Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why I am Voting for Mikal

YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I want to begin by saying that I think Blade has been a very good president, that I consider him a friend, and that I hope after this I hope he also considers me a friend too. It should be made clear that I have the utmost confidence in Blade, Mizra and Thett and that I think they will, if elected, more than satisfactorily do the job. But, as between Mikal and Bladerunner I'm voting for Mikal.

What Mikal represents to DDO is all that we would hope for our community to be. He is indebted to the community, for how we reached out to him in his time of need and in many ways this is an opportunity for him to uniquely give back. I believe Mikal will give back in ways that not only advance community interests but which also benefit DDO overall, just as I believe that it is out of a sense of service that he campaigns for this position. It is not because he was compelled, or because he felt obliged to not disappoint an establishment -but because of a sincere commitment to the community. And in that way, what Mikal's campaign represents the best in all of us, as a symbol of the warmth and good will that so characterizes our community.

It goes without saying that he is a skilled debater, and that his membership here could be described as nothing less than a tour de force. No person reaches an ELO of 9,000 without formidable effort, and it is with that same level of dedication that I believe Mikal will represent our interests before Max and Juggle. The reason that he is particularly suited for that position of advocacy is his belonging here, among us. I see no potential for his zealous advocacy of what is in our best interest to be blighted or in any way diminished by the interests of those whose commitment to the status quo in certain areas which demand reform might hinder others. This is what distinguishes Mikal, and it is why he has my vote.

While there is a certain comfort in the way things are, Mikal has demonstrated his willingness to pursue more. While Cermank, Blade's Vice Presidential candidate has voiced doubts in the idea that there is even a possibility to connect and collaborate with Juggle to advance site interests, Mikal is busy trying to figure out what and how he can best serve the community. The reason is because rather than complaining about the impossibility of a situation, Mikal is far more interested in figuring out what needs to be done to make things happen.

And here, as ever, it must be known by all who vote in this election that Mikal's sole allegiance is to you, the people, who comprise the community. Whether you vote for him or not, if elected Mikal will represent your interests -especially where they stand in opposition with the beliefs and practices of those who would deny them to you. This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

I have many thoughts about the things which have happened in this election, and this has been the messiest one in a while. But, let us not lose site on why we vote in these to begin with. We do not elect presidents on the basis of who won't rock the boat, as Cermank and others have suggested we do. We elect people on the basis of who will stand up for what we want, and who will not bend in pursuit of those ends.

Now that you know who Mikal is, I hope you will consider voting for him as well.

Thank you.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:27:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

Dylan, I have reservations about Cermank that go beyond this campaign. She is a very friendly girl, which is why this is the last time I will respond to you regarding her. People are free to form their own opinions, and if you'd like to discuss it more extensively we can via PM.

But that said, I'm confident you're right. Cermank does want to keep the peace, which is why her vision for the site begins and ends with the status quo. So, when Blade turns to her for support in the pursuit of big goals, if he does that, her first response will always be "Ehhh... but."

...and another great idea is dead in the water.

That is not the kind of attitude a president needs to have. While Cermank may be committed to the way things are, and she is certainly free to do that, I believe that together we can have more, that we can do more and that we will achieve more together.

Mikal is the guy to get us more, and better. It's really just that simple.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:31:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

I would contend that while it is a worthy goal, it should not -- as YYW points out -- be the sole basis for electing a president. In fact, I agree very much with YYW that "he won't rock the boat" is not at all a ringing endorsement of a candidate.

I think there's a difference between wanting to keep peace between members (which Mikal cares about with his DDO Peacekeepers initiative) and wanting to keep the peace in the sense of being fearful that advocating for major change will necessarily ruffle a few feathers.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:33:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:31:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

I would contend that while it is a worthy goal, it should not -- as YYW points out -- be the sole basis for electing a president. In fact, I agree very much with YYW that "he won't rock the boat" is not at all a ringing endorsement of a candidate.

I think there's a difference between wanting to keep peace between members (which Mikal cares about with his DDO Peacekeepers initiative) and wanting to keep the peace in the sense of being fearful that advocating for major change will necessarily ruffle a few feathers.

Well said.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:36:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:31:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

I would contend that while it is a worthy goal, it should not -- as YYW points out -- be the sole basis for electing a president. In fact, I agree very much with YYW that "he won't rock the boat" is not at all a ringing endorsement of a candidate.

I think there's a difference between wanting to keep peace between members (which Mikal cares about with his DDO Peacekeepers initiative) and wanting to keep the peace in the sense of being fearful that advocating for major change will necessarily ruffle a few feathers.

I'm not exactly sure what YYW was trying to say, but his statement implied that "Cermank is against Mikal because he would be good for the community", which amounts to the assertion that Cermark doesn't want what is good for the community. You can disagree that "keeping the peace" would be good for the community without claiming that anyone who thinks otherwise is malicious.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:40:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks for placing confidence on us in case we get elected.

I disagree with the crux of your comment, however. If I have the time today, I will outline our vision (and disagreement with your points).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:42:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:31:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

I would contend that while it is a worthy goal, it should not -- as YYW points out -- be the sole basis for electing a president. In fact, I agree very much with YYW that "he won't rock the boat" is not at all a ringing endorsement of a candidate.


Also, I don't see why that is. If someone is happy with the way things are and don't see any major improvements that need to be made (or could be made), why shouldn't they vote for Cermank. Sometimes fixing what isn't broken is worse than doing nothing at all.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:42:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:36:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:31:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

I would contend that while it is a worthy goal, it should not -- as YYW points out -- be the sole basis for electing a president. In fact, I agree very much with YYW that "he won't rock the boat" is not at all a ringing endorsement of a candidate.

I think there's a difference between wanting to keep peace between members (which Mikal cares about with his DDO Peacekeepers initiative) and wanting to keep the peace in the sense of being fearful that advocating for major change will necessarily ruffle a few feathers.

I'm not exactly sure what YYW was trying to say, but his statement implied that "Cermank is against Mikal because he would be good for the community", which amounts to the assertion that Cermark doesn't want what is good for the community. You can disagree that "keeping the peace" would be good for the community without claiming that anyone who thinks otherwise is malicious.

That's not how I read YYW's post. Saying "Cermank doesn't want Mikal" and "Mikal is good for the community" is not the same as saying "Cermank doesn't want what is good for the community." What each person thinks is "good for the community" is different. I read YYW as simply saying that some people prefer the status quo and some people prefer change.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:43:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:40:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
Thanks for placing confidence on us in case we get elected.

I disagree with the crux of your comment, however. If I have the time today, I will outline our vision (and disagreement with your points).

I think that a vibrant discussion of ideas is important in this campaign, which is why I posted what I did. Even though I've largely kept out of this election, I think the time to explain clearly and effectively why one candidate is better than the other is now.

While I have confidence in you, thett and Bladerunner, I believe that Mikal can offer more -as is evidenced by who he is and what he's done on the site. But of course, we are all friends here -so we'll keep that in mind going forward.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:47:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:42:06 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:36:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:31:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

I would contend that while it is a worthy goal, it should not -- as YYW points out -- be the sole basis for electing a president. In fact, I agree very much with YYW that "he won't rock the boat" is not at all a ringing endorsement of a candidate.

I think there's a difference between wanting to keep peace between members (which Mikal cares about with his DDO Peacekeepers initiative) and wanting to keep the peace in the sense of being fearful that advocating for major change will necessarily ruffle a few feathers.

I'm not exactly sure what YYW was trying to say, but his statement implied that "Cermank is against Mikal because he would be good for the community", which amounts to the assertion that Cermark doesn't want what is good for the community. You can disagree that "keeping the peace" would be good for the community without claiming that anyone who thinks otherwise is malicious.

That's not how I read YYW's post. Saying "Cermank doesn't want Mikal" and "Mikal is good for the community" is not the same as saying "Cermank doesn't want what is good for the community." What each person thinks is "good for the community" is different. I read YYW as simply saying that some people prefer the status quo and some people prefer change.

"This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about."

This implies that Cermanks loyalties are not with the community, which would make her a malicious candidate. It's basically saying "Cermank knows that Mikal would be good for the community, and therefore opposes him taking office".
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:48:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't believe that either side is maliciously or wrongfully pursuing the presidency; I think that both sides have different ideas of what the presidency symbolizes and are each pursuing it based on that conception:

One campaign views the president moreso as a community leader who maintains voting and social initivatives

The other campaign views the president moreso as a voiced representative of the community.

So, even though I agree with a good bulk of you argument concerning why we should elect Mikal, I would disagree that Cermank's loyalties do not lie with the community or that she is trying to silence Mikal because his do.

Rather, I think it would be much more accurate to assert that Cermank's loyalties are with the community, just in a fundamentally different way and under a different vision of how much power she (as an elected official) would rightfully possess.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:49:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:42:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:31:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

I would contend that while it is a worthy goal, it should not -- as YYW points out -- be the sole basis for electing a president. In fact, I agree very much with YYW that "he won't rock the boat" is not at all a ringing endorsement of a candidate.


Also, I don't see why that is. If someone is happy with the way things are and don't see any major improvements that need to be made (or could be made), why shouldn't they vote for Cermank. Sometimes fixing what isn't broken is worse than doing nothing at all.

There are three deaths in life: when we stop trying to improve ourselves, when our physical body perishes, and the last time our name is uttered on this Earth.

Truly great people are never satisfied with the status quo. The quote "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" has more to do with not jettisoning what *is* working when you try to improve something. But it doesn't mean that when the status quo is good, we should assume it's perfect. It's more about correctly selecting *what* to improve.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:49:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:42:06 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:36:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:31:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

I would contend that while it is a worthy goal, it should not -- as YYW points out -- be the sole basis for electing a president. In fact, I agree very much with YYW that "he won't rock the boat" is not at all a ringing endorsement of a candidate.

I think there's a difference between wanting to keep peace between members (which Mikal cares about with his DDO Peacekeepers initiative) and wanting to keep the peace in the sense of being fearful that advocating for major change will necessarily ruffle a few feathers.

I'm not exactly sure what YYW was trying to say, but his statement implied that "Cermank is against Mikal because he would be good for the community", which amounts to the assertion that Cermark doesn't want what is good for the community. You can disagree that "keeping the peace" would be good for the community without claiming that anyone who thinks otherwise is malicious.

That's not how I read YYW's post. Saying "Cermank doesn't want Mikal" and "Mikal is good for the community" is not the same as saying "Cermank doesn't want what is good for the community." What each person thinks is "good for the community" is different. I read YYW as simply saying that some people prefer the status quo and some people prefer change.

That is because unlike Dylan, you comprehend what you read.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:49:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:47:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This implies that Cermanks loyalties are not with the community, which would make her a malicious candidate. It's basically saying "Cermank knows that Mikal would be good for the community, and therefore opposes him taking office".
I would hope that this is not what YYW was trying to imply, as (see my post above), I don't think either have interests that negate the wellbeing of the community, I think they just both have fundamentally different ideas of what the president should do and what the role stands for, which might make it appear that way.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:49:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:43:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:40:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
Thanks for placing confidence on us in case we get elected.

I disagree with the crux of your comment, however. If I have the time today, I will outline our vision (and disagreement with your points).

I think that a vibrant discussion of ideas is important in this campaign, which is why I posted what I did. Even though I've largely kept out of this election, I think the time to explain clearly and effectively why one candidate is better than the other is now.

While I have confidence in you, thett and Bladerunner, I believe that Mikal can offer more -as is evidenced by who he is and what he's done on the site. But of course, we are all friends here -so we'll keep that in mind going forward.
We are drawing a very arbitrary line between the individuals in question, YYW. What one has done here, and what that means, is not clear, and I am confident that most people will agree. Both Bladerunner and Mikal are outstanding members, who both can and will contribute positively. However, I strongly disagree that Mikal has more potential; perhaps he has ideas, but ideas are not always practical and effective in practice. As for the last sentence, I agree; I hold no negative personal thoughts of any candidate for the presidency.
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:50:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:48:23 PM, Daltonian wrote:
I don't believe that either side is maliciously or wrongfully pursuing the presidency; I think that both sides have different ideas of what the presidency symbolizes and are each pursuing it based on that conception:

One campaign views the president moreso as a community leader who maintains voting and social initivatives

The other campaign views the president moreso as a voiced representative of the community.

So, even though I agree with a good bulk of you argument concerning why we should elect Mikal, I would disagree that Cermank's loyalties do not lie with the community or that she is trying to silence Mikal because his do.

I'm glad that we mostly agree. But, I never said that Cermank's loyalties do not like with the site; I said that they lie with the site "as it is." Dylan, above, has read into what I said that which is not there...

Rather, I think it would be much more accurate to assert that Cermank's loyalties are with the community, just in a fundamentally different way and under a different vision of how much power she (as an elected official) would rightfully possess.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:51:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:49:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:42:06 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:36:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:31:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

I would contend that while it is a worthy goal, it should not -- as YYW points out -- be the sole basis for electing a president. In fact, I agree very much with YYW that "he won't rock the boat" is not at all a ringing endorsement of a candidate.

I think there's a difference between wanting to keep peace between members (which Mikal cares about with his DDO Peacekeepers initiative) and wanting to keep the peace in the sense of being fearful that advocating for major change will necessarily ruffle a few feathers.

I'm not exactly sure what YYW was trying to say, but his statement implied that "Cermank is against Mikal because he would be good for the community", which amounts to the assertion that Cermark doesn't want what is good for the community. You can disagree that "keeping the peace" would be good for the community without claiming that anyone who thinks otherwise is malicious.

That's not how I read YYW's post. Saying "Cermank doesn't want Mikal" and "Mikal is good for the community" is not the same as saying "Cermank doesn't want what is good for the community." What each person thinks is "good for the community" is different. I read YYW as simply saying that some people prefer the status quo and some people prefer change.

That is because unlike Dylan, you comprehend what you read.

Okay, so if that's not what you were trying to imply, then what were you?
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:52:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:51:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Okay, so if that's not what you were trying to imply, then what were you?

I'm guessing that you missed both what I wrote, and what Bluesteel has said. So... do avail yourself to re-read.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:53:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:42:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:31:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

I would contend that while it is a worthy goal, it should not -- as YYW points out -- be the sole basis for electing a president. In fact, I agree very much with YYW that "he won't rock the boat" is not at all a ringing endorsement of a candidate.


Also, I don't see why that is. If someone is happy with the way things are and don't see any major improvements that need to be made (or could be made), why shouldn't they vote for Cermank. Sometimes fixing what isn't broken is worse than doing nothing at all.

Do you honestly think there is absolutely no room for improvement?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:54:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:47:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:42:06 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:36:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:31:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:15:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:01:47 PM, YYW wrote:
This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about.

That's quite an accusation.

It's also a fact, and I've been disappointed with the way that Cermank has attempted to subtly attack Mikal -and the motive behind it is clear. What Cermank wants is for people not to challenge the way things are, because Cermank's interests begin and end with keeping the peace.

It is not that Cermank is a bad person, so much as it is that her interests (keeping the peace and minimizing any conflict and tension) are counterintuitive to the pursuit of ambitious goals.

But, my interest here is not in negative campaigning because that's not what this is about. I'm sure that Cermank's role as VP is really just a formality anyway. My interest is in electing someone who will vigorously advocate for the DDO community, someone who is undaunted by convention or resistance from the status quo. That is why I'm voting for Mikal.

Perhaps she's thinks what's best for the community is keeping the peace?

I would contend that while it is a worthy goal, it should not -- as YYW points out -- be the sole basis for electing a president. In fact, I agree very much with YYW that "he won't rock the boat" is not at all a ringing endorsement of a candidate.

I think there's a difference between wanting to keep peace between members (which Mikal cares about with his DDO Peacekeepers initiative) and wanting to keep the peace in the sense of being fearful that advocating for major change will necessarily ruffle a few feathers.

I'm not exactly sure what YYW was trying to say, but his statement implied that "Cermank is against Mikal because he would be good for the community", which amounts to the assertion that Cermark doesn't want what is good for the community. You can disagree that "keeping the peace" would be good for the community without claiming that anyone who thinks otherwise is malicious.

That's not how I read YYW's post. Saying "Cermank doesn't want Mikal" and "Mikal is good for the community" is not the same as saying "Cermank doesn't want what is good for the community." What each person thinks is "good for the community" is different. I read YYW as simply saying that some people prefer the status quo and some people prefer change.

"This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about."

This implies that Cermanks loyalties are not with the community, which would make her a malicious candidate. It's basically saying "Cermank knows that Mikal would be good for the community, and therefore opposes him taking office".

That quote, I think, meant Cermank is a little too concerned about ruffling Juggle's feathers. Juggle doesn't want people agitating for site improvements because they don't want to code them. You can't get them to do anything without pushing them in a way that makes some of them unhappy because they would prefer everyone is happy with the way the site currently is. You can't make an omelette without breaking an egg. In life, you can't please everyone. If you're not willing to stand up and say to Juggle, "look we really need this fix," then you certainly make them happier because it's less work for them. But you honestly can't live your life trying not to cause even the slightest amount of discomfort to anyone.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:55:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:52:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:51:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Okay, so if that's not what you were trying to imply, then what were you?

I'm guessing that you missed both what I wrote, and what Bluesteel has said. So... do avail yourself to re-read.

"This is why Cermank suggested that Mikal would wreck everything if elected -because she understands where Mikal's loyalty lies. It is with you, and that is what this presidency is all about" = Cermank opposes Mikal taking office because she understands that he is loyal to the community

Please explain how either that's not correct, or how that does not imply Cermank is malicious in her intentions.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:56:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:50:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:48:23 PM, Daltonian wrote:
So, even though I agree with a good bulk of you argument concerning why we should elect Mikal, I would disagree that Cermank's loyalties do not lie with the community or that she is trying to silence Mikal because his do.

I'm glad that we mostly agree. But, I never said that Cermank's loyalties do not like with the site; I said that they lie with the site "as it is." Dylan, above, has read into what I said that which is not there...
I suppose I would agree, as Cermank's campaign would incidentally support that the president is more of a community leader rather than a real force for change. Her campaign would seek to MAINTAIN rather than to fundamentally CHANGE, since her and blade could be summarized as being against advocating anything that requires more than the lone power of the president to accomplish - the president being one who is essentially only a user that the moderation is more likely to listen to under this conception of presidential power)

So, yes, that is accurate, but I also sympathize with dylan, as that is easy to misinterpret.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:58:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:49:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:43:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:40:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
Thanks for placing confidence on us in case we get elected.

I disagree with the crux of your comment, however. If I have the time today, I will outline our vision (and disagreement with your points).

I think that a vibrant discussion of ideas is important in this campaign, which is why I posted what I did. Even though I've largely kept out of this election, I think the time to explain clearly and effectively why one candidate is better than the other is now.

While I have confidence in you, thett and Bladerunner, I believe that Mikal can offer more -as is evidenced by who he is and what he's done on the site. But of course, we are all friends here -so we'll keep that in mind going forward.
We are drawing a very arbitrary line between the individuals in question, YYW. What one has done here, and what that means, is not clear, and I am confident that most people will agree. Both Bladerunner and Mikal are outstanding members, who both can and will contribute positively. However, I strongly disagree that Mikal has more potential; perhaps he has ideas, but ideas are not always practical and effective in practice. As for the last sentence, I agree; I hold no negative personal thoughts of any candidate for the presidency.

It is the unreasonable man that makes the most change. The unreasonable people are the ones best equipped to change the status quo for the better. Thomas Edison was unreasonable when he pursued the light bulb. Christopher Columbus was being unreasonable when he proved the earth was flat. Martin Luther King was unreasonable when he pursued equality for blacks.

Thank god these people decided to ignore people who called them unreasonable.

Visionaries typically are.
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 7:59:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 7:58:50 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:49:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:43:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/9/2014 7:40:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
Thanks for placing confidence on us in case we get elected.

I disagree with the crux of your comment, however. If I have the time today, I will outline our vision (and disagreement with your points).

I think that a vibrant discussion of ideas is important in this campaign, which is why I posted what I did. Even though I've largely kept out of this election, I think the time to explain clearly and effectively why one candidate is better than the other is now.

While I have confidence in you, thett and Bladerunner, I believe that Mikal can offer more -as is evidenced by who he is and what he's done on the site. But of course, we are all friends here -so we'll keep that in mind going forward.
We are drawing a very arbitrary line between the individuals in question, YYW. What one has done here, and what that means, is not clear, and I am confident that most people will agree. Both Bladerunner and Mikal are outstanding members, who both can and will contribute positively. However, I strongly disagree that Mikal has more potential; perhaps he has ideas, but ideas are not always practical and effective in practice. As for the last sentence, I agree; I hold no negative personal thoughts of any candidate for the presidency.

It is the unreasonable man that makes the most change. The unreasonable people are the ones best equipped to change the status quo for the better. Thomas Edison was unreasonable when he pursued the light bulb. Christopher Columbus was being unreasonable when he proved the earth was flat. Martin Luther King was unreasonable when he pursued equality for blacks.

Thank god these people decided to ignore people who called them unreasonable.

Visionaries typically are.
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 8:02:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The thing to take into account is that so far, those who have advocated on behalf of Blade's campaign have had one consistent thru-line: it is the campaign of "No."

Want to improve moderation? Grumpy cat face says no.

Want to improve voting beyond what has already taken place? Grumpy cat face say no.

Want to improve the quality of site membership? Grumpy cat face says no, and then tries to advance the idea that such a system would be incessantly abused.

Why? It's too unreasonable... or not something that a president has done before.

There is a certain audacity in hope. I think someone important once said something about that... but his name escapes me.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 8:04:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 8:02:32 PM, YYW wrote:
The thing to take into account is that so far, those who have advocated on behalf of Blade's campaign have had one consistent thru-line: it is the campaign of "No."

Want to improve moderation? Grumpy cat face says no.

Want to improve voting beyond what has already taken place? Grumpy cat face say no.

Want to improve the quality of site membership? Grumpy cat face says no, and then tries to advance the idea that such a system would be incessantly abused.

Why? It's too unreasonable... or not something that a president has done before.

There is a certain audacity in hope. I think someone important once said something about that... but his name escapes me.

I don't like that guy but I DO AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. He is a smart guy and right about that as well as many other things.