|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 4:54:56 GMT -5
The context for this is topo's thread introducing the idea. The motivation for it was Peter's apparent decision to implement it as stated here, along with that inkling of Shawn's intent for the board as can be gleaned from this exchange: Thanks for the upgrade, Shawn. The new ignore functions are awesome and will solve our perceived mocking/bullying problems. Since you are here, can you give a short and clear statement about forum purpose and forum direction? Some here think that this forum is primarily for discussions about non-duality as the keywords seem to suggest, others point to the header on the front page saying that discussions are not limited to non-duality only. My purpose for the forum was only to create the Spiritual Friends Locator board. At the request of users, I opened the gates and created some other boards. The users are taking it wherever it is headed. I don't perceive any limit to what can be discussed, only that discussions should be kept in their appropriate rooms (i.e. someone shouldn't be peddling books on the "board business" board) My guess is that this is a foregone conclusion on two counts. It seems that the wheels are already in motion and my guess is that the yes option probably has numbers on their side. Similar to the vote to unban Q, I would respectfully request that everyone who votes indicate their vote in a post on the thread, but please discern that this is not a request for an explanation. Conversely, I of course welcome such an explanation, discussion and debate. I fully accept and expect that not everyone who votes will honor that request. ... not that there's anything wrong with that! Unlike the vote to unban Q, I do not request that this be limited to senior members, and for whatever it's worth, if the vote comes out in the negative I'll invite Shawn publicly and privately to consider that result.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 5:19:44 GMT -5
ok, I'm really really really tempted to go with the cattle call on this one because as I mentioned to topo' here, it's my prediction that the following will apply if the split is implemented: The more things change, the more they stay the same. What pushes me across the line to the "No" vote is concern of a potential lack of authenticity, and I put that argument forth here here, here and here.... while I retracted that in response to what Peter said here: I'm thinking the Nice section will be an exercise in getting as mean as you can get without tripping the wires. It'll be unchanged from how it's running now. So yes. Edit: Additionally, I've got a "Cut thread here" facility that would allow me to stop a thread should it turn nasty and move the latter half into the unmoderated section. I hereby retract that retraction because on reflection I just don't see how it would be possible to implement the split without some change in moderation applied over the split board as applied to the single board now as it stands. If nothing more, the split itself embodies and defines that change, but it sounds to me as if the moderated section will have rules enforced there that aren't enforced now. Written or otherwise. Also, I just fail to see a problem with the way things are.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 5:26:27 GMT -5
The way you have worded the poll makes it tough for me to vote.
I would prefer to see a change in the structure though. Even if there is no moderated section, I would prefer almost totally unmoderated to the way things are now.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 5:28:50 GMT -5
The way you have worded the poll makes it tough for me to vote. I would prefer to see a change in the structure though. Even if there is no moderated section, I would prefer almost totally unmoderated to the way things are now. It's just a practical question Andy ... it references tops proposal. The added color is just my thing man. look at the choices with regard to tops proposal as: yes no I abstain
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 5:30:34 GMT -5
The way you have worded the poll makes it tough for me to vote. I would prefer to see a change in the structure though. Even if there is no moderated section, I would prefer almost totally unmoderated to the way things are now. It's just a practical question Andy ... it references tops proposal. The added color is just my thing man. look at the choices with regard to tops proposal as: yes no I abstain Okay, yes to a change of some sort.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 5:39:44 GMT -5
It's just a practical question Andy ... it references tops proposal. The added color is just my thing man. look at the choices with regard to tops proposal as: yes no I abstain Okay, yes to a change of some sort. ok, please check a box then!
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jun 26, 2013 5:47:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 5:49:21 GMT -5
Man you make me laugh sometimes Q ... thanks for voting sir!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 6:58:23 GMT -5
It's just a practical question Andy ... it references tops proposal. The added color is just my thing man. look at the choices with regard to tops proposal as: yes no I abstain Okay, yes to a change of some sort. Andy your technical abstention from the vote brings to light this point of style v. substance. I've argued that with Reefs: yes, the two are intertwined. In any event, I've re-arranged the poll to both clarify the question and give options for participating in the vote that are free of style. To anyone else reading this, I hope that you will support laughter as a concept by using one of the funny ones! Q -- apologies sir but there's no way to edit a poll so I must beg your patience on a recast of your ballot.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 7:02:20 GMT -5
Okay, yes to a change of some sort. Andy your technical abstention from the vote brings to light this point of style v. substance. I've argued that with Reefs: yes, the two are intertwined. In any event, I've re-arranged the poll to both clarify the question and give options for participating in the vote that are free of style. To anyone else reading this, I hope that you will support laughter as a concept by using one of the funny ones! Q -- apologies sir but there's no way to edit a poll so I must beg your patience on a recast of your ballot. I appreciate you changing the wording there. It might sound silly to you, but it just didn't sit right with me to vote for 'quarantining the sick and evil ones'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 7:17:30 GMT -5
Andy your technical abstention from the vote brings to light this point of style v. substance. I've argued that with Reefs: yes, the two are intertwined. In any event, I've re-arranged the poll to both clarify the question and give options for participating in the vote that are free of style. To anyone else reading this, I hope that you will support laughter as a concept by using one of the funny ones! Q -- apologies sir but there's no way to edit a poll so I must beg your patience on a recast of your ballot. I appreciate you changing the wording there. It might sound silly to you, but it just didn't sit right with me to vote for 'quarantining the sick and evil ones'. My pleasure sir, wasn't hard for me to put myself in your shoes on that one at all. Thank you for voting!
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 26, 2013 7:29:00 GMT -5
No surprise on my vote, I voted yes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 7:39:43 GMT -5
No surprise on my vote, I voted yes. Thank you for participating!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 26, 2013 7:43:03 GMT -5
Greetings..
I vote no, status quo.. why separate and create divisions?
Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 7:46:23 GMT -5
I voted yes just to move this charade on: not that your poll matters much I guess ... I've never seen Peter move so fast, so I'm thinking this is a done deal ;-)
|
|