Re: [Artifex] Visarion [Patron: Gaius Baltar]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leonardo
You're new here and that amazes me that a citizen like you are saying that, especially when I know that has not been the case.
That has always been the case since I've joined this forum at lest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leonardo
Is it?
The result of a poll are always public, but not during a voting process and that's why I posted about it.
Yes it is, read the constitution, and no they're not always public. Go to the Site Competitions forum and check out the Scriptorium Writing Compeition to see a whole a bunch of polls that are private several years after the vote ended.
If you don't know how polls work hop on to the Thema Devia and make a couple of poll threads to see how it's done and what options you get when making one.
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Wow, no posts since July 22.
Have we grown bored of ourselves?
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PikeStance
Wow, no posts since July 22.
Have we grown bored of ourselves?
There are events in the Politia that would shock you if you knew of them. As senior Censor, I do my best to maintain board integrity. "Don't give up the ship!"
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Give it a few more days and there'll be Drama(TM) here once again, I promise.
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akar
Give it a few more days and there'll be Drama(TM) here once again, I promise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaius Baltar
There are events in the Politia that would shock you if you knew of them. As senior Censor, I do my best to maintain board integrity. "Don't give up the ship!"
Please share do not deny our chance for our pretentiousness to shine once again. :/
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
You'll see in a couple days, don't worry.
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PikeStance
Please share do not deny our chance for our pretentiousness to shine once again. :/
If it's what I think it is, it's going to be a lame repeat of a previous event.
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
When is it not a lame repeat of previous events, Adrian? :tongue:
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Darn, I was trying to let the section expire for inactivity.
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
I've been trying to do that to all of TWC for years.
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
There we go. Much better.
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Alright, here goes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Emperor Commodus
If we'd like to continue on the merits or not of ostrakon being an anonymous process to start, by all means carry it in the townhall or its own thread; ...
Personally, I think that the accused should have the right to face their accuser - head on. Always, regardless the circumstances. If the accuser have a solid enough case, there should not be any or much problems - no matter what the defendant does (or says)... It only becomes a problem when the accuser does NOT have a solid case on the defendant. That's my stance, and that is the way I see it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sir Adrian
Having the accuser and the accused duke it out would only result in a mudslinging contest.
I think you are wrong about that... See above...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gigantus
It is totally immaterial who initiated the ostrakon as it is a question of merit, not who has an axe to grind with whom. ... - never mind being totally irrelevant: the only one to blame for a post is it's author, period.
I think you are wrong about that... See above... It is very much relevant whom initiated such a process or made any sort of accusations against others, this on anything - especially so - if the case is not solid enough as it is. If it is solid, it won't matter - BUT - if it is not solid, they don't deserve to get away with it, not without a good and healthy scar to remember it all by... Nota bene, I am strictly speaking on general terms here, and not in relation to any particular cases.
***
Well, that's what I think... What do others think?
- A
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Spend a month in the mudpit and come back and tell me I'm wrong. There are people who love to argue just for the sake of arguing or "winning". It doesn't matter how solid your case is, they'll still argue.
Not to mention that people have a hard time accepting that their case is weak. Notice Akar's reactions when he got told his evidence was low quality.
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Axalon
I think you are wrong about that... See above... It is very much relevant whom initiated such a process or made any sort of accusations against others, this on anything - especially so - if the case is not solid enough as it is. If it is solid, it won't matter - BUT - if it is not solid, they don't deserve to get away with it, not without a good and healthy scar to remember it all by... Nota bene, I am strictly speaking on general terms here, and not in relation to any particular cases.
I get where you are coming from, but if memory serves the consul has (had) the right to withhold an ostrakon that has no merit in his view, merit being the topic of every ostrakon, not motive. Although that hasn't been used afaik by a consul as it would raise questions of bias. It is far better\efficient to have the dismerit of such an ostarkon be demonstrated by the participants. But then if the present ostrakon is anything to go by merit is the last thing on the mind of participants, rather said motive. Which the consul\censor thankfully put an end to, ironically that also seemingly put an end to the participation - so much for discussion merit.
It is the rampant behavior showcased there that is the reason why an ostrakon is anonymous: the discussion simply won't be about merit of the ostrakon but rather about motives of the 'accuser' from the start - poisoning the well and and turning the procedure into a top contender for 'worst mudpit discussion of the month'.
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
What value does knowing your accuser add to the process? What's the argument for it?
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Quote:
Not to mention that people have a hard time accepting that their case is weak. Notice Akar's reactions when he got told his evidence was low quality.
Ahh yes, who could forget reactions like "That's a totally valid opinion to have, though I disagree" and "Again, valid, but I disagree.". Truly I have fallen to great depths of depravity.
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PointOfViewGun
What value does knowing your accuser add to the process? What's the argument for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gigantus
I get where you are coming from, but if memory serves the consul has (had) the right to withhold an ostrakon that has no merit in his view, merit being the topic of every ostrakon, not motive. Although that hasn't been used afaik by a consul as it would raise questions of bias. It is far better\efficient to have the dismerit of such an ostarkon be demonstrated by the participants. But then if the present ostrakon is anything to go by merit is the last thing on the mind of participants, rather said motive. Which the consul\censor thankfully put an end to, ironically that also seemingly put an end to the participation - so much for discussion merit.
It is the rampant behavior showcased there that is the reason why an ostrakon is anonymous: the discussion simply won't be about merit of the ostrakon but rather about motives of the 'accuser' from the start - poisoning the well and and turning the procedure into a top contender for 'worst mudpit discussion of the month'.
From a technical standpoint, it should be irrelevant. if the accuser have "clean hands" it will never be about the accused. Courts have always put the accuser under scrutiny. This being said, even if theaccuser has "dirty hands," but the evidence presented is solid and with merit, a reasonable person should come to a warranted decision.
Re: Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat
In an ideal world you would get no argument. In this world you get the current ostrakon where the persona of the accuser is the topic of the discussion and not the merit of the accusation.
That's what the bolded part in my quoted post means and 'poisoning' is what that approach does. A standard defense approach if there is a lack of defensive arguments I believe. I have no issue with cutting that out by keeping the accuser anonymous, reducing that approach to what it is: a desperate attempt to focus minds on speculative personal traits of the accuser instead of the facts at hand.
There are enough safe guards in place to discourage misuse of that anonymity.