restrictive.

Even were that the case, it would be a demonstration of complete apathy from the other forum. So long as they aren't against it, I'd say we're golden.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on January 13, 2015, 03:36:48 PM
I wish we would continue to use our logo. It's so much easier to look at.
I'd like to second this. Our theme and logo is way more pleasant.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Blanko on January 13, 2015, 03:37:18 PM
I wish we would continue to use our logo. It's so much easier to look at.
I'd like to second this. Our theme and logo is way more pleasant.

It's the same theme.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on January 13, 2015, 03:46:21 PM
It's the same theme.
I know the background is the same. Maybe it's just the logo then that makes the layout look slightly different. It kinda looks slightly bigger in general, but that might just be the logo deceiving me.

So just the logo then. Let's keep the logo.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Parsifal on January 13, 2015, 08:16:52 PM
I know the background is the same. Maybe it's just the logo then that makes the layout look slightly different. It kinda looks slightly bigger in general, but that might just be the logo deceiving me.

Our theme is modified to be a bit wider (though it doesn't scale well to narrow windows, something I've been meaning to fix). That might be what's giving you that impression, and we're going to keep using our (minor) modifications to the theme after the merge.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2015, 10:04:52 PM
I've also made the top bar taller to accommodate a slightly larger logo, the search bar, etc.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Gayer on January 18, 2015, 08:55:16 AM
So when are we going to be reunified?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Vindictus on January 18, 2015, 09:11:40 AM
With that in mind, by a very clear majority vote, I'm pleased to announce that tfes.org accepts the proposal. Assuming theflatearthsociety.org accepts it as well (which I believe they already did, but I'll ask for a formal confirmation), we'll begin working on the forum merger as soon as possible. This will be slowed down by several factors:
  • Parsifal's currently on his NZ trip.
  • We need access to the server on which theflatearthsociety.org is hosted. Since Daniel shares this host with other people, he said he'd like to first move the site away from the shared server so that he can give us full access without compromising the other people's stuff.
  • When those two things are out of the way, we should be able to start developing a solution to effectively merge the two fora. This shouldn't take long, but it will take some time and effort.

But, for the time being, as soon as I get confirmation from Daniel that their side accepts these terms, the societies are formally reunified!
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Gayer on January 18, 2015, 11:03:46 AM
Well hooray then.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Dionysios on February 24, 2015, 05:21:23 AM
  • The Society
    • President/VP - Daniel will be the President of the reunited society. Lord Wilmore will be the Vice President. These positions are at Daniel's discretion.
      • The Zetetic Council - A democratically-elected body of 5 members will be electable yearly. They will be officially recognised as such within the Society and will therefore be expected to act as its legitimate representatives. Their exact remit and structure of the council will be established post-reunification (and pre-election) through a general agreement of all members of the Society and forum regulars (unless they deem that such a body is unnecessary). In principle, they will be a decision-making organ of the society wherever possible (e.g. not in charge of membership and merchandise - see below). Daniel will retain veto power over the ZC's decisions.
So the council has to be elected but the president doesn't? And nor does his Vice? How does that work?

If we have a despot in charge, call him that. Presidents are elected. Also, we've had Daniel for 10 years and he does very little. Even the United States gets rid of a president after 8 years. Lets have a change. Why are we stuck with Daniel? He does nothing, contributes nothing, doesn't know anything about flat earth history or the theories ... why are we stuck with him forever and ever? Fuck him. We don't need him.


  • Merchandise - This remains within Daniel's remit and will likely operate as it does currently on theflatearthsociety.org, under the condition that it will be performed at no profit. After reunification, we may investigate alternative pathways (e.g. Zazzle/CafePress), should there be significant demand for such a development.
So the most flaky, unreliable and perpetually absent member of the society is the person we put in charge of distributing goods when people give REAL money for them? Come on. This is ridiculous. It has always been a great source of embarrassment how people can give money to the society and Daniel trousers it for 4 months and no one can get hold of him. Give the job to someone else.

There. Not so bad. Only disliked two of the suggestions so we aren't a million miles away.

The thing is, Daniel hasn't moved a jot. He still wants to be the President, still wants control over the main site and all financial control. He wants it all, and wants everyone else to just run it all for him whilst he does very little other than get in the way. Why are we so desperate to put up with all his crap again? If you like his way of doing things, post over there. If you don't, stay here. Why are our choices being limited? I don't want Daniel in charge of a site that I like using. He will not change, he will not compromise, he is just a domain squatter. We don't need him or Wilmore. Neither contribute anything any more. Its time they handed over the reigns. They won't. Leave them to rot over there.

The problem with Daniel is that he isn't accountable to anyone, and he doesn't give a shit about anyone else's opinions. Lets not put him in that position of power again. He abuses it.[/list][/list]

I couldn't agree more. 
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Vindictus on February 24, 2015, 07:33:40 AM
Thork's quite wrong in the second part of that quote.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Dionysios on February 26, 2015, 07:15:56 AM
Everything he remarked there is accurate according to my experience, and I've been using that forum since 2005.

Be that as it may, everything Thork said about Daniel will apply to this forum if it unites with him.
This website evidently has sincere people and is apparently better moderated and thus has had far more potential than is possible for Daniel which makes it unfortunate that the dog returns to its vomit.

That reunion will tend only to make me shy away from serious commitment to this forum.

Best of luck.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 26, 2015, 11:51:21 AM
Despite numerous attempts at explaining what is being said here, people still seem not to follow.

Be that as it may, everything Thork said about Daniel will apply to this forum if it unites with him
It won't, because Daniel will have no control of the forum whatsoever. He'll be no more of a threat than Thork is right now.

This website evidently has sincere people and is apparently better moderated and thus has had far more potential than is possible for Daniel
We are maintaining our current moderation team after the reunification. We are maintaining everything as it is currently. All the forum is getting is a 10-year backlog of posts and an expanded memberbase.

That reunion will tend only to make me shy away from serious commitment to this forum.
So long as you make sure to base your decision on actual information and not Thork's impotent attempts at sabotaging this forum, fair enough.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Dionysios on February 27, 2015, 03:42:35 AM
Forgive me as I surely do hope your forum does benefit in the long run.

I considered what you have written, and I reckon you are correct as long as you or Parsifal are the key administrators with ultimate control over the forum rather than Daniel in case of any future breakup. That is vital.

Daniel has made literature available online.
I'll give him that much, but I do think it is foolish for you to throw away the library which you already have and not also retain an independent duplicate of his on your own server. That is my suggestion to you.

Daniel's society has always been worthless.
If being the leader of that strokes his ego, then by all means, let him have it.

Although Chiang kai Shek was a fascist who oppressed all of China, the Chinese communists united with this monster to fight the Japanese, their common enemy during World War II. When the war was over and the Japanese were defeated, the communists were much stronger than before the war while Chiang Kai Shek's position had become much weaker.

As long as you retain control over the forum and this is strengthened by receiving his database, then I can see your wisdom in joining forces with him.

Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 27, 2015, 09:31:01 AM
We have agreed for Daniel to have ownership of the home page and library, but we've also made sure that regular members will have an easy way of direct contribution. From my point of view, the only risk is that Daniel might pull the plug on something, but honestly I doubt that'd ever happen.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Dionysios on February 27, 2015, 04:15:47 PM
We have agreed for Daniel to have ownership of the home page and library, but we've also made sure that regular members will have an easy way of direct contribution. From my point of view, the only risk is that Daniel might pull the plug on something, but honestly I doubt that'd ever happen.

Will you and Parsifal lose ultimate ownership of this forum in case of a split?
If that means that Daniel will have ownership of the forum, then you are gaining nothing and the whole deal is very foolish for you.
Daniel is slick. Don't base the merger on his good will.

I knew two brothers who each owned 24% of Johnny Becnel Farms. Johnny Becnel himself owned 52%. (That tells you something right there.)
This business owned a set of buildings, tractors, and orange groves. It also rented a lot of farm land for a pittance.
Ultimately, the brothers split from Becnel and Johnny Becnel Farms dissolved. It turned out that Johnny Becnel Farms legally only rented the farm land. The tractors, buildings, and orange groves were actually personal property of Johnny Becnel himself which is different from Johnny Becnel Farms. These two brothers had nothing to show for all of their years of work, and they seem very much like you and Parsifal down the road.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2015, 04:51:09 PM
No, Daniel won't own the forum.  It will be on Parsifal and pizaaplanet's server, and so they will have full ownership of it.  I suppose a hostile Daniel could close the front page and library, but in terms of "splitting," the only thing he could do is leave.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 27, 2015, 04:55:30 PM
Will you and Parsifal lose ultimate ownership of this forum in case of a split?
No. The forum will remain on a server owned and controlled by Parsifal (either where it currently is or a new VPS dedicated to hosting FES). While we want to build this merger on the atmosphere of mutual trust, I feel that we've taken sufficient precautions in case things go wrong.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Dionysios on February 28, 2015, 12:26:21 AM
Good.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on March 02, 2015, 02:08:53 PM
Does anything useful actually get discussed at the other site? The last time I popped in, it had been more than a week since the last post.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Rama Set on March 02, 2015, 09:49:50 PM
Does anything useful actually get discussed at the other site? The last time I popped in, it had been more than a week since the last post.

You must have been doing something wrong.  I am on the other site everyday and there are a lot of posts in all the upper fora, except perhaps FE Believers.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Dionysios on March 10, 2015, 11:12:38 PM
Will you and Parsifal lose ultimate ownership of this forum in case of a split?
No. The forum will remain on a server owned and controlled by Parsifal (either where it currently is or a new VPS dedicated to hosting FES). While we want to build this merger on the atmosphere of mutual trust, I feel that we've taken sufficient precautions in case things go wrong.
If anything does ever go wrong, I might perhaps be the first volunteer to meet him and discuss our concerns:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6pKFL9M6zEY
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 21, 2015, 09:06:36 PM
This is never going to happen, is it?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tau on March 21, 2015, 09:13:40 PM
This is never going to happen, is it?

Are we surprised? Daniel is involved.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on March 22, 2015, 12:05:14 AM
If my sources are correct (PizaaPlanet), we are waiting on Daniel to move the forums to a seperate server.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Dionysios on March 22, 2015, 04:39:50 AM
Well, it's looking like a rival flat earth group is forming around Eric Dubay who is decidedly more energetic and definitely critical of Daniel Shenton. I noticed that Dubay has another kind of demon, a different weakness: hard core crude anti-semitism which is unfortunate, but he's obviously a better researcher than Daniel. 

Possibly the competition of two sincere flat earth groups with very distinctive followings would be beneficial to the overall cause of scientific truth. I suggest absorbing and benefiting from Dubay's research without of course imbibing his error or joining with him. Keep the best - leave the rest. I perceive it is very important to the future of this forum to be familiar with and keep abreast of Eric DuBay's and Matthew Boylan's publicly shared information. This community is more agnostic and politically left than the crowd forming around Dubay, but the posts and content of his forum are vastly better than Daniel's. This forum as of now has at least one advantage in that it is significantly better organized than DuBay's ifers.boards.net forum.  From what pizza planet says, it does not sound like Daniel has succeeded in rigging this forum to degenerate into a travesty, and that is good.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Dionysios on March 22, 2015, 05:12:53 AM
If my sources are correct (PizaaPlanet), we are waiting on Daniel to move the forums to a seperate server.

If my suspicions are correct, Daniel is waiting on his handler for the go-ahead.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Rama Set on May 08, 2015, 01:26:12 PM
Any news on this front?  The other site is badly in need of leadership.  Like real bad.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 08, 2015, 02:46:06 PM
And we are badly in need of new members.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 08, 2015, 03:10:03 PM
Any news on this front?
I wish. We've last heard from Daniel on 26/02/2015 and Wilmore on 05/03/2015. I promise I'll post any updates here should there be anything to update people on, but right now... well, there is nothing.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Rama Set on May 08, 2015, 03:16:23 PM
Any news on this front?
I wish. We've last heard from Daniel on 26/02/2015 and Wilmore on 05/03/2015. I promise I'll post any updates here should there be anything to update people on, but right now... well, there is nothing.

I figured that was the issue.  Thanks for the update. 
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rooster on May 08, 2015, 10:56:00 PM
And yet they made an April Fool's post... What the hell?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Rushy on May 11, 2015, 06:23:10 AM
Yet more evidence that Daniel is stuck in a black hole and from his point of reference we are all moving at the speed of light.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Rama Set on May 11, 2015, 05:48:46 PM
This merger has to happen soon (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63597.msg1687161#msg1687161)
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 11, 2015, 07:10:27 PM
I am in favor of this 110%.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: magic on May 17, 2015, 02:59:16 AM
Well, it's looking like a rival flat earth group is forming around Eric Dubay who is decidedly more energetic and definitely critical of Daniel Shenton. I noticed that Dubay has another kind of demon, a different weakness: hard core crude anti-semitism which is unfortunate, but he's obviously a better researcher than Daniel.

Dionysios,
I don't know whether what you assert of Mr. Dubay is true. If you wouldn't mind perhaps supporting this assertion, although it is not related to this topic. I dislike unsupported statements.

I was banned from IFERS for similar asking for support on assertions (on a FE related matter), hardly worthy of banning but I must respect that every house has their rules! I registered there today, and was on for 30 minutes prior to the being struck down by the ban hammer.

What I gained from that experience is that whatever I posted could not be reconciled by a response and I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Snupes on December 31, 2015, 06:36:36 PM
I'm starting to think this might not happen
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 31, 2015, 07:24:54 PM
I'm starting to think this might not happen
That is indeed a likely possibility. We can't do anything in Daniel's absence, and he doesn't appear to be responding to communication, even from Wilmore.

Obviously, a lot has changed since the first version of the reunification proposal was written. In the hypothetical event of Daniel's return, we would likely not be willing to make as many concessions as in the past.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on December 31, 2015, 07:45:27 PM
You'd never be able to get anything done that relied on Daniel. You may have to wait literally years as reunification has proven.

I'm not going to harp on about how this was obvious and I said it hundred times. Let's just move on. We have a better set up here anyway and we don't need Daniel. Besides, he'd make us go back to his yucky logo. :P
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Snupes on December 31, 2015, 08:36:39 PM
Yeah, i know it probably won't happen, I was just making a funny mostly. But it does suck, though obviously there'd have to be new talks since I don't think anyone here wants to relinquish as much with how much stuff has changed. It just sucks because they still have all the traffic despite being broken as hell, leaving that as many people's first impression of the FES. >o<

But yeah, I got Wilmore to prod into it all again and still nothing's happened, so I think it's pretty clear Daniel's left the forum and society and all that behind him at this point.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2016, 05:32:27 PM
Eh, all we wanted was the database and users.
The users are migrating slowly but surely over.
Our numbers are increasing.
As traffic increases to us and their forum and main page fails, we get more of the traffic.  Heck, google crawlers may not even hit the forums if the main page is down.

So by the time Daniel actually does something, his forum will be dead, ours will be the #1 and we can just say "We don't need you anymore."
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 01, 2016, 05:52:38 PM
I'm not even in favor of a merge anymore.  Even if Daniel were to miraculously return right this second and offer to go ahead with it immediately.  The only deal I'd be supportive of now is one where Daniel hands over everything and gets absolutely nothing in return.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 02, 2016, 03:55:20 AM
I think it's fair to say that at this point hardly anyone would want the merger in its original proposed form. The proposal was drafted and discussed a long time ago, and we have since made many improvements to our sites which make ours superior in many ways.

If this were to happen (and obviously that's still subject to Daniel actually contacting us), we'd have to go back to the drawing board and come up with an agreement that's more appropriate to the context of 2016. After all, it is the current year.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2016, 04:29:19 AM
Today I did a Google Search for Flat Earth Society and the homepage of this site now ranks 3rd and the forum of the other site ranks 5th.

(http://i66.tinypic.com/24mf3bs.png)
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 04, 2016, 05:25:03 AM
Today I did a Google Search for Flat Earth Society and the homepage of this site now ranks 3rd and the forum of the other site ranks 5th.
Yeah, although that mostly seems to have to do with the other site's homepage being down for an extended period of time. I'm not sure if this will continue when/if they bring it back up.

That said, we observed a very significant increase in views since then across all our sites. Let's try to make the best of it.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Roundy on January 04, 2016, 07:59:15 AM
This is still something people are talking about?

I know it might seem odd coming from Daniel's former biggest supporter, but his forum has gone to shit and we're all better off without this happening.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Roundy on January 04, 2016, 07:59:53 AM
*even more to shit.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 05, 2016, 08:44:58 PM
Well, it would still be nice to inherit the post history. Even if a lot of it is spam, quite a lot of it is quality FES history.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on January 26, 2016, 04:43:04 PM
Expunging links to our site ... yeah, not exactly goodwill, is it.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Wilmore on January 27, 2016, 04:31:11 PM
Hey guys. Just wanted to let you know exactly what the story has been with this... and as you can probably guess, there's not much of a story.

At the start of last October, I tried to revive the discussion about reunification, as Daniel had dropped off the radar during the summer. I got a couple of emails from him, and an offer of a call, but as it happened I couldn't do it the night he was free and needed to push it back a week. Since then, I haven't heard from him. Around the end of October Snupes got in touch, and so I tried contacting him again, and have sent a few emails since. Last was on the 29th of December.

Despite the lack of enthusiasm being expressed in this thread, I'm probably going to keep trying to make this happen (it's been a month, and there's been news, so I might send another email today). I still believe reunification is in the best interests of everyone. The particulars of the arrangement are almost unimportant, especially as it's an open secret at this point that Daniel may not even want to be President anymore. I just think the two sites should be one, as there are shared values there which I think are important. I am in particular thinking of Dubay and his ilk when I say this - devotion to the dogma of the day, 'no true scotsman' accusations, and a smorgasbord of other undesirable behaviours. I don't want that to be the face of the Flat Earth movement in the 21st century. I think we have a lot more in common with each other then either site does with them, and frankly there's no good reason for there to be two sites. Note: I know there were good reasons for people to leave the old site. But that's not a *good* reason for both sites to exist, more an unfortunate one. I still think it's worth fixing that, with all the benefits of traffic and a unified post history going back 12 years at this point. I continue to think that's worth trying for.

All that being said, I don't want to get anyone's hopes up, and I'm not sure I could if I tried. This is all ultimately dependent on Daniel, and whilst I've been trying on and off for over a year now to get things going, that only goes so far. I'll keep you all in the loop, to the extent that there is one.

Oh, and sorry I wasn't around during January, have had 3 week-long visits from friends, with another one coming on Saturday (though he's only in Dublin for a couple of nights). Also got an EVE Online account... so there's that. But yeah, should be here a bit more, especially as the resuscitation of the .org homepage seems to have had the effect of slowing the forums to a crawl, which I noticed became significantly faster when it went down. It was a good 4 weeks or so...
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on January 27, 2016, 04:53:11 PM
Thanks for the update!
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 27, 2016, 06:06:10 PM
Thank you for trying to get this going, Wilmore. Admittedly, if anything were to happen, I imagine we'd have to seriously renegotiate the exact terms; but, as you said, that's a relatively minor point when currently we basically have no way of progressing.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 27, 2016, 07:59:08 PM
Appreciate your efforts, Wilmore.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: geckothegeek on April 05, 2016, 05:11:30 PM
I'm getting a "404" whenn I search  on "the flat earth society". Has it been shut down permanently ?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on April 05, 2016, 05:33:11 PM
I'm getting a "404" whenn I search  on "the flat earth society". Has it been shut down permanently ?

No, it's experiencing technical difficulties.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2016, 06:00:31 PM
I'm getting a "404" whenn I search  on "the flat earth society". Has it been shut down permanently ?

No, it's experiencing technical difficulties.
And no one knows when it'll be fixed...
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on April 05, 2016, 06:06:51 PM
I'm getting a "404" whenn I search  on "the flat earth society". Has it been shut down permanently ?

No, it's experiencing technical difficulties.
And no one know when it'll be fixed...

Know.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2016, 07:12:35 PM
I'm getting a "404" whenn I search  on "the flat earth society". Has it been shut down permanently ?

No, it's experiencing technical difficulties.
And no one know when it'll be fixed...

Know.
I was typing in a car.  But fixed now, thanks.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: rabinoz on May 21, 2016, 01:44:55 AM
I am probably telling tales out of school, but there was no request to keep the following confidential.
I had noticed a "separation". In particular John Davis only posting on "TheFlatEarthSociety" and "Tom Bishop" only posting here,
but the depth of the division has completely taken me by surprise.

t f e s are all the trolls that left our site. They tried to take over the site a while ago because they were not happy that Daniel was president and wanted to usurp him; they started their own by tarnishing our brand and trademark.

They have no interest in spreading the truth and simply confine themselves to their little forum where they make up fake groups like "The Zetetic Council" in an attempt to appear legitimate. In reality, this just reveals them for the trolls they are. They are 95% of the UA believers and for the large part they don't believe the earth is flat but are similar to groups like Leo Ferrari and Kay Burns Flat Earth Society of Canada which uses our beliefs as to mock us and the modern gullibility of man.

We were first and we are the legitimate society. This is evidenced by our widespread influence in articles, interviews, academic works, and books.  We have banned mention of their site on ours because they performed a coordinated attack on us as well as spammed our forums with links to their site to increase their natural link back rate and to raise our bounce rate. Additionally, they purposely caused many of the problems our site was having at the time in an effort to move people from here to there while simultaneously legitimizing their supposed platform. Oddly enough, once they left, people stopped complaining about thousands of issues they had caused and we were able to maintain legitimate discussion again. Additionally, they stole the content of our wiki, largely derivative work of Daniel himself.   As such we will soon be discontinuing our wiki which they left as a mess of incoherent garbage that often puts down the flat earth rather than discusses it. To add insult to injury, they again tried to bolster their rank through black hat methods by spamming wikipedia with links to their site. Apparently they didn't realize their society has no legitimacy and still don't.

We are on good terms, but make no mistake - they are the enemy of the Flat Earth Movement. If anybody is a shill, a term I really dislike using, its them. They have done more to hurt the flat earth society than any other person in our two hundred year history. The only reason we don't pursue legal action against them is because if they are over there, we don't have to worry about them causing trouble here.

They are the most despicable type of person and in my eyes are terrorists to the Flat Earth.

I have not had the history in either site to form an opinion as to rights and wrongs, but any acrimony like this does cause pain. Even though I am not sympathetic to the aims of either site I don't want it to end this way.

I had better not say any more, but as one who finds that the Heliocentric Globe completely satisfying it is eminently easier to debate the Flat Earth position if it is united.

So, purely for selfish reasons (as well as my dislike of any acrimony) I do hope the groups get together and reach a consensus on "Flat Earth theory".
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Snupes on May 21, 2016, 03:33:55 AM
I think I speak for most when I say that John's incredibly harsh feelings are one-sided. I have no idea what's caused him to be so abrasive and acerbic recently, but a good chunk of us have been open to discussing terms of reunification, and none of us have said anything remotely as rude and unwarranted about him as he has about us. It's disappointing, but if that's how John wants to be then that's his prerogative. I harbour no ill will towards their site, so its unfortunate that he seems to want to distort facts to paint a bizarrely evil portrait of ours.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: JohnDavis on May 24, 2016, 08:54:56 PM
I have no harsh feelings towards tfes.org. I like the majority of you quite well. My words were quite harsh, and perhaps its because recent talk about you has reopened some old wounds. I apologize and I clearly went overboard.  That said, its water under the bridge. Its clear you had legitimate reasons for the split. I apologize for my recent 'tirades' against your site - they in retrospect are a bit unfair. I also apologize for the lies. While I'm sure they weren't taken very seriously, I threw around some words I shouldn't have and that were quite frankly lies and not fair.

Pongo will be polling interest in our users to see if this is still an option if your users are still interested as well. If it is, I have the power necessary to make it happen. Most of our moderation is against it, but if the administrators agree, Daniel agrees, and the users do it makes sense.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on May 24, 2016, 09:31:02 PM
No thanks.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Snupes on May 24, 2016, 09:50:59 PM
As stated on IRC, I am still interested in reunification discussion, so hopefully it goes somewhere. :]
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on May 24, 2016, 10:13:43 PM
Really?

You want Daniel's shit logo?
You want Daniel in charge of T-shirts that never arrive?
You want Wilmore doing the social media in the most anti-social way possible ... by ignoring it.
You want John Davis in charge of site updates?
You want their moderators moderating as well, despite the fact we booted Jroa?
You want to be told to fuck off every time there is a site issue and no one wants to fix it?
You want to lose month after month of posts due to incompetence?

We left because they couldn't run a bath over there, but they want to control every aspect and prevent anyone else doing anything useful. We left for a reason. I know its a long time ago, and that deadens the fury and rage that prompted such a drastic move, but nothing has changed. It is the same people in charge. Davis, Wilmore and Daniel. And they are no more available now than they were back then. Those 3 are the problem. They are the root of all the problems over there. Until they step down, there is nothing to negotiate about.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: JohnDavis on May 24, 2016, 10:21:11 PM
I've been told not to take you seriously, so I won't. Who can I assume is my contact in these matters?
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on May 24, 2016, 10:30:29 PM
Its me. All questions should be directed to me. I will be making all decisions.

Seriously, why are you here? Slither back to .org.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: JohnDavis on May 24, 2016, 10:51:24 PM
I'm here because I said I was open to talks about unification, and I am. I'm here because I care about the Flat Earth and the Flat Earth Society.

I fully realize that both our user bases may not be interested. So I'm also here to find out if yours is. From my brief talks on irc, it seems like you are interested but we would have to renegotiate terms.

Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on May 24, 2016, 11:01:28 PM
If you guys are exclusively in charge on any aspect of the tech or the merch/membership, I'm not interested. You'll fuck off for 3 weeks and the site will be bust, things will break and you will never fix them, you won't give a shit when you lose 4 weeks of our posts and nothing will be updated ever. Also all our stuff looks better than yours. We don't want Daniel's logo. Or your new theme.

It doesn't really matter if Daniel is a figurehead, but why should we even concede that? He's had that title for over 10 years - UNELECTED, and stopped posting on the site 9 and a half years ago. He just needs to go. He isn't interested in it. The T-shirt thing is also a huge source of embarrassment. I get people on our twitter asking me when I'm going to send them a T-shirt and accusing me of scamming them! Why? Cos Wilmore hasn't updated your Twitter since February and no one seems to address S&C on your site.

But for the URL, you have nothing we want. You are just domain squatters.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Snupes on May 24, 2016, 11:16:18 PM
You want Daniel's shit logo?
When did I say I did?

You want Daniel in charge of T-shirts that never arrive?
When did I say I did?

You want Wilmore doing the social media in the most anti-social way possible ... by ignoring it.
When did I say I did?

You want John Davis in charge of site updates?
When did I say I did?

Etc...I think you get the point. That's why I'm interested in reunification ~**discussion**~.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 25, 2016, 12:59:10 PM
Thork, stop Thorking.

Personally, I'm in favour of reunification, but not on the same terms as previously suggested. We've grown a lot since the original draft has been proposed and it would be inappropriate for us to downgrade our services (mainly homepage, graphical design/branding, merchandise - apologies if I'm being too blunt, but we simply do these things better).
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Pongo on May 25, 2016, 02:05:48 PM
At this point, we are just gauging interest. Many of Thork's doomsday scenarios will simply not be applicable. However, others may. If we feel a high enough level of interest is achieved, we will see if we can work out a deal.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Roundy on May 25, 2016, 03:39:56 PM
For some reason I'm with Thork. I don't want this to happen if the other site's admins have any control over anything important. They've dropped the ball too many times for me to have any real trust in them.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: Thork on May 25, 2016, 10:57:49 PM
Our side forget how little they offer. We have all the things worth keeping*.

*Including a Thork. How many sites can boast having a Thork? Its such a unique selling point.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: junker on May 26, 2016, 12:39:15 AM
I'm for reunification in general, but I don't see it happening. Our setup is a well-oiled machine. It would be nice to get more noobs, but it isn't worth sacrificing how well this place is run to accomplish that. We just have better stuff.
Title: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal
Post by: junker on July 09, 2016, 04:38:05 AM
Can we unsticky this thread now? It hasn't been posted on in nearly two months and no meaningful conversation has taken place.