Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Voluntary Candidate Pledge

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is a voluntary pledge that candidates can choose to sign on to, or not. The pledge can be worked out or amended based on user input, but I think there a few general things we can agree on that users of DDO generally don't want to see during the election.

Candidates who sign on the the pledge will:

(1) Limit the number of election threads posted by them and people affiliated with their campaigns to a few official topics of discussion. I don't think anyone wants to see daily endorsement threads cropping up. There's no hard limit, but it should be obvious what "too" many threads would be (e.g. the entire front page of the DDO Forum is filled only with election threads all posted within the past 24 hours).

(2) Agree not to lobby unknown users to vote. "Unknown" means users that you don't have pre-existing familiarity with.

(3) Agree not to attack other candidates or speak negatively of them outside of official forums for debate (e.g. candidate interviews, debates with other candidates). And agree to control campaign-team members and prevent them from doing the same.

If you agree to run a clean campaign, please sign below.

If you have suggested edits or additions to the Pledge, please comment.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 5:32:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
(3) Agree not to attack other candidates or speak negatively of them outside of official forums for debate (e.g. candidate interviews, debates with other candidates). And agree to control campaign-team members and prevent them from doing the same.

If the campaign-team members won't be controlled, what do you expect the candidates to do about it?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 5:33:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:32:26 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
(3) Agree not to attack other candidates or speak negatively of them outside of official forums for debate (e.g. candidate interviews, debates with other candidates). And agree to control campaign-team members and prevent them from doing the same.

If the campaign-team members won't be controlled, what do you expect the candidates to do about it?

I'm sure they can figure it out. If they can't lead a campaign team, how can they lead an entire site?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 5:35:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:33:41 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:32:26 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
(3) Agree not to attack other candidates or speak negatively of them outside of official forums for debate (e.g. candidate interviews, debates with other candidates). And agree to control campaign-team members and prevent them from doing the same.

If the campaign-team members won't be controlled, what do you expect the candidates to do about it?

I'm sure they can figure it out. If they can't lead a campaign team, how can they lead an entire site?

Leading the site has nothing to do with controlling members...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 5:37:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:35:19 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:33:41 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:32:26 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
(3) Agree not to attack other candidates or speak negatively of them outside of official forums for debate (e.g. candidate interviews, debates with other candidates). And agree to control campaign-team members and prevent them from doing the same.

If the campaign-team members won't be controlled, what do you expect the candidates to do about it?

I'm sure they can figure it out. If they can't lead a campaign team, how can they lead an entire site?

Leading the site has nothing to do with controlling members...

They pledge to do everything in their power to control their campaigns. If they can't, then I guess people will draw whatever conclusions from that inability as they want.

It's a pledge. I'm not making campaign rules. If people don't keep their promise, there's nothing I can do about it. But I'd like to see a clean campaign, and think it naive of me to try to hold people to their word.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 5:39:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:37:47 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:35:19 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:33:41 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:32:26 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
(3) Agree not to attack other candidates or speak negatively of them outside of official forums for debate (e.g. candidate interviews, debates with other candidates). And agree to control campaign-team members and prevent them from doing the same.

If the campaign-team members won't be controlled, what do you expect the candidates to do about it?

I'm sure they can figure it out. If they can't lead a campaign team, how can they lead an entire site?

Leading the site has nothing to do with controlling members...

They pledge to do everything in their power to control their campaigns. If they can't, then I guess people will draw whatever conclusions from that inability as they want.

It's a pledge. I'm not making campaign rules. If people don't keep their promise, there's nothing I can do about it. But I'd like to see a clean campaign, and think it naive of me to try to hold people to their word.

I appreciate your perspective...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 5:40:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:39:02 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:37:47 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:35:19 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:33:41 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:32:26 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
(3) Agree not to attack other candidates or speak negatively of them outside of official forums for debate (e.g. candidate interviews, debates with other candidates). And agree to control campaign-team members and prevent them from doing the same.

If the campaign-team members won't be controlled, what do you expect the candidates to do about it?

I'm sure they can figure it out. If they can't lead a campaign team, how can they lead an entire site?

Leading the site has nothing to do with controlling members...

They pledge to do everything in their power to control their campaigns. If they can't, then I guess people will draw whatever conclusions from that inability as they want.

It's a pledge. I'm not making campaign rules. If people don't keep their promise, there's nothing I can do about it. But I'd like to see a clean campaign, and think it naive of me to try to hold people to their word.

I appreciate your perspective...

More airmax emulation? :p
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 5:42:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:40:30 AM, bluesteel wrote:
More airmax emulation? :p

Yeah. He's so CUTE in that philochristos video it just makes me want to copy his prose style...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:11:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:37:10 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Do you like the way I finish with ellipses? I learned it from Airmax...

It's very stylish...

You should be careful what sentences you end with ellipses. It could be construed as condescending and I certainly get a "this-is-obvious-and-you-are-dumb-for-not-realizing-it " when ellipses are used.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:12:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:42:23 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:40:30 AM, bluesteel wrote:
More airmax emulation? :p

Yeah. He's so CUTE in that philochristos video it just makes me want to copy his prose style...

Only Airmax can pull off an Airmax...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:14:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
(2) Agree not to lobby unknown users to vote. "Unknown" means users that you don't have pre-existing familiarity with.

This is no fun... why would anyone want to pledge away their voters... practicality is more important than honor... honor without sense gets your head chopped off...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:17:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:14:59 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
(2) Agree not to lobby unknown users to vote. "Unknown" means users that you don't have pre-existing familiarity with.

This is no fun... why would anyone want to pledge away their voters... practicality is more important than honor... honor without sense gets your head chopped off...

The bigger question is why candidates try to sway the known users at all if the unknown voting bloc can decide the election.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:20:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:17:05 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/1/2015 6:14:59 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
(2) Agree not to lobby unknown users to vote. "Unknown" means users that you don't have pre-existing familiarity with.

This is no fun... why would anyone want to pledge away their voters... practicality is more important than honor... honor without sense gets your head chopped off...

The bigger question is why candidates try to sway the known users at all if the unknown voting bloc can decide the election.

What unknown "voting bloc?" There are members who aren't very active in the forums, sure. But you seem to be implying that they would all vote for the same person which I don't get they would.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:21:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:17:05 AM, bluesteel wrote:
The bigger question is why candidates try to sway the known users at all if the unknown voting bloc can decide the election.

I don't think I understand what you mean actually. Rephrase?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:24:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:21:29 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/1/2015 6:17:05 AM, bluesteel wrote:
The bigger question is why candidates try to sway the known users at all if the unknown voting bloc can decide the election.

I don't think I understand what you mean actually. Rephrase?

There are maybe 30-40 voters who read the forums. At least 50% are already decided. It's kind of ironic that candidates spend weeks trying to convince those 20 undecided users, when all they need to do to win is last minute lobbying of every single user on the site who meets the voting criteria.

I'm not saying they would all vote for the same candidate, but presidents only campaign in swing states because they decide the election. Since the non-regular-forum viewers are essentially the swing vote, theoretically it makes more sense to ignore the "issues" and not try to convince anyone substantively, but just have the best "ground campaign" of finding lots of new people to vote. Those people will often vote for whoever PM's them first.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:34:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:11:41 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:37:10 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Do you like the way I finish with ellipses? I learned it from Airmax...

It's very stylish...

You should be careful what sentences you end with ellipses. It could be construed as condescending and I certainly get a "this-is-obvious-and-you-are-dumb-for-not-realizing-it " when ellipses are used.

I don't agree...
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:40:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:24:44 AM, bluesteel wrote:
There are maybe 30-40 voters who read the forums. At least 50% are already decided. It's kind of ironic that candidates spend weeks trying to convince those 20 undecided users, when all they need to do to win is last minute lobbying of every single user on the site who meets the voting criteria.

I'm not saying they would all vote for the same candidate, but presidents only campaign in swing states because they decide the election. Since the non-regular-forum viewers are essentially the swing vote, theoretically it makes more sense to ignore the "issues" and not try to convince anyone substantively, but just have the best "ground campaign" of finding lots of new people to vote. Those people will often vote for whoever PM's them first.

This is a good point and for most elections in the past, I'd agree. I had my mind made up and no amount of campaigning would have convinced me otherwise. Last minute lobbying of the unheard masses is probably a smarter idea. I believe that was the strategy Mikal used.

I would disagree with #2 of the OP though because pledging away your ability to do a grassroots campaign implies that there is something unethical or immoral about it when there isn't. I don't want the election to be decided by the silent mass of members but I still hold that it is technically the right way to determine the outcome.

What we *should* be doing is making the requirements more stringent rather than ask the candidate to pass up on a plan to optimize their winning chances. Personally if someone pledges away a strategic advantage, that counts against them in my mind because it shows they are not shrewd enough.

The presidency is a position of diplomacy and a diplomat shouldn't give away leverage for free.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:48:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:40:03 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/1/2015 6:24:44 AM, bluesteel wrote:
There are maybe 30-40 voters who read the forums. At least 50% are already decided. It's kind of ironic that candidates spend weeks trying to convince those 20 undecided users, when all they need to do to win is last minute lobbying of every single user on the site who meets the voting criteria.

I'm not saying they would all vote for the same candidate, but presidents only campaign in swing states because they decide the election. Since the non-regular-forum viewers are essentially the swing vote, theoretically it makes more sense to ignore the "issues" and not try to convince anyone substantively, but just have the best "ground campaign" of finding lots of new people to vote. Those people will often vote for whoever PM's them first.

This is a good point and for most elections in the past, I'd agree. I had my mind made up and no amount of campaigning would have convinced me otherwise. Last minute lobbying of the unheard masses is probably a smarter idea. I believe that was the strategy Mikal used.

I would disagree with #2 of the OP though because pledging away your ability to do a grassroots campaign implies that there is something unethical or immoral about it when there isn't. I don't want the election to be decided by the silent mass of members but I still hold that it is technically the right way to determine the outcome.

What we *should* be doing is making the requirements more stringent rather than ask the candidate to pass up on a plan to optimize their winning chances. Personally if someone pledges away a strategic advantage, that counts against them in my mind because it shows they are not shrewd enough.

The presidency is a position of diplomacy and a diplomat shouldn't give away leverage for free.

The problem is that the voter eligibility criteria have to be a hard limit. You can't have a soft standard like "unknown." But that's really the goal of the hard limit: to weed out unknown users. The problem is that some "unknown" users who participate in the site only infrequently will still meet the hard limit. There's no perfect limit you can set. And some regular users might not qualify because they are so new. The hard limit tries to strike a balance, but it's an imperfect one.

And it's not bargaining away an advantage if both sides promise not to do it. It *shouldn't* be an advantage. Both sides are capable of running a ground campaign. It's just like MAD: if one side does it, so will the other. But they can both agree not to do it.

As you said, I don't think any of us want a candidate who was elected solely because they ran a better ground campaign. I assume candidates still try to do debates and get their "issues" out there because they want to think they are a serious candidate and those issues matter. If they're not willing to pledge away votes from users they have never heard of and have no idea who they are, then imo they don't really care about the issues. They care more about winning.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:59:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just went to the forum leaderboard and looked to see how many people can vote. It turns out we have 857 potential voters just based on forum posts. This is not counting the people who qualify because of their Opinion/Poll posts. Also interestingly, there is no way to meet the requirements through doing debates.

I have a few other thoughts but I'll post later. I wonder if the candidates will agree to this.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 7:03:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:40:03 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't want the election to be decided by the silent mass of members but I still hold that it is technically the right way to determine the outcome.

And you're thinking about the election the wrong way. If you read The Myth of the Rational Voter, the main premise (one accepted in Political Science) is that the fundamental flaw in democracy is that elections can be decided by the uninformed. The ideal democracy is one in which the outcome is determined only by the informed. The book argues that *assuming* all of the informed voters vote the same way and all the uninformed voters vote completely randomly (i.e. split 50-50), the informed voters decide the outcome. But this isn't what happens in the practice.

So all that being said, an ideal democracy would be one where the informed voters are the ones who decide the outcome. I don't see why you're arguing for a flawed version of democracy.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 7:11:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:59:05 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I just went to the forum leaderboard and looked to see how many people can vote. It turns out we have 857 potential voters just based on forum posts. This is not counting the people who qualify because of their Opinion/Poll posts. Also interestingly, there is no way to meet the requirements through doing debates.

Um ... I thought there was a three-debate requirement?


I have a few other thoughts but I'll post later. I wonder if the candidates will agree to this.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 7:16:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 7:11:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2015 6:59:05 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I just went to the forum leaderboard and looked to see how many people can vote. It turns out we have 857 potential voters just based on forum posts. This is not counting the people who qualify because of their Opinion/Poll posts. Also interestingly, there is no way to meet the requirements through doing debates.

Um ... I thought there was a three-debate requirement?


I have a few other thoughts but I'll post later. I wonder if the candidates will agree to this.

3 debates + 100 forum posts or 250 opinions/polls posts
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 7:24:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 7:16:38 AM, Lexus wrote:
At 6/1/2015 7:11:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2015 6:59:05 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I just went to the forum leaderboard and looked to see how many people can vote. It turns out we have 857 potential voters just based on forum posts. This is not counting the people who qualify because of their Opinion/Poll posts. Also interestingly, there is no way to meet the requirements through doing debates.

Um ... I thought there was a three-debate requirement?


I have a few other thoughts but I'll post later. I wonder if the candidates will agree to this.

3 debates + 100 forum posts or 250 opinions/polls posts

C/Ping from the FAQs: "Members who have done at least 3 debates, or have made 500 posts, may vote for the member they think would be the best President to represent the community."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 7:26:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 7:24:07 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2015 7:16:38 AM, Lexus wrote:
At 6/1/2015 7:11:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2015 6:59:05 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I just went to the forum leaderboard and looked to see how many people can vote. It turns out we have 857 potential voters just based on forum posts. This is not counting the people who qualify because of their Opinion/Poll posts. Also interestingly, there is no way to meet the requirements through doing debates.

Um ... I thought there was a three-debate requirement?


I have a few other thoughts but I'll post later. I wonder if the candidates will agree to this.

3 debates + 100 forum posts or 250 opinions/polls posts

C/Ping from the FAQs: "Members who have done at least 3 debates, or have made 500 posts, may vote for the member they think would be the best President to represent the community."

http://www.debate.org... airmax says forum posts or opinion/polls are necessary
YYW
Posts: 36,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 8:15:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
This is a voluntary pledge that candidates can choose to sign on to, or not. The pledge can be worked out or amended based on user input, but I think there a few general things we can agree on that users of DDO generally don't want to see during the election.

Candidates who sign on the the pledge will:

(1) Limit the number of election threads posted by them and people affiliated with their campaigns to a few official topics of discussion. I don't think anyone wants to see daily endorsement threads cropping up. There's no hard limit, but it should be obvious what "too" many threads would be (e.g. the entire front page of the DDO Forum is filled only with election threads all posted within the past 24 hours).

(2) Agree not to lobby unknown users to vote. "Unknown" means users that you don't have pre-existing familiarity with.

(3) Agree not to attack other candidates or speak negatively of them outside of official forums for debate (e.g. candidate interviews, debates with other candidates). And agree to control campaign-team members and prevent them from doing the same.

If you agree to run a clean campaign, please sign below.

If you have suggested edits or additions to the Pledge, please comment.

In theory this sounds fine, but in reality, this isn't necessary. The requirements for voting already restrict who may or may not vote pretty considerably, out of the pool of members.

Beyond that, if people have legitimate concerns about other candidates, they can and should be able to voice them. The fact that you disagree with something doesn't make it an illegitimate concern, and get the feeling that anything that isn't flowers and rainbows would be interpreted as in conflict with that third provision of yours...

If Liz or Brian wants to sign this, that's fine... but I wouldn't if I was running. The existing rules are enough, and agreeing to be bound by a "pledge" whose terms are so inherently subjective seems like a way to set myself up for specious attacks from those who are more interested in maintaining some presence of being "nice" than having a meaningful or significant discussion of who should be elected.
YYW
Posts: 36,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 8:23:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
pretense* not presence

The problem is that this pledge is meaningless, incredibly vague, and so to such an extent that signing it risks meaningless attacks from those who would like to pretend like all they want is a campaign of flowers and roses.

I have legitimate concerns about Liz's ability to work with Juggle. It's not that I dislike her, or that I think she's a bad person. It's that if I'm throwing a hail mary, I'm not going to put a JV backup in when the varsity QB is most needed.
YYW
Posts: 36,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 8:49:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:33:41 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:32:26 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
(3) Agree not to attack other candidates or speak negatively of them outside of official forums for debate (e.g. candidate interviews, debates with other candidates). And agree to control campaign-team members and prevent them from doing the same.

If the campaign-team members won't be controlled, what do you expect the candidates to do about it?

I'm sure they can figure it out. If they can't lead a campaign team, how can they lead an entire site?

Here's the problem with what you're saying:

I am not part of any campaign team. I'm sure this is shocking to you, but I'm not. The reason I'm not part of any campaign team is because I think Brian can run his own campaign without my help.

(Just as I'm sure that you're not part of Liz's campaign team, even though I'm about 100% sure you're going to vote for her.)

And I'm sure that the point and purpose of your thread here was to post some kind of indirect response to some of the things I've said in another thread, on the assumption that I was speaking --more or less officially-- for bsh1/Zaradi. That is mistaken.

I'm not their spokesman. I'm a guy who has literally had enough of everyone's bullsh!t and who really wants a decent president who will do something for a change. And I can tell you that if bsh1 wasn't running, I would sooner run against Liz and Thett myself because I have no faith in their ability to deal with Juggle... but the same would also be true if almost anyone other than bsh1 was running.

There is this idea that DDO members have that Juggle is some "other" institution/organization that is over and above their ability to communicate with. We have all been frustrated by some of the stuff that they've done, and the kind of attitude that most members bring to the table these days is analogous to what Ore's was before he abandoned the site: one of passive contempt and frustration.

I understand why people feel that way, because the history of Juggle's engagement with DDO has been anything but ideal. At the same time, they are still people who can be reasoned with. They have interests and I can expect them to act in pursuit of them. They also can be appealed to, like anyone else, by someone who is willing and able to bridge the gap between them and DDO.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 9:12:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 5:27:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
This is a voluntary pledge that candidates can choose to sign on to, or not. The pledge can be worked out or amended based on user input, but I think there a few general things we can agree on that users of DDO generally don't want to see during the election.

Candidates who sign on the the pledge will:

(1) Limit the number of election threads posted by them and people affiliated with their campaigns to a few official topics of discussion. I don't think anyone wants to see daily endorsement threads cropping up. There's no hard limit, but it should be obvious what "too" many threads would be (e.g. the entire front page of the DDO Forum is filled only with election threads all posted within the past 24 hours).

(2) Agree not to lobby unknown users to vote. "Unknown" means users that you don't have pre-existing familiarity with.
That's a bit hard to define... UtherPenguin and triangle are the only candidates who I'm sure are familiar with me. I've talked to Liz, bsh1 and Vox before (i.e. before their respective announcements that they will run), but whether these count as 'pre-existing familiarity' is pretty... debatable (pun intended) :P
(3) Agree not to attack other candidates or speak negatively of them outside of official forums for debate (e.g. candidate interviews, debates with other candidates). And agree to control campaign-team members and prevent them from doing the same.

If you agree to run a clean campaign, please sign below.

If you have suggested edits or additions to the Pledge, please comment.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 9:39:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 7:24:07 AM, tejretics wrote:

C/Ping from the FAQs: "Members who have done at least 3 debates, or have made 500 posts, may vote for the member they think would be the best President to represent the community."

That stuffs really outdated; it still says TUF is president yesterday.