Suggestion Box

[plugger66]

Personally I feel that any shift away from the current status quo needs to be very carefully thought about if it's indeed possible given the site's ownership status. Any move towards a voting system may actually produce more problems than it solves. Apart from the logistical issues of having a viable voting system on an anonymous forum, there are also political issues. It's a nice ideal to have a democratic voting system for mods for example, but IMO could very easily be best by politics and factionalism, far more than we have now.

Any voting system would have to be voluntary - compulsory voting wouldn't be possible - how could you possible enforce it? So participation in any voluntary voting system would be dependent on the level of interest of the forum members. My guess is that there is a small core of posters who are genuinely interested in the issues discussed on this thread - democracy, voting etc, and a larger number of posters who don't really engage with it. They just want to come on here for info about the Saints and talk mostly about footy.

I can foresee the cliques and 'lobbies' that already exist on the forum playing out in the way it's managed and moderated if a democratic system were implemented.
I reckon it wouldn't take long for accusations of bias and favouritism to come forth, when one 'faction' or another gained sway.

Personally I think it's foolish to shift towards any attempt to have a democratic voting system on this forum. Given we are all anonymous and living all over the country and beyond there would be no enforceable checks and balances when it comes to voting participation and identity.
Happy for people to prove me wrong when it comes to a viable voting system, but even if one was able to implemented, I think it would be fraught with potential for political infighting that could do a lot more worse than good.

Whilst the current system may not be perfect, it also has it's good points and benefits.


Agreed. Voting? What is this place. Its just a very basic fan forum and we are all here because of the Saints. We dont need to vote on anything because we can just not use the place if we dont like it. The mods should do what they think is right as long as fun and banter are keep in the forum. lets not do warnings willy nilly. Common sense always wins out.
I do agree that it would be better if the site owner were more pro-active and responsive when it comes to suggested changes to the forum structure and presentation.

[Cairnsman]

Personally I feel that any shift away from the current status quo needs to be very carefully thought about if it's indeed possible given the site's ownership status. Any move towards a voting system may actually produce more problems than it solves. Apart from the logistical issues of having a viable voting system on an anonymous forum, there are also political issues. It's a nice ideal to have a democratic voting system for mods for example, but IMO could very easily be best by politics and factionalism, far more than we have now.

Any voting system would have to be voluntary - compulsory voting wouldn't be possible - how could you possible enforce it? So participation in any voluntary voting system would be dependent on the level of interest of the forum members. My guess is that there is a small core of posters who are genuinely interested in the issues discussed on this thread - democracy, voting etc, and a larger number of posters who don't really engage with it. They just want to come on here for info about the Saints and talk mostly about footy.

I can foresee the cliques and 'lobbies' that already exist on the forum playing out in the way it's managed and moderated if a democratic system were implemented.
I reckon it wouldn't take long for accusations of bias and favouritism to come forth, when one 'faction' or another gained sway.

Personally I think it's foolish to shift towards any attempt to have a democratic voting system on this forum. Given we are all anonymous and living all over the country and beyond there would be no enforceable checks and balances when it comes to voting participation and identity.
Happy for people to prove me wrong when it comes to a viable voting system, but even if one was able to implemented, I think it would be fraught with potential for political infighting that could do a lot more worse than good.

Whilst the current system may not be perfect, it also has it's good points and benefits.

I do agree that it would be better if the site owner were more pro-active and responsive when it comes to suggested changes to the forum structure and presentation.

Ironically you are part of the BFUSA led faction, cliques and lobby with members including Kosifantutti and Buckets and the silent majority. What are you really afraid of Byron.

I don't think that there is any disagreement that a voting system would need to be well thought out.

I don't see one logical element to any of your argument or claims and I ask the following questions which are in direct response to your claims:

What additional problems could be caused by having a viable voting system.?

What logistical issues could there be by having a viable system?

What political issues could be a problem other than there being factions. Factions can work for the common good. Faction is not a dirty word. Are you and your beliefs the only one allowed to be part of a faction?

Why would a voting system need to be voluntary? Why wouldn't a compulsory voting system work. Why does it need to be enforced? (Caution answering these ones Byron, I have a reasonably considered idea about how a voting system works because I'm open to the idea).

How can a viable voting system create accusations of bias? Is that how it works with our Australian system of voting in a government or any other voting system. Remembering we currently work under BFUSA's "majority rules" system.

What does being anonymous have to do with having a viable voting system if we can implement a system that has adequate integrity.

You claim the current system is not perfect which I assume you are referring to BFUSA's "majority rules" system, if so what are it's good points and benefits?

Byron I ask this with the greatest of respect, but would it be possible for you to cast aside your strong beliefs against a voting system for the time-being and just focus on the technical side of a discussion and about how we could have a viable voting system. I'd like to see us open up the discussion to try and encourage suggestions, ideas and the offering of possible existing know-how on how we might achieve a voting system.

And if we do manage to come up with something that looks viable then as a safety net we could possibly just implement the system on a trial basis just in the event we did get it horribly wrong and it all does go pear shape.

What would we have to lose by taking that approach?

[st.byron]

Ironically you are part of the BFUSA led faction, cliques and lobby with members including Kosifantutti and Buckets and the silent majority. What are you really afraid of Byron. I don't see one logical element to any of your argument.

Cairnsman, I haven't read all your post. Only the above line. I'll read the rest of it, but I want to immediately say that when I read the above, I just shake my head and say out loud,
"Oh FFS".

Part of a faction?????
Only because you seek to put me there. I have no interest in factions or political manouvering in the interests of power. Honestly CM, when you say stuff like,
"What are really afraid of Byron", I just laugh out loud at how wildly off the mark you are. Seriously, you have zero idea of where I'm coming from if you really think that.

It's really simple. The forum used to be a place where abusiveness and 'playing the man' held sway. Threads would over and over again be dominated by posters abusing one another and descending into slanging matches. I drifted away a bit because of that crap. Since the implementation of new rules, it's heaps better, and it seems, going by the new names I see in different threads and without knowing the actual figures, that there are new posters beginning to regularly post and some older ones coming back.

So that's a good thing.

I put my hand up to be a mod to support that. I agree with P66 that warnings and policing of the rules should be guided by common sense rather than rigid adherence. That's always going to generate some dissent because people have different ideas of what's common sense. Most importantly there needs to be consistent application of the rules rather than a totally 'by the book approach', along with a healthy dollop of tolerance and compassion. And there are going to be times where mods get it wrong or differ in interpretation. Mods are humans and they're volunteers. If it turns out that it's better for the forum for me not to be a mod, that's fine by me. So long as the abusiveness and nasty personal attacks don't return as the dominant way of posting then I can continue to enjoy the forum.
I enjoy being a part of SS and will continue to be whether I'm a mod or not.

If I'm afraid of anything it's the forum turning back into a s*** fight dominated by political and factional infighting and I reckon the system you're proposing is highly likely to lead exactly in that direction.

[asiu]

Unity.

all of us .... looking in the same direction.

lets let the 'faction' thingie slide ,
yack it out ... gently.


Char Char.

[Cairnsman]

Ironically you are part of the BFUSA led faction, cliques and lobby with members including Kosifantutti and Buckets and the silent majority. What are you really afraid of Byron. I don't see one logical element to any of your argument.

Cairnsman, I haven't read all your post. Only the above line. I'll read the rest of it, but I want to immediately say that when I read the above, I just shake my head and say out loud,
"Oh FFS".

Part of a faction?????
Only because you seek to put me there. I have no interest in factions or political manouvering in the interests of power. Honestly CM, when you say stuff like,
"What are really afraid of Byron", I just laugh out loud at how wildly off the mark you are. Seriously, you have zero idea of where I'm coming from if you really think that.

It's really simple. The forum used to be a place where abusiveness and 'playing the man' held sway. Threads would over and over again be dominated by posters abusing one another and descending into slanging matches. I drifted away a bit because of that crap. Since the implementation of new rules, it's heaps better, and it seems, going by the new names I see in different threads and without knowing the actual figures, that there are new posters beginning to regularly post and some older ones coming back.

So that's a good thing.

I put my hand up to be a mod to support that. I agree with P66 that warnings and policing of the rules should be guided by common sense rather than rigid adherence. That's always going to generate some dissent because people have different ideas of what's common sense. Most importantly there needs to be consistent application of the rules rather than a totally 'by the book approach', along with a healthy dollop of tolerance and compassion. And there are going to be times where mods get it wrong or differ in interpretation. Mods are humans and they're volunteers. If it turns out that it's better for the forum for me not to be a mod, that's fine by me. So long as the abusiveness and nasty personal attacks don't return as the dominant way of posting then I can continue to enjoy the forum.
I enjoy being a part of SS and will continue to be whether I'm a mod or not.

If I'm afraid of anything it's the forum turning back into a s*** fight dominated by political and factional infighting and I reckon the system you're proposing is highly likely to lead exactly in that direction.

Ok, I apologise and am really regretful that I made a statement that distracted you away from offering a technical response on a voting system. I'm looking forward to you responding to the rest of my post.

[asiu]

if its yacked out gently
to its enth degree
a vote becomes sorta pointless

coz the 'best decisions' have shown themselves.

the control /ownership stuff falls that way as well imo
(not that important re ... this ongoing 'exploration)

.. its a management discussion.

[Dave McNamara]

Hey Saintsationalists, why not trial a voting system, or hey, trial voting systems...?

We could always start such a trial with some innocuous topics. (Like maybe, honourary SS life-membership for Ro$$y? Clarky would sponsor that one. )

We could even make the initial results non-binding, if really necessary... though that could eventually be a slippery slope (or pole... sorry, couldn't resist ). But then again, even non-binding poles would mean that the 'will of the people' (silent ones or otherwise) was publicly 'out there'.

There's already Saintadad's best player pole that largely works very well (more on that in a moment), and way back when, didn't we have voting-pole threads stickied up top of the main page...?

Simon recently posted that the forum does not have a problem with multiple aliases. (Though leopards changing their spots, or not, could be another issue... ) Personally, I certainly don't think that creating multiple aliases to influence a vote would become an issue... I try it every week without success, to get votes for Beau...

[asiu]

@votesforbeau

... the mechanisms to have a vote has merit
(silly if we 'couldnt' do it)

i'd love to know the 'verdict' on whether GT or rl was better for our Club ?

[HarryM]

Unity.

all of us .... looking in the same direction.

Oh my lordie, I can feel a song coming on.

[st.byron]

Simon recently posted that the forum does not have a problem with multiple aliases. (Though leopards changing their spots, or not, could be another issue... ) Personally, I certainly don't think that creating multiple aliases to influence a vote would become an issue... I try it every week without success, to get votes for Beau...

To clarify. Multiple aliases are allowed. Simultaneous multiple active nics is not. One at a time.

[asiu]

ooh ooh ooh
.... i can feel a warning coming on !!!!!

On the 31st of May 2014 , via PM ,
i asked for permission
to have a 2nd id.

This was denied.

Please explain.



Ps ,
its sort of a warming in the loins , feeling
... re the oncoming warning.
... sorta nice but ... scary

Makes u wonder ... is it worth it.

... and to get gazrat back , i say yesdiddlyyes.

[Cairnsman]

Hey Saintsationalists, why not trial a voting system, or hey, trial voting systems...?

We could always start such a trial with some innocuous topics. (Like maybe, honourary SS life-membership for Ro$$y? Clarky would sponsor that one. )

We could even make the initial results non-binding, if really necessary... though that could eventually be a slippery slope (or pole... sorry, couldn't resist ). But then again, even non-binding poles would mean that the 'will of the people' (silent ones or otherwise) was publicly 'out there'.

There's already Saintadad's best player pole that largely works very well (more on that in a moment), and way back when, didn't we have voting-pole threads stickied up top of the main page...?

Simon recently posted that the forum does not have a problem with multiple aliases. (Though leopards changing their spots, or not, could be another issue... ) Personally, I certainly don't think that creating multiple aliases to influence a vote would become an issue... I try it every week without success, to get votes for Beau...

A really good suggestion Dave. Selection of some innocuous topics that were non-binding would be a great way to test voting systems.

I also wonder if there could be a tiered voting system whereby every member is asked to vote and then the results could be voted on by a group, possibly a committee seen as the "elder statesmen committee".

The committee would act to provide overall integrity and that group could be made up of long standing, well known posters with a minimum number of posts or years of membership, or maybe both as a criteria for being on the committee.

This could be a way of better determining "majority rules"

[GrumpyOne]

To clarify. Multiple aliases are allowed. Simultaneous multiple active nics is not. One at a time.

I would appreciate further clarification of that if you don't mind.

[st.byron]

To clarify. Multiple aliases are allowed. Simultaneous multiple active nics is not. One at a time.

I would appreciate further clarification of that if you don't mind.

It means that a person can change their nic if they want to. They will have a new nic and their old one will be defunct as an active posting nic.
If you like, it's an alias. They used to be called abc and now they're called xyz. If I changed my nic to St. Mullum my alias would be St. Byron and I might or might not want others to refer to that.

Multiple registered nics - i.e the same person using more than one active nic - is against the rules.

[asiu]

well , imo , the 'Rules' as they are currently written ,
do not say that.

... 'n i would like to slip through the 'loophole'.



as per my request of 31May.

[asiu]

[GrumpyOne]

To clarify. Multiple aliases are allowed. Simultaneous multiple active nics is not. One at a time.

I would appreciate further clarification of that if you don't mind.

It means that a person can change their nic if they want to. They will have a new nic and their old one will be defunct as an active posting nic.
If you like, it's an alias. They used to be called abc and now they're called xyz. If I changed my nic to St. Mullum my alias would be St. Byron and I might or might not want others to refer to that.

Multiple registered nics - i.e the same person using more than one active nic - is against the rules.

Seems confusing to refer to "multiple aliases".

Why not say: A poster can change his/her nic anytime they want?

[st.byron]

Ironically you are part of the BFUSA led faction, cliques and lobby with members including Kosifantutti and Buckets and the silent majority. What are you really afraid of Byron.

I don't think that there is any disagreement that a voting system would need to be well thought out.

I don't see one logical element to any of your argument or claims and I ask the following questions which are in direct response to your claims:

What additional problems could be caused by having a viable voting system.?

What logistical issues could there be by having a viable system?

What political issues could be a problem other than there being factions. Factions can work for the common good. Faction is not a dirty word. Are you and your beliefs the only one allowed to be part of a faction?

Why would a voting system need to be voluntary? Why wouldn't a compulsory voting system work. Why does it need to be enforced? (Caution answering these ones Byron, I have a reasonably considered idea about how a voting system works because I'm open to the idea).

How can a viable voting system create accusations of bias? Is that how it works with our Australian system of voting in a government or any other voting system. Remembering we currently work under BFUSA's "majority rules" system.

What does being anonymous have to do with having a viable voting system if we can implement a system that has adequate integrity.

You claim the current system is not perfect which I assume you are referring to BFUSA's "majority rules" system, if so what are it's good points and benefits?

Byron I ask this with the greatest of respect, but would it be possible for you to cast aside your strong beliefs against a voting system for the time-being and just focus on the technical side of a discussion and about how we could have a viable voting system. I'd like to see us open up the discussion to try and encourage suggestions, ideas and the offering of possible existing know-how on how we might achieve a voting system.

And if we do manage to come up with something that looks viable then as a safety net we could possibly just implement the system on a trial basis just in the event we did get it horribly wrong and it all does go pear shape.

What would we have to lose by taking that approach?

A few thoughts in response.

I'd like to know what things would need to be voted on.

I can't see how you could possibly enforce a mandatory voting system. How could that possibly work on an anonymous internet forum? Even if it were enforceable it's a bit Big Brother. I don't want to be forced to have to vote on things I don't care about on a footy fan forum or else.......And if it's not mandatory then you'd end up with a U.S style system where the people who are more politically or ideologically driven end with a lot more say in how things run.

How could you police a voting system so that people don't go down the track of multiple nics and multiple votes? It would be easy, if I felt so inclined, for me to register four different nics at the four different internet points I regularly have access to. Each one has a different IP address. No-one could possibly know except for my posting style but it would be impossible to prove. And that's without doing any fancy technical stuff like setting up a proxy IP address or the like.

Factions would emerge much more strongly because control of the forum would be at stake. At the moment, the ownership and admin structure doesn't allow for posters, based on who they like and don't like, to form alliances that actually have any genuine power to change the way the forum is structured. People like yourself and others have dissenting views and are able to air them, but ultimately the site owner and the administrator/s he appoints are in control of what happens.

It would depend on what was to be voted on, but I foresee posters who have an interest in wielding a bit of power or who are more ideologically driven gaining a lot more say in how the forum runs. And cliques and favouritism emerging much more strongly in a pretty short time. Personally I think that a clear majority of posters are satisfied with things the way they are. If not, why aren't we hearing a lot more complaints? Especially when there's been ample threads inviting suggestions and feedback in the past few months.

Bottom line for me is I can't really see the point. I think the forum is moving in the right direction. It's way better than it used to be. So long as we keep a balance with not being too nanny state with the rules and keep a sense of humour about it.
It would be better if the owner were more active in updating the site format, but apart from that I like it the way it is. Not to say I'm not open to change, but not just for the sake of an ideology or change for change's sake. Anything to make it more interactive and attractive to more members is worth exploring. Otherwise I reckon it's on a good footing as it is now and see no need for voting and the like.

[st.byron]

well , imo , the 'Rules' as they are currently written ,
do not say that.

... 'n i would like to slip through the 'loophole'.



as per my request of 31May.

What you mean you want to have more than one registered nic that you post under?

Here's the multiple nic rules as they stand,

"Posters found to hold multiple forum identities and using them to add support to their own position within a forum argument, OR to undertake any activity that can be constituted as a breach of rules, will be penalised without any formal warning and with an ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses.
The moderators and administrators (through a majority vote) reserve the right to conclude that the multiple identity policy has been breached by posters that shows a pattern of behaviour that indicates that it is the one individual posting under two or more sign in usernames, even if the posters are posting from different I.P. addresses (by using different devices) or by using multiple I.P. addresses through I.P. masking."

[Dave McNamara]

Hi Byron, some thoughts in blue. (Apologies to Sting. )

... I'd like to know what things would need to be voted on.

We could start with +/- having sub-forums within the General Forum.

And to start that off, myself and Beau don't see the need for sub-forums, whereas Matt likes them. So in early polling that's 2:1 not in favour.


I can't see how you could possibly enforce a mandatory voting system...

Unlike government elections, I can't see the need for mandatory voting... though fining non-voters could be a great little money spinner.


How could you police a voting system so that people don't go down the track of multiple nics and multiple votes? It would be easy, if I felt so inclined...

Byron, maybe you could PM me to give some expert tips as to where I'm going wrong with executing this multiple nicks/multiple voting thing(?) I do strongly feel that Beau has been under-appreciated in the voting on this forum...


Factions would emerge much more strongly because control of the forum would be at stake. At the moment, the ownership and admin structure doesn't allow for posters, based on who they like and don't like, to form alliances that actually have any genuine power to change the way the forum is structured.

But unlike with politics, if voting was say, as per Saintadad's best player poll, then everything is out in the open. So no secret factions. That might even stop orange hats too...?


Personally I think that a clear majority of posters are satisfied with things the way they are. If not, why aren't we hearing a lot more complaints? Especially when there's been ample threads inviting suggestions and feedback in the past few months.

Complaints? Aren't they those things that happen when virtual/non entity aliases hit a certain virtual button on their virtual display?

Personally, I would see everything else as suggestions to hopefully make a great forum even better.


Bottom line for me is I can't really see the point. I think the forum is moving in the right direction. It's way better than it used to be...

I agree, but the same could be said about Oz, however I reckon that the previous point above applies in both cases... to hopefully make 'great even better'.


It would be better if the owner were more active in updating the site format, but apart from that I like it the way it is.

... the owner, or whoever has 'the power' to make it happen. So yes, that'd be good. For example, Matt has put up some really good suggestions re what this site could offer in functionality, and done so on quite a few occasions.

[Cairnsman]

Ironically you are part of the BFUSA led faction, cliques and lobby with members including Kosifantutti and Buckets and the silent majority. What are you really afraid of Byron.

I don't think that there is any disagreement that a voting system would need to be well thought out.

I don't see one logical element to any of your argument or claims and I ask the following questions which are in direct response to your claims:

What additional problems could be caused by having a viable voting system.?

What logistical issues could there be by having a viable system?

What political issues could be a problem other than there being factions. Factions can work for the common good. Faction is not a dirty word. Are you and your beliefs the only one allowed to be part of a faction?

Why would a voting system need to be voluntary? Why wouldn't a compulsory voting system work. Why does it need to be enforced? (Caution answering these ones Byron, I have a reasonably considered idea about how a voting system works because I'm open to the idea).

How can a viable voting system create accusations of bias? Is that how it works with our Australian system of voting in a government or any other voting system. Remembering we currently work under BFUSA's "majority rules" system.

What does being anonymous have to do with having a viable voting system if we can implement a system that has adequate integrity.

You claim the current system is not perfect which I assume you are referring to BFUSA's "majority rules" system, if so what are it's good points and benefits?

Byron I ask this with the greatest of respect, but would it be possible for you to cast aside your strong beliefs against a voting system for the time-being and just focus on the technical side of a discussion and about how we could have a viable voting system. I'd like to see us open up the discussion to try and encourage suggestions, ideas and the offering of possible existing know-how on how we might achieve a voting system.

And if we do manage to come up with something that looks viable then as a safety net we could possibly just implement the system on a trial basis just in the event we did get it horribly wrong and it all does go pear shape.

What would we have to lose by taking that approach?

A few thoughts in response.

I'd like to know what things would need to be voted on.

I can't see how you could possibly enforce a mandatory voting system. How could that possibly work on an anonymous internet forum? Even if it were enforceable it's a bit Big Brother. I don't want to be forced to have to vote on things I don't care about on a footy fan forum or else.......And if it's not mandatory then you'd end up with a U.S style system where the people who are more politically or ideologically driven end with a lot more say in how things run.

How could you police a voting system so that people don't go down the track of multiple nics and multiple votes? It would be easy, if I felt so inclined, for me to register four different nics at the four different internet points I regularly have access to. Each one has a different IP address. No-one could possibly know except for my posting style but it would be impossible to prove. And that's without doing any fancy technical stuff like setting up a proxy IP address or the like.

Factions would emerge much more strongly because control of the forum would be at stake. At the moment, the ownership and admin structure doesn't allow for posters, based on who they like and don't like, to form alliances that actually have any genuine power to change the way the forum is structured. People like yourself and others have dissenting views and are able to air them, but ultimately the site owner and the administrator/s he appoints are in control of what happens.

It would depend on what was to be voted on, but I foresee posters who have an interest in wielding a bit of power or who are more ideologically driven gaining a lot more say in how the forum runs. And cliques and favouritism emerging much more strongly in a pretty short time. Personally I think that a clear majority of posters are satisfied with things the way they are. If not, why aren't we hearing a lot more complaints? Especially when there's been ample threads inviting suggestions and feedback in the past few months.

Bottom line for me is I can't really see the point. I think the forum is moving in the right direction. It's way better than it used to be. So long as we keep a balance with not being too nanny state with the rules and keep a sense of humour about it.
It would be better if the owner were more active in updating the site format, but apart from that I like it the way it is. Not to say I'm not open to change, but not just for the sake of an ideology or change for change's sake. Anything to make it more interactive and attractive to more members is worth exploring. Otherwise I reckon it's on a good footing as it is now and see no need for voting and the like.

A bit of history. BFUSA and the people first clashed not long after he asked the forum if the people would like him to represent them. BFUSA ruffled feathers when he made it sound very much like he was a man of the people however it was not long after he was given the honour of representing the people that we were told that he now represented the owner of SS and was only carrying out his wishes. Now up to that point we had not heard from the owner for a very, very long time and in actual fact when the website needed saving financially it was the people that came to the rescue. Before long we were then being told about changes to the website that had not even been adequately consulted with the people and at that point the owner was not even aware of the proposed changes. This was well outside the mandate that had been granted by the people and when challenged there were all sorts of controversies including the people being told that even though they had contributed financially, their amounts given were not sufficient enough for their voice to be listened to and that they were only "gifts". Then we had the "majority rules" system offered up as a piece offering however it has always been unclear how this system works as it appeared to lack transparency and objectivity. The people became concerned that they were headed back to unfortunate period in their history that was controlled my an "orange" dictator. They remain cautious and look on with concern.

Ok so you argue that a voting system can't be compulsory and it can't be a voluntary. Just out of curiosity are are you pro dictatorship communism.

If you are pro dictatorship or communism then your question about what would we voted on or you claim that voting would be biased towards factions or cliques makes complete sense.

Also I'm not sure I follow your argument about perceived problems with an anonymous voting system because as far as I know most voting systems for voting on governments are anonymous.

In any case I am not proposing an anonymous system. I think any voting system for a website like SS should be completely transparent and community focused.

Why wouldn't a voting system work that had a committee of long time posters that worked under the 7 man board proposed by BFUSA?

[plugger66]

Ironically you are part of the BFUSA led faction, cliques and lobby with members including Kosifantutti and Buckets and the silent majority. What are you really afraid of Byron.

I don't think that there is any disagreement that a voting system would need to be well thought out.

I don't see one logical element to any of your argument or claims and I ask the following questions which are in direct response to your claims:

What additional problems could be caused by having a viable voting system.?

What logistical issues could there be by having a viable system?

What political issues could be a problem other than there being factions. Factions can work for the common good. Faction is not a dirty word. Are you and your beliefs the only one allowed to be part of a faction?

Why would a voting system need to be voluntary? Why wouldn't a compulsory voting system work. Why does it need to be enforced? (Caution answering these ones Byron, I have a reasonably considered idea about how a voting system works because I'm open to the idea).

How can a viable voting system create accusations of bias? Is that how it works with our Australian system of voting in a government or any other voting system. Remembering we currently work under BFUSA's "majority rules" system.

What does being anonymous have to do with having a viable voting system if we can implement a system that has adequate integrity.

You claim the current system is not perfect which I assume you are referring to BFUSA's "majority rules" system, if so what are it's good points and benefits?

Byron I ask this with the greatest of respect, but would it be possible for you to cast aside your strong beliefs against a voting system for the time-being and just focus on the technical side of a discussion and about how we could have a viable voting system. I'd like to see us open up the discussion to try and encourage suggestions, ideas and the offering of possible existing know-how on how we might achieve a voting system.

And if we do manage to come up with something that looks viable then as a safety net we could possibly just implement the system on a trial basis just in the event we did get it horribly wrong and it all does go pear shape.

What would we have to lose by taking that approach?

A few thoughts in response.

I'd like to know what things would need to be voted on.

I can't see how you could possibly enforce a mandatory voting system. How could that possibly work on an anonymous internet forum? Even if it were enforceable it's a bit Big Brother. I don't want to be forced to have to vote on things I don't care about on a footy fan forum or else.......And if it's not mandatory then you'd end up with a U.S style system where the people who are more politically or ideologically driven end with a lot more say in how things run.

How could you police a voting system so that people don't go down the track of multiple nics and multiple votes? It would be easy, if I felt so inclined, for me to register four different nics at the four different internet points I regularly have access to. Each one has a different IP address. No-one could possibly know except for my posting style but it would be impossible to prove. And that's without doing any fancy technical stuff like setting up a proxy IP address or the like.

Factions would emerge much more strongly because control of the forum would be at stake. At the moment, the ownership and admin structure doesn't allow for posters, based on who they like and don't like, to form alliances that actually have any genuine power to change the way the forum is structured. People like yourself and others have dissenting views and are able to air them, but ultimately the site owner and the administrator/s he appoints are in control of what happens.

It would depend on what was to be voted on, but I foresee posters who have an interest in wielding a bit of power or who are more ideologically driven gaining a lot more say in how the forum runs. And cliques and favouritism emerging much more strongly in a pretty short time. Personally I think that a clear majority of posters are satisfied with things the way they are. If not, why aren't we hearing a lot more complaints? Especially when there's been ample threads inviting suggestions and feedback in the past few months.

Bottom line for me is I can't really see the point. I think the forum is moving in the right direction. It's way better than it used to be. So long as we keep a balance with not being too nanny state with the rules and keep a sense of humour about it.
It would be better if the owner were more active in updating the site format, but apart from that I like it the way it is. Not to say I'm not open to change, but not just for the sake of an ideology or change for change's sake. Anything to make it more interactive and attractive to more members is worth exploring. Otherwise I reckon it's on a good footing as it is now and see no need for voting and the like.

A bit of history. BFUSA and the people first clashed not long after he asked the forum if the people would like him to represent them. BFUSA ruffled feathers when he made it sound very much like he was a man of the people however it was not long after he was given the honour of representing the people that we were told that he now represented the owner of SS and was only carrying out his wishes. Now up to that point we had not heard from the owner for a very, very long time and in actual fact when the website needed saving financially it was the people that came to the rescue. Before long we were then being told about changes to the website that had not even been adequately consulted with the people and at that point the owner was not even aware of the proposed changes. This was well outside the mandate that had been granted by the people and when challenged there were all sorts of controversies including the people being told that even though they had contributed financially, their amounts given were not sufficient enough for their voice to be listened to and that they were only "gifts". Then we had the "majority rules" system offered up as a piece offering however it has always been unclear how this system works as it appeared to lack transparency and objectivity. The people became concerned that they were headed back to unfortunate period in their history that was controlled my an "orange" dictator. They remain cautious and look on with concern.

Ok so you argue that a voting system can't be compulsory and it can't be a voluntary. Just out of curiosity are are you pro dictatorship communism.

If you are pro dictatorship or communism then your question about what would we voted on or you claim that voting would be biased towards factions or cliques makes complete sense.

Also I'm not sure I follow your argument about perceived problems with an anonymous voting system because as far as I know most voting systems for voting on governments are anonymous.

In any case I am not proposing an anonymous system. I think any voting system for a website like SS should be completely transparent and community focused.

Why wouldn't a voting system work that had a committee of long time posters that worked under the 7 man board proposed by BFUSA?

CM you keep going on about a voting system but can you tell me and im sure others as well what are these things you actually want voted on. I would really appreciate that.

[stinger]

Ironically you are part of the BFUSA led faction, cliques and lobby with members including Kosifantutti and Buckets and the silent majority. What are you really afraid of Byron. I don't see one logical element to any of your argument.

Cairnsman, I haven't read all your post. Only the above line. I'll read the rest of it, but I want to immediately say that when I read the above, I just shake my head and say out loud,
"Oh FFS".

Part of a faction?????
Only because you seek to put me there. I have no interest in factions or political manouvering in the interests of power. Honestly CM, when you say stuff like,
"What are really afraid of Byron", I just laugh out loud at how wildly off the mark you are. Seriously, you have zero idea of where I'm coming from if you really think that.

It's really simple. The forum used to be a place where abusiveness and 'playing the man' held sway. Threads would over and over again be dominated by posters abusing one another and descending into slanging matches. I drifted away a bit because of that crap. Since the implementation of new rules, it's heaps better, and it seems, going by the new names I see in different threads and without knowing the actual figures, that there are new posters beginning to regularly post and some older ones coming back.

So that's a good thing.

I put my hand up to be a mod to support that. I agree with P66 that warnings and policing of the rules should be guided by common sense rather than rigid adherence. That's always going to generate some dissent because people have different ideas of what's common sense. Most importantly there needs to be consistent application of the rules rather than a totally 'by the book approach', along with a healthy dollop of tolerance and compassion. And there are going to be times where mods get it wrong or differ in interpretation. Mods are humans and they're volunteers. If it turns out that it's better for the forum for me not to be a mod, that's fine by me. So long as the abusiveness and nasty personal attacks don't return as the dominant way of posting then I can continue to enjoy the forum.
I enjoy being a part of SS and will continue to be whether I'm a mod or not.

If I'm afraid of anything it's the forum turning back into a s*** fight dominated by political and factional infighting and I reckon the system you're proposing is highly likely to lead exactly in that direction.

well said....it ain't broke either...so imho doesn't need fixing...voting system?...wtf is there to vote on...????

[Cairnsman]

Ironically you are part of the BFUSA led faction, cliques and lobby with members including Kosifantutti and Buckets and the silent majority. What are you really afraid of Byron.

I don't think that there is any disagreement that a voting system would need to be well thought out.

I don't see one logical element to any of your argument or claims and I ask the following questions which are in direct response to your claims:

What additional problems could be caused by having a viable voting system.?

What logistical issues could there be by having a viable system?

What political issues could be a problem other than there being factions. Factions can work for the common good. Faction is not a dirty word. Are you and your beliefs the only one allowed to be part of a faction?

Why would a voting system need to be voluntary? Why wouldn't a compulsory voting system work. Why does it need to be enforced? (Caution answering these ones Byron, I have a reasonably considered idea about how a voting system works because I'm open to the idea).

How can a viable voting system create accusations of bias? Is that how it works with our Australian system of voting in a government or any other voting system. Remembering we currently work under BFUSA's "majority rules" system.

What does being anonymous have to do with having a viable voting system if we can implement a system that has adequate integrity.

You claim the current system is not perfect which I assume you are referring to BFUSA's "majority rules" system, if so what are it's good points and benefits?

Byron I ask this with the greatest of respect, but would it be possible for you to cast aside your strong beliefs against a voting system for the time-being and just focus on the technical side of a discussion and about how we could have a viable voting system. I'd like to see us open up the discussion to try and encourage suggestions, ideas and the offering of possible existing know-how on how we might achieve a voting system.

And if we do manage to come up with something that looks viable then as a safety net we could possibly just implement the system on a trial basis just in the event we did get it horribly wrong and it all does go pear shape.

What would we have to lose by taking that approach?

A few thoughts in response.

I'd like to know what things would need to be voted on.

I can't see how you could possibly enforce a mandatory voting system. How could that possibly work on an anonymous internet forum? Even if it were enforceable it's a bit Big Brother. I don't want to be forced to have to vote on things I don't care about on a footy fan forum or else.......And if it's not mandatory then you'd end up with a U.S style system where the people who are more politically or ideologically driven end with a lot more say in how things run.

How could you police a voting system so that people don't go down the track of multiple nics and multiple votes? It would be easy, if I felt so inclined, for me to register four different nics at the four different internet points I regularly have access to. Each one has a different IP address. No-one could possibly know except for my posting style but it would be impossible to prove. And that's without doing any fancy technical stuff like setting up a proxy IP address or the like.

Factions would emerge much more strongly because control of the forum would be at stake. At the moment, the ownership and admin structure doesn't allow for posters, based on who they like and don't like, to form alliances that actually have any genuine power to change the way the forum is structured. People like yourself and others have dissenting views and are able to air them, but ultimately the site owner and the administrator/s he appoints are in control of what happens.

It would depend on what was to be voted on, but I foresee posters who have an interest in wielding a bit of power or who are more ideologically driven gaining a lot more say in how the forum runs. And cliques and favouritism emerging much more strongly in a pretty short time. Personally I think that a clear majority of posters are satisfied with things the way they are. If not, why aren't we hearing a lot more complaints? Especially when there's been ample threads inviting suggestions and feedback in the past few months.

Bottom line for me is I can't really see the point. I think the forum is moving in the right direction. It's way better than it used to be. So long as we keep a balance with not being too nanny state with the rules and keep a sense of humour about it.
It would be better if the owner were more active in updating the site format, but apart from that I like it the way it is. Not to say I'm not open to change, but not just for the sake of an ideology or change for change's sake. Anything to make it more interactive and attractive to more members is worth exploring. Otherwise I reckon it's on a good footing as it is now and see no need for voting and the like.

A bit of history. BFUSA and the people first clashed not long after he asked the forum if the people would like him to represent them. BFUSA ruffled feathers when he made it sound very much like he was a man of the people however it was not long after he was given the honour of representing the people that we were told that he now represented the owner of SS and was only carrying out his wishes. Now up to that point we had not heard from the owner for a very, very long time and in actual fact when the website needed saving financially it was the people that came to the rescue. Before long we were then being told about changes to the website that had not even been adequately consulted with the people and at that point the owner was not even aware of the proposed changes. This was well outside the mandate that had been granted by the people and when challenged there were all sorts of controversies including the people being told that even though they had contributed financially, their amounts given were not sufficient enough for their voice to be listened to and that they were only "gifts". Then we had the "majority rules" system offered up as a piece offering however it has always been unclear how this system works as it appeared to lack transparency and objectivity. The people became concerned that they were headed back to unfortunate period in their history that was controlled my an "orange" dictator. They remain cautious and look on with concern.

Ok so you argue that a voting system can't be compulsory and it can't be a voluntary. Just out of curiosity are are you pro dictatorship communism.

If you are pro dictatorship or communism then your question about what would we voted on or you claim that voting would be biased towards factions or cliques makes complete sense.

Also I'm not sure I follow your argument about perceived problems with an anonymous voting system because as far as I know most voting systems for voting on governments are anonymous.

In any case I am not proposing an anonymous system. I think any voting system for a website like SS should be completely transparent and community focused.

Why wouldn't a voting system work that had a committee of long time posters that worked under the 7 man board proposed by BFUSA?

CM you keep going on about a voting system but can you tell me and im sure others as well what are these things you actually want voted on. I would really appreciate that.

Some things that may be voted on might be:

proposed rule changes
proposed website modifications
proposed software changes/modifications

[plugger66]

Ironically you are part of the BFUSA led faction, cliques and lobby with members including Kosifantutti and Buckets and the silent majority. What are you really afraid of Byron.

I don't think that there is any disagreement that a voting system would need to be well thought out.

I don't see one logical element to any of your argument or claims and I ask the following questions which are in direct response to your claims:

What additional problems could be caused by having a viable voting system.?

What logistical issues could there be by having a viable system?

What political issues could be a problem other than there being factions. Factions can work for the common good. Faction is not a dirty word. Are you and your beliefs the only one allowed to be part of a faction?

Why would a voting system need to be voluntary? Why wouldn't a compulsory voting system work. Why does it need to be enforced? (Caution answering these ones Byron, I have a reasonably considered idea about how a voting system works because I'm open to the idea).

How can a viable voting system create accusations of bias? Is that how it works with our Australian system of voting in a government or any other voting system. Remembering we currently work under BFUSA's "majority rules" system.

What does being anonymous have to do with having a viable voting system if we can implement a system that has adequate integrity.

You claim the current system is not perfect which I assume you are referring to BFUSA's "majority rules" system, if so what are it's good points and benefits?

Byron I ask this with the greatest of respect, but would it be possible for you to cast aside your strong beliefs against a voting system for the time-being and just focus on the technical side of a discussion and about how we could have a viable voting system. I'd like to see us open up the discussion to try and encourage suggestions, ideas and the offering of possible existing know-how on how we might achieve a voting system.

And if we do manage to come up with something that looks viable then as a safety net we could possibly just implement the system on a trial basis just in the event we did get it horribly wrong and it all does go pear shape.

What would we have to lose by taking that approach?

A few thoughts in response.

I'd like to know what things would need to be voted on.

I can't see how you could possibly enforce a mandatory voting system. How could that possibly work on an anonymous internet forum? Even if it were enforceable it's a bit Big Brother. I don't want to be forced to have to vote on things I don't care about on a footy fan forum or else.......And if it's not mandatory then you'd end up with a U.S style system where the people who are more politically or ideologically driven end with a lot more say in how things run.

How could you police a voting system so that people don't go down the track of multiple nics and multiple votes? It would be easy, if I felt so inclined, for me to register four different nics at the four different internet points I regularly have access to. Each one has a different IP address. No-one could possibly know except for my posting style but it would be impossible to prove. And that's without doing any fancy technical stuff like setting up a proxy IP address or the like.

Factions would emerge much more strongly because control of the forum would be at stake. At the moment, the ownership and admin structure doesn't allow for posters, based on who they like and don't like, to form alliances that actually have any genuine power to change the way the forum is structured. People like yourself and others have dissenting views and are able to air them, but ultimately the site owner and the administrator/s he appoints are in control of what happens.

It would depend on what was to be voted on, but I foresee posters who have an interest in wielding a bit of power or who are more ideologically driven gaining a lot more say in how the forum runs. And cliques and favouritism emerging much more strongly in a pretty short time. Personally I think that a clear majority of posters are satisfied with things the way they are. If not, why aren't we hearing a lot more complaints? Especially when there's been ample threads inviting suggestions and feedback in the past few months.

Bottom line for me is I can't really see the point. I think the forum is moving in the right direction. It's way better than it used to be. So long as we keep a balance with not being too nanny state with the rules and keep a sense of humour about it.
It would be better if the owner were more active in updating the site format, but apart from that I like it the way it is. Not to say I'm not open to change, but not just for the sake of an ideology or change for change's sake. Anything to make it more interactive and attractive to more members is worth exploring. Otherwise I reckon it's on a good footing as it is now and see no need for voting and the like.

A bit of history. BFUSA and the people first clashed not long after he asked the forum if the people would like him to represent them. BFUSA ruffled feathers when he made it sound very much like he was a man of the people however it was not long after he was given the honour of representing the people that we were told that he now represented the owner of SS and was only carrying out his wishes. Now up to that point we had not heard from the owner for a very, very long time and in actual fact when the website needed saving financially it was the people that came to the rescue. Before long we were then being told about changes to the website that had not even been adequately consulted with the people and at that point the owner was not even aware of the proposed changes. This was well outside the mandate that had been granted by the people and when challenged there were all sorts of controversies including the people being told that even though they had contributed financially, their amounts given were not sufficient enough for their voice to be listened to and that they were only "gifts". Then we had the "majority rules" system offered up as a piece offering however it has always been unclear how this system works as it appeared to lack transparency and objectivity. The people became concerned that they were headed back to unfortunate period in their history that was controlled my an "orange" dictator. They remain cautious and look on with concern.

Ok so you argue that a voting system can't be compulsory and it can't be a voluntary. Just out of curiosity are are you pro dictatorship communism.

If you are pro dictatorship or communism then your question about what would we voted on or you claim that voting would be biased towards factions or cliques makes complete sense.

Also I'm not sure I follow your argument about perceived problems with an anonymous voting system because as far as I know most voting systems for voting on governments are anonymous.

In any case I am not proposing an anonymous system. I think any voting system for a website like SS should be completely transparent and community focused.

Why wouldn't a voting system work that had a committee of long time posters that worked under the 7 man board proposed by BFUSA?

CM you keep going on about a voting system but can you tell me and im sure others as well what are these things you actually want voted on. I would really appreciate that.

Some things that may be voted on might be:

proposed rule changes
proposed website modifications
proposed software changes/modifications

So you want us to vote on things like website modifications even if the site is not able to do modifications. Surely that isnt a vote thing. We just try and improve the site to what it is capable of being improved too. I also vote on rule changes. That would be like the public doing the same in the AFL. I actually wouldnt vote on anything apart from a vote to not vote. I choose to be on this site but if was annoying as you seem to find it I would be out of here. Im pretty sure I dont pay anything to be on this site so this site owes me nothing.