I would quit your job, pillage the goods inside your truck, and become a mountain man! 

Maybe I'm just holding the map upside down...

You're doing it again...

I'll prepare the cloning vats!

So does that mean that, overall, you would not question such a forum Constitution, as long as we allowed you to continue your individual bans?

If not, then please respond to the other arguments I had in the prior two posts if you still want to advocate your other points on this issue...

Otherwise, I've got nothing else to say in the matter, as a draft could easily be made to accommodate the above issue, while not compromising the values of the document.

> Einstein wrote:

> Prove ability

Such proof can only exist after the Constitution is written.  Right now, there's no collective bargaining mechanism with which to utilize.  Doing anything now wouldn't prove the effectiveness of the Constitution.

Now, in regard to people's credentials.
1: Remember, this Constitution isn't only about your relationship with other people in the community.  It's about their relationship with each other.  You justify people in the future simply asserting what they want to say they are (I once had someone in the forums randomly claim they were an accountant in order to screw with me).
2: Why should we believe people's historical pasts?  How can 99.999999% of us prove who we are?

In regards to Chris:
1: Presumably?  How about we take a moment and ask him?
2: Remember, Chris was only around for a certain period of time, so you can only look at that time period when looking at the mod effetiveness.
3: The mods don't require a majority vote for every forum cleaning instance. 
4: If this was the case, why would the mods even have him be a mod?

"As for my sworn to God will ignore for life. They can repent, I may just never speak to them. Their repention would be done, but the human punishment would continue, just as prison still punishes those who have repented.

Their future actions may redeem them in heaven, and on Earth, but it still need not affect thwe promise, even if my opinion of them changes. There is no catch 22."

1: The prison system works like that because it's an isolation mechanism.  A person in prison for life can't repeat their crime against non-offenders due to their punishment.  In IC, this isn't the case: Noir, Avogadro, etc., could all troll everyone else, and they can even still troll you... although you won't respond to it.
That being said, you're left in a problem: you have already used all your power against them by carrying out the greatest of your threats, with 0 possibility of that influence being removed.  That means there is 0 incentive for any of these people to repent.
2: Would it really be useful anymore if, theoretically, Avogadro apologized for his actions, yet you continued your ban?  Why?  What's the point?

> Einstein wrote:

> 1) Trolls

1: If your claim that mods don't enforce is true, then why was Decimus was banned within days of returning to the forums specifically after trolling you? 

2) Mods

1: See previous
2: Remember when The_Yell was an F-mod?  Yeah, that kind of disproves your argument that mods attempt to create tools to harass conservatives.
3: Primo has already seemed to jump onboard, at least at the conceptual level.

3) bias

1: Remember, none of us can prove who we are and where we've been on IC.  I could probably claim to have pretty much any expertise I wanted.  Therefore, what you are asking by saying we should respect people based on expertise is literally for us to defer to anyone who claims to have a degree in whatever field they want to claim their degrees.

There is one, and only one, way you can prove your credibility on these forums.  That's through your actions within the forum, and within the game.  Only then can people decide whether you actually are who you say you are.  But then again, once you have established credibility for your actions within the game, you have no need of your claim to expertise, at least in dealing within the game/forums.
2: Name 3 liberals on these forums who were not, by your definition, bigoted.
3: You've seen a few people express interest in this system, including some people who generally don't like you.  I've talked with you_fool, a person whom you have empirically had problems with, and he seemed extremely interested in this, assuming that forum posters were given a clean slate.  In short, the question of a Constitution is being met with people willing to turn over a new leaf.

Remember, the bias exercised in the forums assumed the prior forums, where there was little law and order here, as you stated.  Under a new governing system, the assumption of lawlessness is gone.  Please refer to Metadebating 1: Many people indicated that the reason they acted the way they did was because these forums were just that, lawless.

4) Visitors

That's true.  Solutions:
1: Sticky the thread, with a giant "READ FIRST" just like RP established.
2: By the wording of the Constitution as I had originally figured, this wouldn't be a problem.  We can write it in order to simply warn people for first offenses, solving most of the problems here.

5) violaters

1: We, as a community, have 3 tools to fight people.
A: The collective censure, a simple expression that we disapprove of a person's actions, and that they should discontinue such.
B: The communication ban.  Essentially functioning just like what you have done.  The only difference is that, when coordinated as a community, it is much more effective because the person has essentially lost all contact in these cases, and will lose any hope of receiving feedback to their statements.
C: What I call "cataloging."  If I asked you to give me links as to when and how the people on your ban list offended you, you would probably not have them (avogadro being an exception because it's still in these forums).  Why?  Because, as individual posters, we have taken each instance of rule violations to be an individual instance.  Scenario:

July 1: Zarf BeebleBrix swears at Flint.  Flint reports it to one of the F-mods.
July 5: Zarf BeebleBrix says something racist in the forums.  You_Fool reports him to the mods.
July 10: Zarf BeebleBrix trolls Decimus.  Decimus reports it to one of the F-mods.
July 15: Zarf BeebleBrix swears at Primo.  Primo reports it to one of the mods (yes, I know...).
July 20: Zarf BeebleBrix says another racist rant.  Avogadro reports him to one of the mods.

Here's the problem: When a moderator has been presented with each scenario, they address them as individual scenarios.  They are willing to issue bans in response to people who historically have violated the rules without consideration for said rules.  However, when we, as individuals, present these violations to the moderators, we present the violations to the moderators as individual, isolated incidents.

Alternatively, imagine if, at the end of each of those violations, the person reporting the incident also reported it to a secondary organization: a Politics community database.  That person reports the time, date, posts a link to the incident, and copy/pastes the most pertinent posts in the violation.  After somebody has accumulated enough violations, the Politics community can step forward to a moderator and solidly make a case that a person has been consistently having such behavior.  Through this method, we can change the way in which we operate with the moderators in a way that vastly improves their ability to moderate and our ability to see results.
2: Moderators have already begun jumping onboard.  Primo offered to consider ideas in changing the forum rules, and I have been in talks with another mod considering action to support this and other moves.

> For me to stay I would require acceptance I am a Christian who swore on his eternal soul not to communicate with Avogardo, Noir, and Jang0. I would need immeadiate ostricization by multiple people on those who unjustly attack me and mod bans on clear trolls. I would needs respect of my intelligence, my skills, my history and such with no bull crap of saying I cannot have those skills without actually having something to back it up (my compression being endless was fightable, that I can design compression methods is not for example).

First, on the ban issue:
1: Your demand that we ostracize certain people based on actions prior to the acceptance of such a document is sort of dubious.  It would require we punish people for:
A: Violations before there was any agreed upon rules framework.  Essentially, you justify and create a system where no matter what people say, they can be moderated after the fact simply by having the community establish new rules specifically to target them.  Your response would allow for 0 predictability in what is considered a fair representation of the rules.
B: Violations which can't be proven due to lack of documentation.  Yes, we could grab such for Avogadro, as that is still in these forums.  But not the rest of them.
2: That being said, why do you believe Avogadro or Noir would last more than a few seconds if they're as bad as you think?
3: Christianity requires something which you seem to have completely disallowed in your framework: forgiveness.  You've left no room for any of these people to say they have done something wrong, and agree to refrain from pursuing such a course in the future.  Without forgiveness, you leave those people in a world where there is no possible carrot or stick to them changing their course of action, and thus they are left only with continuing whatever they do.  You're in an odd catch-22 where your Christian oath is to do something in violation of Christian beliefs (forever withholding the possibility of allowing people to repent).  I would consult a priest/minister on this one, Flint.  This is outside our league to explain.
If your system does allow people to repent, then one of two things will happen:
A: Avo/Noir won't sign the Constitution, and thus aren't a part of it except insofar as our standards for them are concerned.
B: They sign it.  By signing such a document, they implicitly declare they are accepting a new stance on what constitutes good and bad behavior on these forums.  While I don't want to say this is a religious experience, it follows much framing similarities to the concept of baptism, where a person is welcomed into a community and wiped clean of their transgressions beforehand, as those transgressions were before the recognition of the legitimacy of such a community.
4: You could still ban these people individually.

Next, onto R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

1: Please define "respect."  For example, would it require people defer to you on some issues?
2: Remember, as I said before, we can't "prove" our credentials to the forum community as a whole.  I can't invite everyone who posts in Politics to come to where I live, and watch me do my thing, just to prove who I am.  I could claim to be whatever I want to be without anyone being able to prove or disprove me, establishing an unfair framework of appeals to authority when such authority may not even exist.  The only thing you can prove here is what you have accomplished inside these forums.

Remember, those rules which you ask for in regards to yourself can just as easily be claimed for those people whom you dislike.  It's only fair, and probably a more stable option, to limit such powers in these instances.

>I will never see that, just like I would never see Kemp, myself, or Black_Wing being given F-Mod powers.

1: What about Chris_Balsz?
2: There are factors outside of political stance that determine whether someone should be an F-mod or not.  Kemp, for example... how often does he post anymore?  Black_Wing?  I'd rather not get into details right now regarding that...

> This divide is the same chasm that is dividing America, only war or a miracle can make them see what they are doing and feel like changing.

1: Got an alternative?
2: You apparently missed this.  The constitution is the declaration of war. 

HAHA!  Justinian, they mixed you and me up. 

> Wild Flower Soul wrote:

> I know of this rule. But if the larger part of the population votes for Obama anyway, what does it matter? You're always going on about giving the freedom to the people to decide. They have, and they didn't care!
Besides, it's a stupid rule, get rid of it..

If that was the case, why would the law still exist?  There was plenty of movement, especially on the Republican side, to remove that rule (thanks to Schwarzenegger).

Plus you undermine the very rule of law under that system... "oh, the law exists, unless someone we like violates the law... then it's null!"

Justinian, there is one benefit to monogamous marriages: they create relative stability in raising children.  Generally, children are better raised when in stable, two-parent families due to both the stability of dependence and the mutual incomes.

That being said, I have generally had a theory for solving the gay marriage issue that is extremely similar to your stance: ban "marriage" as a legal concept, and replace the term "marriage" with "civil union," which could be more liberally applied to groups such as homosexuals.  This solves the worries of gay marriage advocates while still preserving the identity of "marriage" as a religious institution, as "marriage" would be left solely to religions to determine.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

Ok, Justinian... what do you think you contribute?

One more question added.