Re "This is not a democracy"

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by wynn, Mar 1, 2014.

  1. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Thank you for the candor, finally.

    So what's with the all that about "rational discussion", "sound arguments," "science forum" and such?

    Why the charade?

    Why not simply and openly enact your tyrannical system?

    Why the mindfuck?
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    What do you mean? I've made that statement many times over the years. It shouldn't come as a shock.

    We have owners, administrators, supermoderators, moderators, members and guests here. That's a descending list on the power-over-the-forum spectrum (though not always an indication of influence over it).

    Most of life is like this.

    As I said, though, there are forums out there that have complicated systems of moderation by the entire membership. Mostly, those tend to be forums with very large memberships - too many for a small group of mods to be able to watch all the posts. You might prefer one of those forums, perhaps.

    We have that, too, at least from some of the members some of the time.

    What charade?

    Is it really unclear to you how things work around here?

    Which tyrannical system are you thinking of, in particular? I can think of a few. Some of them wouldn't involve you being here, just for example.

    I'm not quite sure what's got you all rattled all of a sudden. Are you all at sea because you don't have LG to follow as a role model any more?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Sure. But the timing of this recent one is poignant in ways that the previous ones weren't.

    The charade of calling things "rational discussion", "sound arguments," "science forum" and such, when in fact it's all about social power games?

    Oh, the workings themselves are crystal clear to me. It's the motivations for those workings that elude me.

    But I guess part of being in position of power is to never actually make clear the principles by which one pursues it and keeps it.

    Then you haven't been paying attention. It's not all of a sudden. It's been there all along.

    Ah, yes, you hurt me so!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I would like to have a conversation on this very topic of power with LG too, if you wouldn't ban him.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Wynn, if this forum had a social agenda I would probably not be a moderator, as it is fairly obvious I do not generally toe the line with the majority of moderators here. While the forum itself is not a democracy, the backroom dealings of the moderators is largely democratic, so the views of the members do get a sort of representational democracy. But as in any other social dealings, some opinions will necessarily be in the minority. It is the responsibility of those in the majority to protect the minority, but not an obligation, as the majority rules at its own discretion.

    James did not ban LG. He was actually against the permanent ban, but he allowed the final decision to be made democratically. Neither you, I, nor James really agree with the outcome, but that is the outcome this representational democracy arrived at. Your only recourse would have been to make personal pleas to moderators (in the hopes of swaying their opinion), by PM, while the issue was under debate. But that issue is now closed, and will not be revisited.
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    It's about rational discussion, sound arguments, science forum and such.
    It's also about pseudoscience, irrational UFO 9/11 conspiracies, jokes and social power games. In fact, you are playing one right now. Should you be banned from doing so?
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    It has one. And apparently, part of it is to never actually state what this agenda is. It's how power works.

Share This Page