Total Posts:185|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No One For President

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:06:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The concept of the DDO presidency started out as a joke between the original Ragnar and myself. It was based on our real life differences in political ideology, and who from DDO would be appointed to our respective cabinets if this were a state and not a website. It had nothing to do with plans or promises for DDO. Since then, the site has incorporated both a moderator and a president whose roles have evolved. The site benefits from a moderator, but the presidency seems to be a completely unnecessary and divisive popularity contest.

I returned to the site after a long hiatus during the middle of election season. At first I didn't think anything about the campaign. Now I think it's a harmful waste of energy. The president (as far as I know) has little to no actual function. They don't have mod powers or do anything that a regular member cannot do. If anything there should be an election process for the moderator, not the president.

While I understand the utility of having a member representative speak to Juggle on the community's behalf, any member(s) can do that if/when necessary. Similarly any member can implement every single initiative that both candidates have promised. If they truly care about the quality of the site and not a meaningless title, they shouldn't need to win the election in order to be active and quality members.

Similarly the Peacekeeping Corp and Forum Ambassadors are RIDICULOUS. Why does Mirza need to be appointed Forum Ambassador in order to make quality forum discussion a priority? He should do that regardless of who gets elected or even if there WAS NO PRESIDENT. Why is imabench threatening to leave DDO if his ticket doesn't get elected - as if anybody should give a sh!t what he chooses to do? Um, hundreds of cool members have come before and after him, so even if he leaves, it won't be the end of DDO's world - I can assure you. The same thing goes for peace keeping. I would like to think that people can and will take it upon themselves to keep rude people in check without having to be part of a special clique.

All of these appointments to make believe roles are not only frivolous but off-putting in terms of establishing a welcoming community. For many years I was among the most active members on the site, yet even a veteran member such as myself feels confused by some of the emphasis on site popularity. A new member recently commented that they had no idea what was going on with the election. I feel this community is turning into DDO High School where people care more about their reputation and playing a role on the site as opposed to actually learning and contributing for the overall good.

Instead of initiating interesting discussion or engaging in spirited debates, for the past week since I've been back, the focus of almost all active members has been on this upcoming election. Both candidates have admitted that Juggle's commitment to the site is limited regardless of who wins. Both candidates are active members who continuously add value to the site. It doesn't matter who wins. I couldn't care less who wins. It will have zero impact on my contribution to site. It should have zero impact on anybody's contribution to this site. And in that case, the presidency would be irrelevant, unnecessary and ought to be disbanded... in my humble opinion.
President of DDO
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:16:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 5:06:12 PM, Danielle wrote:

Have I ever told you I loved you?
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:35:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree 90%.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:45:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 5:06:12 PM, Danielle wrote:

You should ask max about the function of the presidency. In actuality, the position holds no real power. If, however, the right person is in office it can serve a purpose for max as a balance of power (or something like that, I forgot, and max is a boring dweeb).
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:53:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 5:06:12 PM, Danielle wrote:
The concept of the DDO presidency started out as a joke between the original Ragnar and myself. It was based on our real life differences in political ideology, and who from DDO would be appointed to our respective cabinets if this were a state and not a website. It had nothing to do with plans or promises for DDO. Since then, the site has incorporated both a moderator and a president whose roles have evolved. The site benefits from a moderator, but the presidency seems to be a completely unnecessary and divisive popularity contest.

I returned to the site after a long hiatus during the middle of election season. At first I didn't think anything about the campaign. Now I think it's a harmful waste of energy. The president (as far as I know) has little to no actual function. They don't have mod powers or do anything that a regular member cannot do. If anything there should be an election process for the moderator, not the president.

While I understand the utility of having a member representative speak to Juggle on the community's behalf, any member(s) can do that if/when necessary. Similarly any member can implement every single initiative that both candidates have promised. If they truly care about the quality of the site and not a meaningless title, they shouldn't need to win the election in order to be active and quality members.

Similarly the Peacekeeping Corp and Forum Ambassadors are RIDICULOUS. Why does Mirza need to be appointed Forum Ambassador in order to make quality forum discussion a priority? He should do that regardless of who gets elected or even if there WAS NO PRESIDENT. Why is imabench threatening to leave DDO if his ticket doesn't get elected - as if anybody should give a sh!t what he chooses to do? Um, hundreds of cool members have come before and after him, so even if he leaves, it won't be the end of DDO's world - I can assure you. The same thing goes for peace keeping. I would like to think that people can and will take it upon themselves to keep rude people in check without having to be part of a special clique.

All of these appointments to make believe roles are not only frivolous but off-putting in terms of establishing a welcoming community. For many years I was among the most active members on the site, yet even a veteran member such as myself feels confused by some of the emphasis on site popularity. A new member recently commented that they had no idea what was going on with the election. I feel this community is turning into DDO High School where people care more about their reputation and playing a role on the site as opposed to actually learning and contributing for the overall good.

Instead of initiating interesting discussion or engaging in spirited debates, for the past week since I've been back, the focus of almost all active members has been on this upcoming election. Both candidates have admitted that Juggle's commitment to the site is limited regardless of who wins. Both candidates are active members who continuously add value to the site. It doesn't matter who wins. I couldn't care less who wins. It will have zero impact on my contribution to site. It should have zero impact on anybody's contribution to this site. And in that case, the presidency would be irrelevant, unnecessary and ought to be disbanded... in my humble opinion.

I can feel that this thread is gone catch on fire...
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:58:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think elections focus DDOs tendency toward drama onto something constructive and educational.

Also social institutions need not have the ability to physically impose their will to have power. Even where hard power is key to political authority socially constructs play a major role in the exercise of political power. The legitimacy of being chosen by the community gives the president social capital with both juggle and the ddo community.

Additionally, juggle has treated the president as if it is an important representative position in the past. This is exactly how social constructs work. People treat the position as if it has power and meaning and so it does.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:59:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 5:06:12 PM, Danielle wrote:
Why can't we just let the children have fun, giggle, laugh, be vain and be stupid like in high school? If people enjoy being stupid, I don't see why they should be stopped. It is not like they own the site and can actually do anything. The President is just the site's official complainer. Nothing wrong with that.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:01:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Vote Bennett/Otter for president! We'll take the fight to those nasty gremlins who sneak into my house at night and move things around!
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:09:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Some perspective, on this ridiculous OP:

I know I'm usually known for my verbosity... but six paragraphs to say fvck the presidency because IDGAF seems a bit gratuitous. People have a right to be unhappy with how some of the campaigning has gone; going overboard is too much, but it reflects the passion people have for this site. Perhaps Dani's six paragraph treatise reflects her passion for complaining about things. Here's a five paragraph response:

By saying "fvck the presidency because IDGAF" what you're implying (though probably unintentionally) is that the people who put effort and energy into campaigning to improve the site have done so in vain. This is the literal definition of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," which is reactionary and stupid. It's also in taste as poor as those who went overboard -especially given the moratorium on campaigning that has already addressed the problem that Dani's talking about here.

I'll give Dani the benefit of the doubt that she was unaware that she's complaining about a problem that's already solved itself, but this thread and the support for it really reflects the different attitudes that people have about this site than it reflects a meaningful critique of the presidency, the campaigns or anything else mentioned in the OP. I don't even like DDO politics, and I've got a pretty cynical attitude about it generally, but I'm not going to pretend like I'm better than it. Dani doesn't five a fvck. We know this, because we have all known this, because we know Dani. Other people are willing to sacrifice their free time to make this place a better site for the rest of us.

That's why Blade sacrifices his time to labor (probably in vain) in effort to get Juggle to do stuff, and why Mikal is willing to make the sacrifice to do it. It should not be lost upon anyone here that it is those people who are willing to make that sacrifice whose value far exceeds the content in this OP because It's one thing to complain about stuff you admittedly have no vested interest in from afar, but it's another thing entirely to actually be willing to work and get your hands dirty. My sympathy in this is with those who are willing to work to improve the site, not with those who just want to complain.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:10:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
*four paragraphs

I deleted a slightly more acerbic one -a decision which I think was probably for the best.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:12:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:10:20 PM, YYW wrote:
*four paragraphs

I deleted a slightly more acerbic one -a decision which I think was probably for the best.

O.o

There was a more acerbic one?

*inches away from YYW*
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:16:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:12:38 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:10:20 PM, YYW wrote:
*four paragraphs

I deleted a slightly more acerbic one -a decision which I think was probably for the best.

O.o

There was a more acerbic one?

*inches away from YYW*

Yes. This thread transcends absurdity. The logic is this:

"I, Dani, who doesn't give a single fvck, will (in six paragraphs) explain not only why I don't give a single fvck, but why my not giving a single fvck compels me to wish to dissolve the presidency as an office. To hell with all the things that Innomen, Max, TUF and Blade have accomplished... they don't mean a thing! I'm just pissed because I've seen some threads that I don't like so I'm going to overstep and talk about how I would rather burn the hedges down than trim them!"

Manifest absurdity.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:22:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:09:15 PM, YYW wrote:

By saying "fvck the presidency because IDGAF" what you're implying (though probably unintentionally) is that the people who put effort and energy into campaigning to improve the site have done so in vain. This is the literal definition of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," which is reactionary and stupid. It's also in taste as poor as those who went overboard -especially given the moratorium on campaigning that has already addressed the problem that Dani's talking about here.

I have nothing to say about this, but I just wanted to chime in on your use of literally and the phrase "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The phrase actually means getting rid of the good along with the bad. What Dani is complaining about can be better summed as cynicism that comes from a perceived Sisyphean effort.

I just wanted to say this because it annoys me when people misunderstand old phrases like carpe diem, or "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:23:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:21:11 PM, Romanii wrote:
Does this mean there's going to be an "anarchist" ballot?

I don't know about that, but there's going to be one name on the ballot that you know you can trust! Bennett/Otter for president!
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:24:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:22:06 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:09:15 PM, YYW wrote:

By saying "fvck the presidency because IDGAF" what you're implying (though probably unintentionally) is that the people who put effort and energy into campaigning to improve the site have done so in vain. This is the literal definition of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," which is reactionary and stupid. It's also in taste as poor as those who went overboard -especially given the moratorium on campaigning that has already addressed the problem that Dani's talking about here.

I have nothing to say about this, but I just wanted to chime in on your use of literally and the phrase "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The phrase actually means getting rid of the good along with the bad. What Dani is complaining about can be better summed as cynicism that comes from a perceived Sisyphean effort.

I just wanted to say this because it annoys me when people misunderstand old phrases like carpe diem, or "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

She is talking about getting rid of the presidency (a good thing) to get rid of something she doesn't like (campaigning).

But perhaps you missed that...
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:25:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:16:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:12:38 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:10:20 PM, YYW wrote:
*four paragraphs

I deleted a slightly more acerbic one -a decision which I think was probably for the best.

O.o

There was a more acerbic one?

*inches away from YYW*

Yes. This thread transcends absurdity. The logic is this:

"I, Dani, who doesn't give a single fvck, will (in six paragraphs) explain not only why I don't give a single fvck, but why my not giving a single fvck compels me to wish to dissolve the presidency as an office. To hell with all the things that Innomen, Max, TUF and Blade have accomplished... they don't mean a thing! I'm just pissed because I've seen some threads that I don't like so I'm going to overstep and talk about how I would rather burn the hedges down than trim them!"

Manifest absurdity.

Well, that's a harsh way to put it. I can see Dani's point; the president of DDO's primary purpose is only to serve as a representative and the legitimacy. Even so, hat's how the previous presidents have improved the site quality and negotiated with Juggle; if one random member tried to start that, he wouldn't be taken as seriously as a president.

Plus, the politics give us a cover to spawn flame wars. ;D
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:34:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 5:06:12 PM, Danielle wrote:
The concept of the DDO presidency started out as a joke between the original Ragnar and myself. It was based on our real life differences in political ideology, and who from DDO would be appointed to our respective cabinets if this were a state and not a website. It had nothing to do with plans or promises for DDO. Since then, the site has incorporated both a moderator and a president whose roles have evolved. The site benefits from a moderator, but the presidency seems to be a completely unnecessary and divisive popularity contest.

I returned to the site after a long hiatus during the middle of election season. At first I didn't think anything about the campaign. Now I think it's a harmful waste of energy. The president (as far as I know) has little to no actual function. They don't have mod powers or do anything that a regular member cannot do. If anything there should be an election process for the moderator, not the president.

While I understand the utility of having a member representative speak to Juggle on the community's behalf, any member(s) can do that if/when necessary. Similarly any member can implement every single initiative that both candidates have promised. If they truly care about the quality of the site and not a meaningless title, they shouldn't need to win the election in order to be active and quality members.

Similarly the Peacekeeping Corp and Forum Ambassadors are RIDICULOUS. Why does Mirza need to be appointed Forum Ambassador in order to make quality forum discussion a priority? He should do that regardless of who gets elected or even if there WAS NO PRESIDENT. Why is imabench threatening to leave DDO if his ticket doesn't get elected - as if anybody should give a sh!t what he chooses to do? Um, hundreds of cool members have come before and after him, so even if he leaves, it won't be the end of DDO's world - I can assure you. The same thing goes for peace keeping. I would like to think that people can and will take it upon themselves to keep rude people in check without having to be part of a special clique.

All of these appointments to make believe roles are not only frivolous but off-putting in terms of establishing a welcoming community. For many years I was among the most active members on the site, yet even a veteran member such as myself feels confused by some of the emphasis on site popularity. A new member recently commented that they had no idea what was going on with the election. I feel this community is turning into DDO High School where people care more about their reputation and playing a role on the site as opposed to actually learning and contributing for the overall good.

Instead of initiating interesting discussion or engaging in spirited debates, for the past week since I've been back, the focus of almost all active members has been on this upcoming election. Both candidates have admitted that Juggle's commitment to the site is limited regardless of who wins. Both candidates are active members who continuously add value to the site. It doesn't matter who wins. I couldn't care less who wins. It will have zero impact on my contribution to site. It should have zero impact on anybody's contribution to this site. And in that case, the presidency would be irrelevant, unnecessary and ought to be disbanded... in my humble opinion.

From what I read, the presidency is more of a ceremonial position than anything else. They are bound to "Jiggle" (or whatever its called) and technically have no power.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:35:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:24:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:22:06 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:09:15 PM, YYW wrote:

By saying "fvck the presidency because IDGAF" what you're implying (though probably unintentionally) is that the people who put effort and energy into campaigning to improve the site have done so in vain. This is the literal definition of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," which is reactionary and stupid. It's also in taste as poor as those who went overboard -especially given the moratorium on campaigning that has already addressed the problem that Dani's talking about here.

I have nothing to say about this, but I just wanted to chime in on your use of literally and the phrase "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The phrase actually means getting rid of the good along with the bad. What Dani is complaining about can be better summed as cynicism that comes from a perceived Sisyphean effort.

I just wanted to say this because it annoys me when people misunderstand old phrases like carpe diem, or "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

She is talking about getting rid of the presidency (a good thing) to get rid of something she doesn't like (campaigning).

But perhaps you missed that...

But she doesn't see the president as a good or necessary position. You're the one who thinks it's good. I mean you literally describe Sisyphus in your definition of "throwing out the baby w/the bathwater". If Dani wants to scrap the whole program and doesn't see any good (no baby) then she's not throwing out a baby with the bathwater.

what you're implying ... is that the people who put effort and energy into campaigning to improve the site have done so in vain.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:39:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:24:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:22:06 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:09:15 PM, YYW wrote:

By saying "fvck the presidency because IDGAF" what you're implying (though probably unintentionally) is that the people who put effort and energy into campaigning to improve the site have done so in vain. This is the literal definition of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," which is reactionary and stupid. It's also in taste as poor as those who went overboard -especially given the moratorium on campaigning that has already addressed the problem that Dani's talking about here.

I have nothing to say about this, but I just wanted to chime in on your use of literally and the phrase "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The phrase actually means getting rid of the good along with the bad. What Dani is complaining about can be better summed as cynicism that comes from a perceived Sisyphean effort.

I just wanted to say this because it annoys me when people misunderstand old phrases like carpe diem, or "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

She is talking about getting rid of the presidency (a good thing) to get rid of something she doesn't like (campaigning).

But perhaps you missed that...

But she doesn't see the president as a good or necessary position. You're the one who thinks it's good. I mean you literally describe Sisyphus in your definition of "throwing out the baby w/the bathwater". If Dani wants to scrap the whole program and doesn't see any good (no baby) then she's not throwing out a baby with the bathwater.

She doesn't have to see the presidency as good or necessary, for use of the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bath water" to be appropriate. I am describing it that way, and using the metaphor to emphasize that point.

I'm sure you think you've learned something in college and you're trying to apply it here. If what you have learned is inconsistent with what I'm saying, then your professor was wrong. But, I think that the more likely situation here is that you misunderstood what you learned.

We have enough members that misuse words and terms on the site as it is. Please do not join there ranks -and above all do not correct me when you're wrong. It is not only extremely embarrassing for you, but it is frustrating for me.

what you're implying ... is that the people who put effort and energy into campaigning to improve the site have done so in vain.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:42:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:39:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:24:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:22:06 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:09:15 PM, YYW wrote:

By saying "fvck the presidency because IDGAF" what you're implying (though probably unintentionally) is that the people who put effort and energy into campaigning to improve the site have done so in vain. This is the literal definition of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," which is reactionary and stupid. It's also in taste as poor as those who went overboard -especially given the moratorium on campaigning that has already addressed the problem that Dani's talking about here.

I have nothing to say about this, but I just wanted to chime in on your use of literally and the phrase "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The phrase actually means getting rid of the good along with the bad. What Dani is complaining about can be better summed as cynicism that comes from a perceived Sisyphean effort.

I just wanted to say this because it annoys me when people misunderstand old phrases like carpe diem, or "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

She is talking about getting rid of the presidency (a good thing) to get rid of something she doesn't like (campaigning).

But perhaps you missed that...

But she doesn't see the president as a good or necessary position. You're the one who thinks it's good. I mean you literally describe Sisyphus in your definition of "throwing out the baby w/the bathwater". If Dani wants to scrap the whole program and doesn't see any good (no baby) then she's not throwing out a baby with the bathwater.

She doesn't have to see the presidency as good or necessary, for use of the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bath water" to be appropriate. I am describing it that way, and using the metaphor to emphasize that point.

I'm sure you think you've learned something in college and you're trying to apply it here. If what you have learned is inconsistent with what I'm saying, then your professor was wrong. But, I think that the more likely situation here is that you misunderstood what you learned.

We have enough members that misuse words and terms on the site as it is. Please do not join there ranks -and above all do not correct me when you're wrong. It is not only extremely embarrassing for you, but it is frustrating for me.

what you're implying ... is that the people who put effort and energy into campaigning to improve the site have done so in vain.

Such arrogance. Much wow.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:43:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:42:02 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:39:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:24:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:22:06 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:09:15 PM, YYW wrote:

By saying "fvck the presidency because IDGAF" what you're implying (though probably unintentionally) is that the people who put effort and energy into campaigning to improve the site have done so in vain. This is the literal definition of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," which is reactionary and stupid. It's also in taste as poor as those who went overboard -especially given the moratorium on campaigning that has already addressed the problem that Dani's talking about here.

I have nothing to say about this, but I just wanted to chime in on your use of literally and the phrase "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The phrase actually means getting rid of the good along with the bad. What Dani is complaining about can be better summed as cynicism that comes from a perceived Sisyphean effort.

I just wanted to say this because it annoys me when people misunderstand old phrases like carpe diem, or "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

She is talking about getting rid of the presidency (a good thing) to get rid of something she doesn't like (campaigning).

But perhaps you missed that...

But she doesn't see the president as a good or necessary position. You're the one who thinks it's good. I mean you literally describe Sisyphus in your definition of "throwing out the baby w/the bathwater". If Dani wants to scrap the whole program and doesn't see any good (no baby) then she's not throwing out a baby with the bathwater.

She doesn't have to see the presidency as good or necessary, for use of the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bath water" to be appropriate. I am describing it that way, and using the metaphor to emphasize that point.

I'm sure you think you've learned something in college and you're trying to apply it here. If what you have learned is inconsistent with what I'm saying, then your professor was wrong. But, I think that the more likely situation here is that you misunderstood what you learned.

We have enough members that misuse words and terms on the site as it is. Please do not join there ranks -and above all do not correct me when you're wrong. It is not only extremely embarrassing for you, but it is frustrating for me.

what you're implying ... is that the people who put effort and energy into campaigning to improve the site have done so in vain.

Such arrogance. Much wow.

You are *literally* wrong. I want you to appreciate why you are wrong, however:

The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bath water," to be properly used in a sentence, does not require that the person who is "throwing out" both comprehend the value of the baby being thrown out. The point of the phrase is that the person doing the throwing out DOES NOT REALIZE the value, such that it is NECESSARY for the other person to point out the unfortunate misgiving that's taking place.

Refer yourself to the salient part of Dani's post:

"And in that case, the presidency would be irrelevant, unnecessary and ought to be disbanded... in my humble opinion."

Refer yourself additionally to what I wrote...

Comprehend here that you are wrong.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:47:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:44:35 PM, PapaNolan wrote:
She is right. If there is a president than this site will probably become messier, and there will be less free thought.

You did one debate and wrote thirteen forum posts. Did you even read the campaigning?
PapaNolan
Posts: 145
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:54:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:47:05 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:44:35 PM, PapaNolan wrote:
She is right. If there is a president than this site will probably become messier, and there will be less free thought.

You did one debate and wrote thirteen forum posts. Did you even read the campaigning?

Yes
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:56:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Then vote for sadolite. I will do anything, won't raise taxes, I will just log on occasionally.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%