Questions for Callaway

[DirtDawg]

.
Calandale started both polls and the vote was very different in the neutral one he started from the vote in the slanted one he started, so it can't be the fact that he started the first one, it has to be the slanted and confusing way that he worded it.

  Yet no-one claimed that Dunc's humorously worded poll with his tag-line of "Vote despotism. You know it makes sense." was set up to skew the results.  Is that because people rightly assumed that Dunc was trying to be funny? Is there any reason why it wouldn't be assumed that Cal was also trying to be funny?
   

YUP.

His continued ... what ever it is ... drums up a different set of sensibilities in those who try to take him seriously. It's like licking a toad. Sure you got high for a while, but you fucking had to lick a toad to do it.
 
Something palpable from him would go a long way towards shoring up his crumbling credibility.

In lieu, I'm done with it.

[DirtDawg]

....... well, unless you can convince me that I have jumped the gun, again.

[Calandale]

.
Calandale started both polls and the vote was very different in the neutral one he started from the vote in the slanted one he started, so it can't be the fact that he started the first one, it has to be the slanted and confusing way that he worded it.

  Yet no-one claimed that Dunc's humorously worded poll with his tag-line of "Vote despotism. You know it makes sense." was set up to skew the results.  Is that because people rightly assumed that Dunc was trying to be funny? Is there any reason why it wouldn't be assumed that Cal was also trying to be funny?
   

YUP.

His continued ... what ever it is ... drums up a different set of sensibilities in those who try to take him seriously. It's like licking a toad. Sure you got high for a while, but you fucking had to lick a toad to do it.
 
Something palpable from him would go a long way towards shoring up his crumbling credibility.

In lieu, I'm done with it.

And, to be fair, I WASN'T only trying to be
funny. Nor did I assume that was all dunc meant,
GIVEN that there was an option for how things
were. I actually presume that he changed his
mind, as time went on.

[Calandale]

....... well, unless you can convince me that I have jumped the gun, again.

You wanna jump my gun? 

[purposefulinsanity]

What's been concerning me is that valid points on this debate and the prank list one were ignored and/or written off as bullshit- naturally that makes me wonder why those issues were being ignored.  I also feel that there was enough opposition to the aniti-prank list that it shouldn't have just been secretly set up anyway without a vote- that feels a little too much like a 'we staff know best' decision
     . I get that cal is hard work sometimes, (ok a lot of the time) but what happens with him reminds me of what happened with both scarp and lit- surely the place can take some opposing view points- wouldn't the place be dull without them?   And I hate the fact that everything he says is written off as bullshit, sometimes there are some valid points in there.

[odeon]

Ok- what I'm struggling to understand about the situation is how we can be going back to pre-WC days with elections and members having the right to set up polls, but, at the same time, have it set in stone that there were going to be elections.  If people had voted they didn't want them surely we would have had no choice but to scrap them? (It seemed that you were saying that we wouldn't- am I wrong?  )

Again, I wasn't decreeing anything, I was repeating what we had already decided--to have an election, pre-WC style, and reacting to yet another mind game by Calandale, one where he went from an outspoken advocate of the World Council type direct democracy to an Intensity ruled by despots. I find it difficult to take him seriously because of this kind of thing, and I know I'm not the only one.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the pre-WC days, elections started to happen because the staff then decided it would be a good thing to have them, not because there was a vote by the general membership. In a similar manner, a poll could not actually stop the elections from happening.

Hmm. Maybe McJ or Callaway (or Dunc) knows...

A poll stopped the WC though which was set up in the same way.  We've always allowed members to vote on any issue- are you suggesting that the question of whether or not we have elections should be off limits in your opinion.

I'm not saying anything, I'm trying to remember how this place was before the WC, how it worked. I would imagine, however, that in the pre-WC days, the membership could not vote away the elections using a single poll, and certainly not without staff approval

Yes, a poll stopped the WC, but the WC was deliberately set up in this way, and we even discussed that possibility before we got the ball rolling, remember? A poll without the staff's approval could not have started the WC, however, if I remember the pre-WC days correctly.

[Calandale]

  And I hate the fact that everything he says is written off as bullshit, sometimes there are some valid points in there.

I actually get a kick out of it. 

[purposefulinsanity]

  And I hate the fact that everything he says is written off as bullshit, sometimes there are some valid points in there.

I actually get a kick out of it. 

But that seems to me to be part of the reason why the arguments go on for so long (the irony)- or is that why you get a kick out of it?

[Calandale]

Ok- what I'm struggling to understand about the situation is how we can be going back to pre-WC days with elections and members having the right to set up polls, but, at the same time, have it set in stone that there were going to be elections.  If people had voted they didn't want them surely we would have had no choice but to scrap them? (It seemed that you were saying that we wouldn't- am I wrong?  )

Again, I wasn't decreeing anything, I was repeating what we had already decided--to have an election, pre-WC style, and reacting to yet another mind game by Calandale, one where he went from an outspoken advocate of the World Council type direct democracy to an Intensity ruled by despots. I find it difficult to take him seriously because of this kind of thing, and I know I'm not the only one.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the pre-WC days, elections started to happen because the staff then decided it would be a good thing to have them, not because there was a vote by the general membership. In a similar manner, a poll could not actually stop the elections from happening.

Hmm. Maybe McJ or Callaway (or Dunc) knows...

A poll stopped the WC though which was set up in the same way.  We've always allowed members to vote on any issue- are you suggesting that the question of whether or not we have elections should be off limits in your opinion.

I'm not saying anything, I'm trying to remember how this place was before the WC, how it worked. I would imagine, however, that in the pre-WC days, the membership could not vote away the elections using a single poll, and certainly not without staff approval

Yes, a poll stopped the WC, but the WC was deliberately set up in this way, and we even discussed that possibility before we got the ball rolling, remember? A poll without the staff's approval could not have started the WC, however, if I remember the pre-WC days correctly.

I can see what you're saying, but think that absolutely stating
that there would be no chance of an overturning is silly. If there
had been a stronger showing than there was in the poll which killed
the WC, 'twould seem likely that the issue should be examined.

Maybe that election would continue - but there are actually
valid reasons that the membership might not trust elections.

[Calandale]

  And I hate the fact that everything he says is written off as bullshit, sometimes there are some valid points in there.

I actually get a kick out of it. 

But that seems to me to be part of the reason why the arguments go on for so long (the irony)- or is that why you get a kick out of it?

I don't know. I think it's more the idea of people being
so biased that they can't see the obvious - if it comes
from the wrong mouth. Kinda a refutation of the whole
"the emperor has no clothes" thing.

[odeon]

What's been concerning me is that valid points on this debate and the prank list one were ignored and/or written off as bullshit- naturally that makes me wonder why those issues were being ignored.  I also feel that there was enough opposition to the aniti-prank list that it shouldn't have just been secretly set up anyway without a vote- that feels a little too much like a 'we staff know best' decision

You'd have to remember the situation. There had been lots of pranks right then, some of which went overboard, and some members were upset and others were leaving. (I'm not judging anything here, btw, just pointing out what took place.) Some members were very unhappy or angry or both, and when the do not prank list for admins was discussed and a thread started, it was simply to not unnecessarily make those members targets for further pranks, and because a similar thread had been started in th WC.

It was a discussion, not "we staff know best". A similar (only more heated) discussion was taking place publicly. There was no conspiracy, but there was a rather special situation, one that eventually resulted in two admins resigning.

     . I get that cal is hard work sometimes, (ok a lot of the time) but what happens with him reminds me of what happened with both scarp and lit- surely the place can take some opposing view points- wouldn't the place be dull without them?   And I hate the fact that everything he says is written off as bullshit, sometimes there are some valid points in there.

Why is it that on one hand, members are constantly reminded of the fact that this place is supposed to be "intense" and no kid gloves should be used (and the no pranks list should consequently not exist, etc), but on the other hand, hints about Lit and Scrap being "driven off" abound? What makes them special? Why should some members be good sports and put up with things they have explicitly said no to, when poor Scrap and Lit should never have been bullied off this place (irony, in case somebody misses it)?

I don't know what happened to Scrap, but I do know a bit about what actually happened to Lit. Lit's story differs a lot from what is usually hinted here and is, in some ways, far more tragic.

Oh, and not everything Cal says is written off as bullshit, but he makes it very hard for even a devoted reader to wade through the mind games to a seriously meant point. I don't think I'm the first to observe this. He himself has acknowledged this in the past. Unfortunately, by his own admission, he enjoys the games.

[odeon]

I can see what you're saying, but think that absolutely stating
that there would be no chance of an overturning is silly. If there
had been a stronger showing than there was in the poll which killed
the WC, 'twould seem likely that the issue should be examined.

Maybe that election would continue - but there are actually
valid reasons that the membership might not trust elections.

If what you are saying is true, why aren't people actually demanding to stop this elections nonsense, right now?

[purposefulinsanity]

It being set up secretly anyway and not announced just makes me feel uncomfortable.  No reason has been given why it wasn't announced and it makes me wonder if it was to prevent opposition.  As for the reasons for the prank list- we've already been through all this for and couldn't agree- is it worth going there again?

As for you second point- I've already discussed this with you also- but the crux of the argument is that I feel the exact same way you do only about different people.  The anti-prank list could be considered kid gloves for certain members too- doubly so since the secret one it was never formally announced so only certain people could get on it.   It just seems that how certain people see things carries a lot more weight that how others do.

[Calandale]

Why is it that on one hand, members are constantly reminded of the fact that this place is supposed to be "intense" and no kid gloves should be used (and the no pranks list should consequently not exist, etc), but on the other hand, hints about Lit and Scrap being "driven off" abound?

Have I ONCE suggested that anything be done about it?
Unlike the decision to make a no-pranks list, I have
only been pointing out certain people's methods
of hounding people away - primarily in order to
warn those here whom I like, and don't want
to see leave. To prepare them, and to understand
what is happening to me, as well as why.

Lit's story differs a lot from what is usually hinted here and is, in some ways, far more tragic.

He was also TERRIBLY hounded here, at that time. I'm not
sure how much effect it had, but it couldn't have helped.

Though, to be fair, he was only being attacked personally -
not over personal issues, in the context of the site ones.
Which I feel is fair game, actually.

Oh, and not everything Cal says is written off as bullshit, but he makes it very hard for even a devoted reader to wade through the mind games to a seriously meant point. I don't think I'm the first to observe this. He himself has acknowledged this in the past. Unfortunately, by his own admission, he enjoys the games.

You add the 'mind' to the game. Making it seem far worse than
what I've honestly tried to explain. LIFE itself is a game to me.
So, it's not really reasonable to use this the way that you do.
You're simply using a negative term for "that which I find important".

[Calandale]

I can see what you're saying, but think that absolutely stating
that there would be no chance of an overturning is silly. If there
had been a stronger showing than there was in the poll which killed
the WC, 'twould seem likely that the issue should be examined.

Maybe that election would continue - but there are actually
valid reasons that the membership might not trust elections.

If what you are saying is true, why aren't people actually demanding to stop this elections nonsense, right now?

Just because there are valid reasons doesn't
mean that people agree with them. I don't.