741
Flat Earth Community / Re: Zetetic Council Election Thread.
« on: December 19, 2013, 03:45:51 AM »
I accept the appointment, I suppose.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Tausami, I think that the imperial connection, while definitely present, isn't as relevant as the religion itself. For example, Islam was founded when the Arabs were a ragtag band of savage, disunited warlike tribes, preying on each other & anyone else in the area. It was Islam that united them & made them a powerful state that was almost unstoppable as they barrelled out of Arabia & conquered everything from India almost to Barcelona in about 80 yrs. Christianity unified the Roman Imperial State. Ancient Israelite Faith unified the bickering 12 Tribes under 1st Judges, & then Kings. Certainly, though, it can be said that in all 3 cases, after unification, the governments in question gave a boost to their respective faiths.
The problem isn't Islam, it's the feudalistic and decentralized system of government in the former Ottoman EmpireAren't the two the same thing, at least to some extent? Many Muslim governments are based on Islam, and Islam was therefore shaped in a political way.
Just curious, is it possible to get high from a blunt's second-hand smoke?
Well, this article I found says a Harvard stufy found a negative correlation between gun onwership and murder rates - the less people that own guns in a nation, the higher the murder rate.
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
The muders included are not just gun murders, but all murders. I think the correlation is there because people aren't going to attack someone if they think they'll get shot in the process.
The mods are generally the most respected members of the forum.Why does it seem like that quote belongs in a Monster Fail thread?
The Council is there to run the Society, not the forum. As far as I'm concerned, forum rules are firmly within the jurisdiction of the forum admins.
I think this is completely necessary. That is how I believe it was laid out in the beginning. I am happy to confer with council on things, but ultimately there are three admins that are good at putting their personal feelings aside and dealing with issues objectively.
Adding more rules can be the job of the council
The Council is there to run the Society, not the forum. As far as I'm concerned, forum rules are firmly within the jurisdiction of the forum admins.
Regarding your proposed list of rules; a rule should be clearly defined and have a specified penalty for breaking it, so that there is as little doubt as possible whether enforcement of it has been done correctly. A rule like "don't be offensive" is so widely open to interpretation that it may as well not exist.
My aim in this draft is to keep the set of rules as concise as possible, while still maintaining clarity. This is intended for members' benefit, so everyone knows exactly where they stand.
The less rules the better. The shorter the better. Then if a rule isnt broken as such but the poster is obviously not good for the site, then mods should use their initiative.
Make a rule against the obvious exploitation of loopholes.
I say leave that up to moderator discretion, but always warn the user first.
Maybe we could have a process to ban members who haven't explicitly broken rules? Like, they could be nominated for bamhammeration by the council and there could be a vote among the moderators or something like that. Maybe there would have to be better checks and balances than that.
No, I don't think that's fair to anyone. People should know if they can be banned for something before they make the decision whether to take the action or not.
A better way of doing this is to simply add new rules as we discover behaviours that are undesirable. That way, the new rule applies equally to everyone. I intend to revise the Manifesto to formalise the process of adding new rules once we have a finalised set of rules.
I can't vote for anyone because I don't know what is they're meant to represent. At the moment people are being voted for because of popularity not what they're capable of.
I'm worried that this self defined council will just be an elite club of friends that don't actually do anything. This council could actually divide the forum.
One of the things the council could do is decide on a coherent voice of flat earth theories and update the F&Q. If they do that I would vote for a council member who knows something about flat earth theory. At the moment I can't nominate or vote based on anything but popularity.
I also don't see why you need to rush it. If you want to speed it up a bit put some milestones in place.
i.e.
Ask people what they think the council should do - 2 days
Summarise the answers and structure the purpose of the council- 1 day
Put together three options based on the summary of what the council should do and vote on them- 2 days
etc...