Exactly what you'd expect...

[Southern Bellz]

Once again Unibot, I can not

 

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Southern Bellz" data-cid="114943" data-time="1390827930">
<div>
  People can disagree with you without being anti-democratic and having evil motives.

 

The only person I have an example of lobbying is from HEM, who I voted for.  If anything, that would have made the person I wanted to win, win by a lower margin a victory.

 

 

Obviously, HEM was not the only one lobbying -- both sides were lobbying. Likewise, when people continue daftly ignoring logic to pursue the more anti-democratic option out of a range of available policy options, I tend to assume that's because their motives are not aligned with the furtherment of TSP's democratic freedoms. 

 

There is a solution to this "issue", it's a lobbying sign-out list.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

Disagreeing with you isn't 'ignoring logic' or anti-democtatic.  Your last three posts have all been some form of personal attack or blanket statements.  

 

The chair has posted a comment on civility, I suggest you read it: 

 

http://forums.thesouthpacific.org/topic/...-assembly/

[Unibot]

You don't need to accuse people of being undemocratic just because they disagree with your reasoning, Unibot. Let's keep this discussion focused on facts and reasonable arguments. Can we do that?

 

What I'm really wondering is why I got a private moderator warning for suggesting someone's ideas were anti-democratic. As a three time Minister of Justice, NEVER would I have EVER considered an accusation of "anti-democracy" to be grounds for the invocation of the Three Warnings Law --it flies against every basic democratic notion of the Freedom of Speech. I do actually believe that the arguments put forth here serve to limit the options of voters for little or no benefit -- that the spirit of this argument is rooted in a dislike for greater political freedom and convenience.

 

That is not "incivility", that is critical theory. 

 

I believe that the Freedom of Speech and the ability to express criticism is being severely curtailed by the Assembly. Furthermore, my fellows citizens are very clearly attempting to limit voter freedoms and options in such a way that cannot be justified within the framework of a democratic society. I should not be limited from saying the truth, simply because the truth is ugly. 

[Kris Kringle]

You are not being warned because of a single post of your accusing people of being anti-democratic. You are being advised to stop a continuing pattern of behaviour of attacking the person instead of the arugment, so much that discussions are being derailed to such a point that it takes two global moderators and admin warnings to put it back in place. Your latest post didn't cross the line, but we are seeing a worrying pattern that should be changed. It's fine if you disagree with someone, just do it in a civil manner.

[Unibot]

I said the issues are inter-related. If we stop vote changing -- as other individuals has brought -- then my issue of being pressured to change votes is moot.
 

 

So, I am correct, you are going about the vote-changing in a roundabout manner to accomplish what you want, even though vote-changing has never been an issue with anyone until .. now, when it suddenly is politically convenient to target vote-changing.

 

I also said I thought it was unduly burdensome to maintain a list of "opt-outs"

 

 

That's ludicrous -- it'd be one thread for people to sign-up during the election for opting-out of campaigns. Out of an EC's tasks, managing the opt-out thread would probably be the easiest task they would have.

 

You've yet to explain how an "opt-out" list is more democratic than what we've suggested. 
 

 


Because an opt-out list would be a proportional curtailment of the Freedom of Speech in such a way to prevent nuisances - which is completely proportional: campaigners don't want to advance their campaigns to particular individuals who will be annoyed by it anyway!
 
Stopping people from changing their vote, on the other hand, reduces their options as a voter from how it stands now. Voting, at the moment, is quite free and flexible to changing contexts and new information. Preventing voters from changing their vote serves to limit them as voters -- it's a curtailment of the democratic process. And for what? To restrict campaigners. That's like breaking an egg with a sledgehammer -- there's a better way to make an omelette. 
 

 

 

You are not being warned because of a single post of your accusing people of being anti-democratic. You are being advised to stop a continuing behaviour of attacking the person instead of the arugment, to the point that discussions are being derailed to such a point that it takes two global moderators and admin warnings to put it back in place. Your latest post didn't cross the line, but we are seeing a worrying pattern that should be changed. It's fine if you disagree with someone, just do it in a civil manner.

 


That suggests that the problem is not the person, but the argument. What if I am in fact, correct, that their arguments are so plainly disingenuous that they obviously have ulterior motives and interests ? Shouldn't that be a topic of discussion for the Assembly? And on what grounds does the Freedom of Speech limit people from discussing the motivations of players? Argumentum ad hominem is not necessarily a legal charge, nor is necessarily fallacious in its popular usage (since the intent of a proposition can be important to the context of a proposition for the purpose of a discussion). 

[tsunamy]

 

That suggests that the problem is not the person, but the argument. What if I am in fact, correct, that their arguments are so plainly disingenuous that they obviously have ulterior motives and interests ? Shouldn't that be a topic of discussion for the Assembly? And on what grounds does the Freedom of Speech limit people from discussing the motivations of players? Argumentum ad hominem is not necessarily a legal charge, nor is necessarily fallacious in its popular usage (since the intent of a proposition can be important to the context of a proposition for the purpose of a discussion). 
 

 

Unibot -- you are the only person in this discussion with ulterior motives.

 

Further, if you would read my posts I suggested ending the practice of changing votes as a way of dealing with both what I had an issue with and what other people had an issue with. To suggest I has been anything other than completely fourth coming with that fact is wrong. (See this post here: http://forums.thesouthpacific.org/topic/.../?p=114714)

 

There has been nothing insidious about what I've suggested or the way I've presented this. You frankly owe me an apology for the constant barrage of slanderous attacks.

 

In any case, the idea that what I'm suggesting is overkill is understood. I don't necessarily agree, but I'm certainly open to that view. As such, should we begin a process of constructing an opt-out list, as has been previously suggested?

[Sandaoguo]

[quote name="tsunamy" post="114949" timestamp="1390832719"][quote name="Sandaoguo" post="114940" timestamp="1390824673"]I'm my opinion, the Assembly shouldn't be in the business of taking away rights. It doesn't really matter if taking away the right to change your vote would have a neutral or negative impact. We'd be taking away a right to address a really small issue. That isn't proportionate. Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk[/quote]

Again, I'd like to know, how is this a "right"? All we're doing is asking people to be certain when they make a decision. When we're considering the course of the region, I hardly think that is too much to ask.

I'm fine with going by an opt-out list, but I certainly think that comes with its own restrictions of "rights."[/quote]

We have, to my knowledge, always been able to change our vote under the system we currently use. It's a freedom we have when exercising our right to vote. You guys are proposing that we pass a law banning people from doing something they've long been able to do, in a way that may severely effect their sense of enfranchisement.

That is taking away part of the right to vote that we've had for a while, and still would have for voting in the Assembly. And you guys are arguing for it because of a very small issue that affects a miniscule number of players. It's completely disproportionate.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

[Rebel-topia]

Im getting really sick of this off topic, back-and-forth bickering.

 

If you want to argue, take it whereever the hell you want. Just keep it out of my Assembly!!