.
.
Last edited by attilavolciak07; October 04, 2008 at 03:31 PM.
It is not any wonder why your posts never carry any weight. You even go so far, in an obscure area, as to post that you don't want to discuss your pretentious claims, and at the same time have gone into opposing members profiles and spammed their visitor messages with this drivel. This area is not for this kind of post, because your proposition is just that, a proposition for the site, even if it is in a veiled format. It is not your work to be critiqued, claiming it to be your work would immediately invalidate its purpose.
Thanks for the history lesson, good to see you aren't trying to draw comparisons where there are none, and are just providing history out of the goodness of your heart!
Well so much for the above sentiment.
I'm frankly not sure where you get off trying to classify Citizens as the parallel of a Roman Senator. Most people, and this is proven by posts in the CVRIA and SYMPOSIVM forums, take the classification of Citizen as a substantiated political body with a grain of salt. No one is afraid of you, you're mistaking shock at how anyone could possibly be so adamant about a terrible idea, with shock associated with fear. And for the (hundredth, thousandth, billionth?) time, Citizens are subject to their rulings in the exact same way as any other member of the site, so they have no motivation to vote in a way that differs from any other member of the site.
This is obviously untrue. If there was a Council for Plebeians, I would most certainly be unhappy, because it means there could be measures passed by people who I have absolutely no faith in their ability to make decisions, proven by the fact they aren't citizens. As technical staff, I'm not a Citizen, I can't post in any of the Citizen areas, and since I'm not a Moderator, I can't weigh in on Hex votes either, so don't let the badge fool you. Yet I know for a fact that there is no need for any further measures than the Q&S, or the ability to PM a Citizen, for any suggestions I might have to be considered.
You also seem to think there's some large degree of censorship applied to the Q&S, but this is clearly not the case. Your own idea for a Plebeian Council proves this, because despite the fact that the majority of people who weighed in on the matter thought it was a bad idea, including a large percentile of the citizens and staff who commented, the thread was allowed to remain open and continue discussion. The thread was only closed when it veered towards off-topic and flame posts, and had outlived its usefulness, something which applies to even a grand idea, since it's a forum-wide rule. And again, there is nothing about a Council forum, that would have it see any more participation than a Q&S forum, so you still have the very small percentile of non-Citizen users who care about site politics, being the only ones weighing in on matters.
The Plebeian Council does not do anything the Q&S already doesn't. The only difference, is there's the illusion of tolerance, based on the disillusionment of those in favor of the idea, that somehow the Q&S is ripe with intolerance, when in fact it is not. You're essentially proposing that there be a Questions and Suggestions forum, regardless of how futilely you seem to dispute the resemblance of the two, as no point has been offered that is valid in describing the Q&S, or that doesn't also apply to it, besides that of a "Speaker of the House", which is a shallow oligarchic implementation anyways.
The Citizens aren't elected by the people because the site isn't owned by the people. A real government is owned by the people because they pay the taxes to fund the government's efforts to perform its duty under the social contract. Ian is therefore every person in the Country of TWC, since he's the funding of the TWC, and he votes in his cabinet members, and maintains the previously existing legislative body, whilst giving them free reign over their membership. And this is where comparisons end, because TWC is not a country, you are not a legal citizen of the country of TWC, and TWC is not bound by the will of those it represents, even though in benevolence, the site owners allow some control.
I find it quite funny how much squirming has happened since the original idea. At first there was injustice, and there were elcted officials with a vote in the Curia. But no, that was a bad idea. So then there was just injustice and a Council without any particular implications to remedy this injustice. But still, a bad idea. Now there's a Council which doesn't vary much at all from the Q&S besides the notion of tolerance, which is nothing more than a notion which can't be used as a platform, and the existence of an oligarchical "Speaker" position. When this is deemed a bad idea, will we lose the speaker and the notion, and then we can go into the Admin CP and rename the Q&S to "Concilium Plebis" and change nothing else and Voila!
Cheers,
Augustus
House of Ward ~ Patron of Eothese, Mythic_Commodore, Wundai, & Saint Nicholas
Firstly please remove all plebians you do not speak for me and you do not speak for all plebians do not potray this as a plebian vs citizen affair as this is not the case. As a manifesto this is a poor one quite frankly too overwrought with comparisons that do not make sense. Now as to content this is a nothing idea everything that you have said is allready covered by the suggestion section of the site just because we are plebians does not mean that we do not have a say I do recall that many decisions that truely affected the entire community were put in the suggestions section for all to comment on. Citizens have more of a say because they have been here long enough to truely know the site and what is best for it something that someone who has been here a mounth can never hope to do.
Because it will get closed, so why discuss it.It is not any wonder why your posts never carry any weight. You even go so far, in an obscure area, as to post that you don't want to discuss your pretentious claims
You can always PM me.
Not true. They will vote for what they think, not other members. And what they think could differ from others.they have no motivation to vote in a way that differs from any other member of the site.
You would be unhappy? Your not a Pleb, read my work for your answer to that.I would most certainly be unhappy, because it means there could be measures passed by people who I have absolutely no faith in their ability to make decisions
And for the second part of the paragraph, did you even read my work? If so you would know the answer instead of jumping at one sentence you don't like or one sentence you could insult.
Sigh. As I tell all of you, you have to wait to gain popularity. My idea wasn't wrapped with hundreds of supporters the minute I said it. We will continue to grow, we are inviting new members and we have around 60 members and even more supporters (including citizens).so you still have the very small percentile of non-Citizen users who care about site politics, being the only ones weighing in on matters.
I'd really appreciate it if you read what I say."Speaker of the House", which is a shallow oligarchic implementation anyways.
I am really annoyed you didn't read it.I find it quite funny how much squirming has happened since the original idea. At first there was injustice, and there were elcted officials with a vote in the Curia. But no, that was a bad idea. So then there was just injustice and a Council without any particular implications to remedy this injustice. But still, a bad idea. Now there's a Council which doesn't vary much at all from the Q&S besides the notion of tolerance, which is nothing more than a notion which can't be used as a platform, and the existence of an oligarchical "Speaker" position. When this is deemed a bad idea, will we lose the speaker and the notion, and then we can go into the Admin CP and rename the Q&S to "Concilium Plebis" and change nothing else and Voila!