(04-10-2014, 06:49 PM)Belschaft Wrote: That seems rather pointless. People banned from these forums by the admin team usually did something to deserve it; we're generally talking about porn spammers, people who tried to register as a citizen on multiple 'fake' accounts, etc.

I never porn spammed or used multiple accounts. :dodgy:

Would a porn spammer bother to use our absentee voting system?

---

I believe I've been banned three times now. One of those was for something I said on IRC (and not on the forums - despite the fact that Hileville used the excuse of separate jurisdictions when he liked), the other was never explained (it probably was me accusing Hileville of being an admin tyrant on TEP's forum which he read a few mins before removing from TSP's forum) and the last one was in response to a supposed derailment.

Were these enough to disenfranchise me as a citizen illegally? And blatantly ignore the law? I don't think so.

Let's get something clear. Forum Administration is not above the Charter. Period.

(04-10-2014, 06:51 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Let's get something clear. Forum Administration is not above the Charter. Period.

That is -not- clear. That's been the line touted ever since Hileville took over as Admin -- and TSP until very recently cheered when he said it.

The Bill of Rights was never a popular piece of legislation and it took over a year after I suggested it to be implemented. When it finally was ...the Freedom of Speech that was implemented by Hileville and Bel (both Burkians) was restrained to the most clumsiest of wordings and then, still they argued (just in case) that the Freedom of Speech did not apply the Administration.

I'm pursuing the Forum Administration Act because I want to see the Administration in line with our Charter (not above it). We need legislation to reaffirm that our democracy comes first, not the Forum Administration.

(04-12-2014, 12:15 AM)Unibot Wrote: That is -not- clear. That's been the line touted ever since Hileville took over as Admin -- and TSP until very recently cheered when he said it.

I did not say it was clear, and I did not say that in the past it's been that wy. I said I was making it clear how things were going to work from now on. And I'll say it once again here an now. Administration is not above the Charter.

(04-12-2014, 12:15 AM)Unibot Wrote: The Bill of Rights was never a popular piece of legislation and it took over a year after I suggested it to be implemented. When it finally was ...the Freedom of Speech that was implemented by Hileville and Bel (both Burkians) was restrained to the most clumsiest of wordings and then, still they argued (just in case) that the Freedom of Speech did not apply the Administration.

I have to disagree with your idea that the freedom of speech clause is clumsy. I was and am still satisfied with the final text we passed, and it's one of the Assembly debates I'm most proud of. It was one discussion where people disagreed without recurring to attacks.

Regardless of whether you like how the Bill of Rights is written though, I have no problem with finding a way to ensure that moderation can be done without violating the rights of citizens. In an ideal situation, people should be banned only in the most extreme situations, in which case loss of citizenship should be a no brainer. I would like to ensure that admins and mods act like that.

Quote:I did not say it was clear, and I did not say that in the past it's been that wy. I said I was making it clear how things were going to work from now on. And I'll say it once again here an now. Administration is not above the Charter.

Oh .. there. Now you've said. See everything is good. You know I got banned a few months ago when I told Hileville he wasn't above the Charter.

Bet if I asked you to put that into writing, you'd get all squirrely. You and everyone else here in the established circles seem to want the smallest possible policy response from the Assembly, because it means your own privilege is curtailed.

Quote:I have to disagree with your idea that the freedom of speech clause is clumsy. I was and am still satisfied with the final text we passed, and it's one of the Assembly debates I'm most proud of. It was one discussion where people disagreed without recurring to attacks.

I don't really care if the discussion was filled with butterflies and fountains of flowing butter: the final product was not good. It's Burkian and incredibly limited. It's also been interpreted weaker and weaker because of its initially poor wording. We need a robust Freedom of Speech to nurture an open democracy.

Uni -- seriously? This is the second time I'm going to ask you to be respectful to other members. Considering we've been on this forum for all of ... three weeks? ... this is getting ridiculous.

There is no need to start lobbing accusations at Kris or anyone else.

I think it's clear that the argument has, in fact, been that the admins are above the charter, and that they will take care of administration aspects amongst themselves. The problem, however, is that we really only have one person arguing the opposite and/or trying to restrict the power.

That's not a judgement call on which side is right, it's a factual statement on direction the majority wants the region to go.

(04-13-2014, 11:09 PM)Unibot Wrote: Oh .. there. Now you've said. See everything is good. You know I got banned a few months ago when I told Hileville he wasn't above the Charter.

Bet if I asked you to put that into writing, you'd get all squirrely. You and everyone else here in the established circles seem to want the smallest possible policy response from the Assembly, because it means your own privilege is curtailed.

I don't really care if the discussion was filled with butterflies and fountains of flowing butter: the final product was not good. It's Burkian and incredibly limited. It's also been interpreted weaker and weaker because of its initially poor wording. We need a robust Freedom of Speech to nurture an open democracy.

*sighs*

1. I've said it three times now: administration has a right to establish its own procedures. That however doesn't mean we are above the Charter, or can take actions that would contradict it for our own political benefit. You are more than welcome to quote me on that.

2. Under different circumstances I would find it funny to be considered part of the "established circles", but right now I'm just frustrated that how you seem so determined to prove at any cost that we are set out to consolidate our own power. I should remind you that most people here are very open about administrative reform. You should work with us instead of accusing people of being members of some power-hungry oligarchy. That argument is really getting old.

3. Still I don't see you proposing any amendment to the Bill of Rights. I suggest you stop complaining and start acting on those complains. Don't wait for people to guess what you think needs to be done in the Assembly; it won't work.

Oh for heavens sake. I did approach The South Pacific about administration reform - we're getting instead is three clauses that are largely irrelevant and don't change much of anything.

I knew this was going to happen when we left the old forums without properly coming up with policies before leaving the old one.

Well...Hileville did shut down the old forum before we could even officially switch, so there's that. Also, it doesn't help if you start accusing people of being part of the "inner circle".

That said, this thread is about absentee voting, not administrative reform. Let's return to that topic.

Following Kris -- part of the problem is that we have forum posting requirements for citizenship. So ... if you don't post on the forum, you're not a citizen. This is in addition to verifying "citizenship" and one-nation, one-vote situations.

I'm not saying absentee balloting isn't useful or do-able, but it would take a significant swatch of legal maneuvers.