I support this move.

I would note that part of this constitution would be a metaphorical leaving of egos at the door. To often debate disolves because of one or two people involved in the debate deciding that they know everything and all others should only listen to their points and accept no others, this is not debate that is ego feeding. Since you used flint i will also cite him. His ability to ignore people he doesn't like is fine, but his requirements that one grovel at his feet to appoligise for any slight, no matter how tiny, is not acceptable. If you have an issue with someone,. say so, say your intended course of action and accept an appology like a man. That said actually standing up and appoligising like a man is a good idea too... yes that is a dig at myself...

All in all some sort of framework to facilitate intellectual discussion and debate here would be useful and most welcome.

I can get to this much more in depth in each of my Metadebating threads.  However, in general, I can cite some problems with the status quo:

1: General disrespect amongst people who debate one another results in long-lasting damage to effective discourse.
2: Non-constructive posts derail topics.
3: The lack of a stable Politics representation within the mod community (with the exception of Arnor on the f-mod squad), combined with the current exception to rules, creates the assumption that the Politics forum is a generally lawless region, creating the long-lasting problems that exist.
4: Aside from actions done by Arnor, most mod activity is seen by some as "outsiders" changing the forums, perceptually discrediting the validity of the moderator's actions regardless of whether the action was justified or not.

Now, I am not saying the community as a whole exemplifies these traits.  For example, I honestly can't recall an instance where you violated the tenants I would propose.  However, such seems to be the exception, rather than the norm, within this community.  I don't want to point to specific instances, as that can only serve to isolate certain people in the community, and/or frame me as targeting specific people in my actions.

[]

An interesting read Zarf.

If you have suggestions for changes of rules, or whatever, you can always (try to) contact me. I am very interested in getting the politics forum back to it's former self.

As for you flint, as i told you many times before, in the netherlands i vote right wing. It's not our fault extreme right wing in the rest of the world is moderately left for the USA.

> 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. 

As for the rest of the post.

I have never questioned Avogardo when he says he went off grid as much as possible (yes he is ignored for life, but using him as an example works)

I never questioned that Zarf was in debate club

I never questioned that Lizzy was trying to be a pharmacist.

I have posted my history before, my skills, my knowledge and training. Yet at this moment I can direct to no less than 3 threads from memory where I am challenged directly, even where others have known my history from what I have said (or if you desire, have claimed).

I am probably the most 'self written' about there is on this forum.

As for Chris being mod for a while. It helped at first, but then abuse from others started going unchallenged, presumably because a majority over-ruled him.

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.

Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst. They said to him,

Mathew 5:30

And if your right hand offend you cut it off, and cast it from you: for t is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell. not that your whole body should be cast into hell.

Two of those got me so mad I spoke in tongues, I was so mad evil found it's way into me. One of those two also made me suicidal, and they all carried on their actions despite warnings and protests from me. The third I need not speak of on this forum for as far as I know he has never posted in here.

Their actions resulted in sin from me, so I have permamently cut them from me.

Now Zarf, Primo, and others... if you wish to show respect, respect me on this, I cannot regrow that connection. Attempts to use the bible when you do not believe what I believe will not work. You would have to draw out my full beliefs before you could even try, and then you would not for knowing my full beliefs.

Of this forum, there is three that might get me to do so, but not on this forum.

As for the Avogardo ignore, if mods had stepped on him, left a heartfelt thread to grow in the politics forum he would have ceased attacking and no ignore would have happened.

The rules of my ignoring are simple. I do not reply, and try not to read unless it is germaine to someone elses post and I seek understanding. If I accidently reply (possible) or they use subterfuge to obtain a reply (name change and I find out) I seek to remove posts replying to them utterly, and go forth as if the event never happened.

I do not limit them from posting, I am not incarcerating them, I am shunning them, but their lives need not feel handicapped for that. I do no physical harm by ignoring. Indeed I may do them good by persisting, by preventing a downward spiral, for if I am never responding, then perhaps they must learn to value the opinions and feelings of others they disagree with enough to not cross lines where a person goes despondant.

So respect me in this if you truly wish to change the discourse. Heck if you succeed wildly I would give Decimus and You_Fool a chance again, though not immeadiately, for I dso not trust this system to work.

If I may put a thought forward.... Flint I feel that in most cases your questioning of my intent in posting, whilst also valid for your reasons, has also an element of the simple fact you disagree on my stance on most things, so i doubt I will be able to 're-earn' your trust, even if all i made were posts relating to the thread and a debate on them, because I would have arguments that were counter to yours whilst be logical (as logical as yours.)

So I would also like a turning point from you, where you donot condem someone just because they believe in something different from you. I would need you to understand that when I post something serious I actually do know what I am talking about, possibly more than you in some cases (which were mostly the cases, i think, were you have got upset with me 'disrespecting' your 'education.')

Also as a side note, if this constitution was to immediatly censure me (which I wouldn't be in any politcal arena, or at least not for 99% of my posts,) then I would have no incentive to sign it, and thus I would have no incentive to stop... I could get ignored by the community who did sign, but I could also then form an alternate politics community of those who didnot like such provisions in this one...

History of people is easy.

To quote a hero of mine:

"Trust but verify"

This simple rule makes it so that you have a means to validate. I have said what specific unit I am from. That is evidence to others who have served, and should suffice to prove that most likely I did indeed serve in the US Army. Further I have claimed reasonable job titles of Infantry/Mortars and Supply Clerk/Armorer. This is not unusual enough to warrant nay saying if the trust in my military history exists.

When someone is asked what Uni they goto and what degree they are persuing, their answer generally suffices unless they are caught on something out of whack.

Yes this means a troll may happen, but eventually a troll is found out.

I trust Chris is a man in the legal field. I trust Black_Wing is a small business owner, I trust that Primo is gay (or bi?).

These things will either be outed, or prove to remain a part of that persons identity.

For example, no one has had reason or cause to question that I drive a semi truck now, but if in discussion my knowledge was germaine then asking about trucking in a polite manner, to test my knowledge could be verification.

Does this make sense to you?

Flint, the question of whether your standard for determining people's real life professions partially rests on one other question:

What do you define as the "respect" which others should give to those who have specialties in a field?

For example, if Lateralis has a unique specialization in physics that indicates he has greater knowledge of, say, the global warming debate, are people supposed to defer to him on such issues?

> Einstein wrote:

> Respect and debate as an equal?

Yes

If this is what you advocate, in a mutual and reciprocal fashion, then you need not worry about whether this will hinder such ability.  All part of the plan...