Open Government Reform

P

Porfiry

Nomad
Registered Senior Member
Effective immediately, SF Open Government is closed to all motions to ban users and all motions to take punitive action against moderators. Complaints about users can be made to moderators directly. Complaints about moderators can be made to me directly.

This forum has proven to be divisive, ineffective, and has taken the focus of members and moderators away from the core discussion forums here.
 
I am afraid I dont really agree. The obsessed who think this is a place of free speech might waste a few hours here, and I suppose it does get a bit boring for moderators seeing how many people do or dont like them, but I dont think it is taking attention of posters away from the main forums.

On the other hand, I am generally persuaded of its innefectiveness, since to be effective, people would have to be proposing changes to the forum that are both practicable and permissible, and be willing to follow them through, which I havnt sen so much of.

SO this place is alright, as these places go, and nobody is really fussed enough to change things. Indifference rules OK!
 
I agree but don't know if what I say really matters since I am new here.. But I do agree that mods are needed and people should relize that they do what they do for a reason and respect the mods at hand.
 
Open government has been ineffective because it's never been allowed to function.
We're yet to give open government a try.
If there is a proposal for something that the site wasn't planning on doing anyway the poll is closed.
There's never been an open goverment, this subforum is the "make a thread and get it closed or ignored" section.

That said, I don't like the idea of an open government anyway, democracy pisses me off, but it would have been interesting to see how much of a disaster it would have been.
You can't honestly say it has been ineffective, it hasn't been allowed to be effective.
 
Dr. Lou Natic said:

• There's never been an open goverment, this subforum is the "make a thread and get it closed or ignored" section.

• You can't honestly say it has been ineffective, it hasn't been allowed to be effective.
Click to expand...

I disagree in part because the quality of the Sciforums experience depends heavily on the posters themselves, even moreso than it does on moderation or administration.

As I see it, it is the open government's participants that have largely failed. Given a tool to make their experience better, people chose to whack each other over the head with it.

Must "democracy" allow its participants to destroy it in order to be effective? Should any system respect and encourage what damages it?

The changes to SFOG protect the Open Government concept from the petty and corrupting abuses of narrow politics and willful myopia that make it so ineffective and seemingly useless in the first place.

That SFOG hasn't been effective is a choice of the general posting community.
 
Spuriousmonkey said:

Just as ineffective as what we call democracy in our political system. Makes you think doesn´t it
Click to expand...

You're certainly right about that. It does make me think. About women's underwear. Maybe smoking a bowl. Should I do alfredo for dinner?
 
That SFOG hasn't been effective is a choice of the general posting community.
Click to expand...
Thats bullshit, no matter what you say the closing of a poll in sfog is a subjective decision of the moderator, and in conflict with the concept of an open government.
Now look at sfog, every thread is closed bar about 4.

That is what I would call not allowing sfog to be effective.
It simply has not been put into practice. The whole subforum is a farce.
Ban fucking macm or whatever if thats what the poll decides, that is what the open government has decided. No matter how you feel about it, an open government would entail letting votes decide whatever they decide.
This does not happen, it has not happened, an open government has not existed here. And it's got nothing to do with the members shortcomings. You seem to be drawing a line, like "well they can't do this", thats completely your opinion, and a vote which does not agree with you simply would not agree with you and you'd have to get over it if you truely believed in giving an open government a chance.
If sciforums was in control of the election, the thread which re-seated bush as president would have been closed, and we would have tried again and again untill kerry won.
This might seem attractive to you, but it's not an open government.
Why even pretend by letting people propose things to be voted on? Frankly it's insulting.
The only things that will be approved are things the moderators already approve of, just stay honest about that reality.
Get rid of "sfog" altogether because it's clearly a load of shit.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
And it's got nothing to do with the members shortcomings.
Click to expand...

Pardon me but it has everything to do with that. I see stunted emotional development, righteousness and fear. Democracy works with an enlightened and rational populace. It appears that you and your kin do not possess those attributes.

You Shall Thus Be Ruled and Lorded Over as Befitting a Peasant

Thuggery Will Not be Allowed to Stand in these Hallowed Grounds of Higher Learning.

Motions that clearly do not advance this forums Best Interest will be Stomped on and Ground into the Pavement

It is also extremly fitting that you have been insulted. Retards often get that way due to the Demands of Ego.

In closing...my Final Statement....

Peasants, Assume The Position! Your Privileges Have Be Rescinded. Make Haste and Retreat Back Into the Swamps. You Have Been Demoted

*smirk
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
The only things that will be approved are things the moderators already approve of, just stay honest about that reality.
Get rid of "sfog" altogether because it's clearly a load of shit.
Click to expand...

Thanks For Showing All, the LIGHT

Porfiry said:
01-19-04, 09:48 PM
The administrator (myself) holds veto power over all proposals.
Click to expand...

It was Outlined from the very Onset.

It was NOT in Fine Print

SFOG played admirably into the members Fantasies of Power and Delusions of Grandeur

*more smirking
 
What you could do is if someone doesnt like the behavior and language, they pm a mod or admin and ask for pemission to create a thread to ban them.
The mod/admin must only say they can if there is enough evidence.
 
Dr. Lou Natic said:

Thats bullshit, no matter what you say the closing of a poll in sfog is a subjective decision of the moderator, and in conflict with the concept of an open government.
Now look at sfog, every thread is closed bar about 4.
Click to expand...

So if I decide to file a class action suit against you on the grounds that you're a complete f@cking moron and detriment to society akin to a social disease, and the court--as it most certainly would--refuses to hear my case, would you describe disdain toward and measures taken against frivolous lawsuits, "not allowing the courts to be effective"?

If sciforums was in control of the election, the thread which re-seated bush as president would have been closed, and we would have tried again and again untill kerry won.
Click to expand...

You're getting a bit loose with your comparisons, Lou. Especially considering that the very same election day provides a much better analogy.

Get rid of "sfog" altogether because it's clearly a load of shit.
Click to expand...

Test your theory, then.

I don't see that you're prohibited from seeking a vote on that issue.

In fact, that's one of the stated purposes of SFOG that remains intact.

• Proposals can be made as regards the creation/deletion/modification of forums, appointment/removal of moderators, and the banning/punishment of users. Proposals cannot be made to reinstate previously banned users. ("About SF Open Government", 1.19.2004)

• Effective immediately, SF Open Government is closed to all motions to ban users and all motions to take punitive action against moderators. ("Open Government Reform", 12.9.2004)
Click to expand...

Some SFOG topics you might wish to consider:

• Video game forum proposal - Poll appears to have expired without achieving quorum. Proposal was failing. Discussion is not locked.
• Alternative theories forum proposal - Poll appears to have expired without achieving quorum. Proposal was passing. Discussion is not locked.
• Sports forum proposal - Poll appears to have expired without achieving quorum; proposal was failing. Discussion is not locked.
• History forum proposal - Topic locked; resolution passed.​

We have a History Forum because of SFOG. We might, sometime in the future, see enough affirmative interest in an Alternative Theories Forum; the proposal fell short of quorum by a narrow margin but appeared to be on its way to passing. My two cents says these are positive outcomes. So, also, are the defeated new forum proposals. They don't stand for all time, but at present neither the interest nor perception of necessity seem to be there to warrant a Video Game or Sports Forum. It's a better route than testing a hundred odds-and-ends fora in order to find out what people think Sciforums owes them.

SFOG, at such a level, provides a method of discussion between "administration" and "the masses". That so many would rather waste the forum kicking each other off the island serves nobody. SFOG, as I understand it, is intended as a tool to help augment the user experience in this "intelligent community". That the majority of the courtiers prefer it as an arena for sticking sand crabs in one another's shorts doesn't lend to a positive user experience at all.°

Sanity or sanitize? Is frivolity a requirement for efficacy?

When put to some useful end, SFOG is an effective tool. Its low average reflects the intended ends of the majority of the courtiers.
____________________

Notes:
° doesn't lend to a positive user experience at all - Perhaps the words "at all" are too strong. It could very well be that fish-clubbing and crab-cramming are in fact what constitutes an individual's positive user experience. I do, from time to time, actually enjoy parts of the brawls I get into with people, but I'm not about to shut any of them up when I can simply stop giving them more consideration than they're worth. Some of the people who voted against various ban proposals did so because to set that particular standard would crimp their user experience far more than size-twelving the ass of our latest headache could ever augment the experiences of the crabmongers. That I believe people are free to cut their own throats doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. And what of you, Lou? You're very well aware of such a conundrum, albeit from a unique perspective.
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top