Post what you're thinking right now.

[purposefulinsanity]

After all: Its just a website, its not a fucking cure for aids.

[duncvis]

nicely put.     

[purposefulinsanity]

After all: Its just a website, its not a fucking cure for aids.

Just think of the irony involved if it was 

[Lucifer]

After all: Its just a website, its not a fucking cure for aids.

Just think of the irony involved if it was 

good gods, yes: "we'll cure you, but you have to suffer shitloads of homophobic bigotry.  and cal."

[ozymandias]

nicely put.     

Agreed   

[Calandale]

I disagree that democracy has been killed- we just seem to have gone back to the form we had before with elected 'officials' making the mundane decisions, but everyone retaining the right to set up a vote on issues they care about.

I've seen no assurances that such a vote would be honored.
And a decent reason to believe that it wouldn't - given the kind
of decrees odeon has made about certain votes.

[purposefulinsanity]

I disagree that democracy has been killed- we just seem to have gone back to the form we had before with elected 'officials' making the mundane decisions, but everyone retaining the right to set up a vote on issues they care about.

I've seen no assurances that such a vote would be honored.
And a decent reason to believe that it wouldn't - given the kind
of decrees odeon has made about certain votes.

Examples please?   

What's wrong with assuming that the people who run the site will honour votes that pass with a clear majority until its been proven otherwise.   Isn't it depressing being so untrusting?

[Calandale]

Examples please?   

Normally, I don't bother. But, this one was recent
enough to be easy to find. And blatant as all hell

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=7181.0 (3rd post down)

What's wrong with assuming that the people who run the site will honour votes that pass with a clear majority until its been proven otherwise. 

I was imagining that he was NOT lying.

Isn't it depressing being so untrusting?

Generally safe. People tend to be pretty untrustworthy,
in my experience. Once they earn it, I think differently -
until they throw it away.

[odeon]

A useful skill, I'm sure.

Dunno if this is about the profiles thing, but you know I don't have anything personal against you, right? Just defending my own principles.

Then I suggest you don't make it personal, by not adding the nanny stuff...

[purposefulinsanity]

I thought you were talking about examples where a clear majority had won in an election that plenty of the regular posters had voted in.

I don't have the time right now to address the rest of your post about trust,etc.

[Calandale]

I thought you were talking about examples where a clear majority had won in an election that plenty of the regular posters had voted in.

No. Merely that the autocrats here are willing
to declare topics (which would not damage the site)
as merely beyond being voted upon. Something which
might suppress any votes on either side.

[Pyraxis]

Then I suggest you don't make it personal, by not adding the nanny stuff...

  Is that the point where it becomes offensive to you? Good to know. For me it was just standard argument.

[Callaway]

Examples please?   

Normally, I don't bother. But, this one was recent
enough to be easy to find. And blatant as all hell

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=7181.0 (3rd post down)

What's wrong with assuming that the people who run the site will honour votes that pass with a clear majority until its been proven otherwise. 

I was imagining that he was NOT lying.

You are taking Odeon's statement in this thread out of context, Calandale.

I think that this post of Odeon's is more to the point:

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=7181.msg329075#msg329075

Do you know what I think? I think that people were so anxious to get rid of the World Council and its endless polls, discussions, games, etc, that they simply voted for any option that allowed them to do that. Now that the WC is defunct, you grasp at the remaining straw for one last game.

The vote that won (when the WC was done away with) was "The First Citizenvis the jolly despot + crew", which means that Dunc & Co got to decide what to do next. Then Dunc did decide by pointing out that it was time for a new election. This happened in the caretaker's forum. That election is now under way.

This poll was an example of one of your slanted mind game polls, where people had to play your silly mind games just to vote in it.  Even the name of the poll, "Did y'all mean what you voted for?" is highly slanted.  It implies that the people who voted to turn the running of the site back over to Dunc and Odeon did not mean to vote the way that they did.  The poll question was fine, "Should we have elections for admins?"  However the two poll choices, "Yes - we were just joking when we voted against this," and "No - We trust dunc to select whatever staff he needs," are also slanted.  A Yes vote in this poll would imply that the voter does not trust Dunc and also that the voter was joking in the poll where we voted to turn the running of the site back over to Dunc and Odeon.  I tried to tell you this, but you refused to listen.   

Odeon started the election process on January 19, 2008, and you started this poll on January 20, 2008 in an attempt to undermine him and Dunc and to overturn the election process, probably because you did not like the fact that Scrapheap and Hadron were ineligible to run because of previous abuses.  You started this thread about one hour after Hadron posted, "You may as well not bother with an election," although you were participating in it happily before:

  You may as well not bother with an election. It seems a little pointless that half the nominees wont be able to stand...

Furthermore, I would like to nominate Ascan.

The result of this poll was 4 Yes votes and 5 No votes with 9 people voting because the rest either found your options confusing or they refused to play your mind games.

As you can see, the result of the poll that asks, "Should we elect our admins?" with more neutral wording is quite different:  10 votes for Yes and 3 for No.

[ALLDAYGLOWRANDY]

If I want attention from a woman, and I use the term lightly, I can count on Lucifer

I should post pms here, I had to suggest blocking myself

[duncvis]

*dribble*

fixed.