World Council Discussion

[Janicka]

I'm not sure that it is possible to run anything democratically, on the net.
In the end, it's always at the suffering of the proprietor.

It's true that Dunc could change his mind and we'd have no recourse.  Maybe if we were paying to whore his site we'd have some enforcable contract?  I dunno - I'm not a lawyer and I don't even know WHERE it would be enforceable - it's just a possibility..  But as long as Dunc is committed to this democratic vision, I think it's possible. 

If, for instance, Calaway went off her rocker and banned the WC, the democratic thing to do would be to un ban the WC and call them in for a no-confidence vote.  That would allow Dunc to avoid making a unilateral decision to remove an admin. 

[Calandale]

I'm not sure that it is possible to run anything democratically, on the net.
In the end, it's always at the suffering of the proprietor.

It's true that Dunc could change his mind and we'd have no recourse.  Maybe if we were paying to whore his site we'd have some enforcable contract?  I dunno - I'm not a lawyer and I don't even know WHERE it would be enforceable - it's just a possibility..  But as long as Dunc is committed to this democratic vision, I think it's possible. 

If, for instance, Calaway went off her rocker and banned the WC, the democratic thing to do would be to un ban the WC and call them in for a no-confidence vote.  That would allow Dunc to avoid making a unilateral decision to remove an admin. 

The correct thing to do would be to ban Callaway
(to prevent further damage), and then call for the vote.
 But, all the evidence could be rigged, by those in charge.
It was this feeling of unease which I had during the Lit affair.
In the end, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference. He's
NOT really accountable, and whatever is done is simply a
matter of show.

Now, we could LEAVE, if we felt that he wasn't respecting our
desires. This is about the only 'threat' that we have. The site
is essentially a gift to us, and we can take it or not.

[Callaway]

Ok, for the sake of fairness and honor, when I become admin.  I will impose my own code of ethics and morality and ban everybody from the forum and rule in splendid isolation.   Just like my hero, Mrs.Mark!   Because I am so moral and moderate that I hold myself up as a beacon of light in a dark world.   Just thought you'd like to know what my plans are.  But, then again, I am soooooooooo intelligent that you plebians are completely dumbfounded at my superior intellect.

BTW,  I'm being sarcastic!  

You will be awfully lonely.

Just let me know before the mass bannings so that I can throw an exit tantrum.   

I'll throw one with you, if it ever comes to that.

   

But the last time people were banned in a counter-coup, the banner was thrown out rather quickly and then we had our first elections.

[SovaNu]

paranoooid

Callaway is trustworthy and so is Dunc.

[Janicka]

The correct thing to do would be to ban Callaway
(to prevent further damage), and then call for the vote.
 

I'd probably be more conservative than that, and just say take away the admin powers. 
I don't see how she could cause much damage as a regular member... 

[Callaway]

I'm not sure that it is possible to run anything democratically, on the net.
In the end, it's always at the suffering of the proprietor.

It's true that Dunc could change his mind and we'd have no recourse.  Maybe if we were paying to whore his site we'd have some enforcable contract?  I dunno - I'm not a lawyer and I don't even know WHERE it would be enforceable - it's just a possibility..  But as long as Dunc is committed to this democratic vision, I think it's possible. 

If, for instance, Calaway went off her rocker and banned the WC, the democratic thing to do would be to un ban the WC and call them in for a no-confidence vote.  That would allow Dunc to avoid making a unilateral decision to remove an admin. 

The correct thing to do would be to ban Callaway
(to prevent further damage), and then call for the vote.
 But, all the evidence could be rigged, by those in charge.
It was this feeling of unease which I had during the Lit affair.
In the end, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference. He's
NOT really accountable, and whatever is done is simply a
matter of show.

Now, we could LEAVE, if we felt that he wasn't respecting our
desires. This is about the only 'threat' that we have. The site
is essentially a gift to us, and we can take it or not.

Actually, if I went off my rocker and banned the WC, it would not be necessary to ban me before the vote, I could just be de-adminned pending the vote.  But I am not going to do anything like that anyway.

And nobody rigged any evidence against Litigious.  

paranoooid

Callaway is trustworthy and so is Dunc.

Thank you.

[Leto729]

But the elections take place over a period of several weeks. Surely, during that time, we would see what's about to happen?

seceral people wait until the last moment to vote.

yes but the count is not instantaneous. when i did the count, i had plenty of time to reflect over what happened, who voted for whom, etc.

how are we going to explain over-riding peoples votes?

We must let them to decide.

[Calandale]

Actually, if I went off my rocker and banned the WC, it would not be necessary to ban me before the vote, I could just be de-adminned pending the vote.  But I am not going to do anything like that anyway.

And nobody rigged any evidence against Litigious.   

De-admin would indeed be enough.
Presuming that you hadn't set certain
things up which went unnoticed.

And, I'm not saying that I don't trust y'all in reagards
to the Lit issue. I'm fucking paranoid though, and tend
to look at things in the worst possible light, just to see
what could have happened, and I see no way of telling
the difference, from my position. I'm not certain that yours
is that priveledged to see either.

The slow trend of his posts is enough to convince me
that he was losing it.

[Callaway]

Actually, if I went off my rocker and banned the WC, it would not be necessary to ban me before the vote, I could just be de-adminned pending the vote.  But I am not going to do anything like that anyway.

And nobody rigged any evidence against Litigious.   

De-admin would indeed be enough.
Presuming that you hadn't set certain
things up which went unnoticed.

And, I'm not saying that I don't trust y'all in reagards
to the Lit issue. I'm fucking paranoid though, and tend
to look at things in the worst possible light, just to see
what could have happened, and I see no way of telling
the difference, from my position. I'm not certain that yours
is that priveledged to see either.

The slow trend of his posts is enough to convince me
that he was losing it.

I know.  I hope that he is doing better now.

[Leto729]

Lets hope so.

[Lucifer]

good grief...

okay, how about remembering that there are hustings for the bloody admin positions, which means that  all members can be made aware of what's going on; threads can be and are started to ask nominees to account for themselves, etc., etc.

this is not WP, ffs, so can we take take a sideways step and stop acting as though it were, cos if i hear any more bloody paranoia and going on about WP, i'm going to leave here and go over there, because they probably TALK LESS ABOUT IT OVER THERE!

about the only way you can set up a safeguard is to have two or three people with final authority and responsibility for the site, who make the final decisions. and that's not I2.  so, there will be grey areas, and loose ends.  get over it.

[Calandale]

about the only way you can set up a safeguard is to have two or three people with final authority and responsibility for the site, who make the final decisions. and that's not I2.  .

Uh, yes it is.

[Lucifer]

no it isn't actually, if you think about it properly.  otherwise we wouldn't have pages and pages of discussion about old tom cobbley and all in the WC forum.  we have got four people who do the technical or admin side of things, but they don't have the final responsibility for decision making vis á vis the running of the site with regards to the structure or the modus operandi.

now, you may be surprised to hear it, cal, but i'm an absolute obsessive when it comes to rules and regs, and i agree that simple, clear rules and boundaries make for more freedom, ultimately.  but here on I2, the whole thing muddles along rather nicely.  let's face it, i've only seen a few discussions in the WC threads which have actually been resolved, whilst the rest have just petered out through lack of arsedness, and shock, the site didn't implode.

when there was something major to deal with (atomic fucktard), it was handled on the spot, efficiently, calmly and without anyone dying.

i'm beginning to have had enough of all tihs control freakery, and that's coming from a complete control freak.  it's dull !

[Calandale]

when there was something major to deal with (atomic fucktard), it was handled on the spot, efficiently, calmly and without anyone dying.

That's not major. That was obvious.

No one's going to die. But, quite simply,
I've said it again and again, there are a
couple of people who absolutely run the
site. They ALLOW us to pretend at a
democracy, but it can't be real.

[Lucifer]

fine, if that's what you think.  we'll have to agree to differ.

me?  if that's how it is, i've no problem with it.  i actually have other things in my life worth getting concerned about.