Posts by Miwojedk

@wild1145#5448 I’m now certain you’re being dense on purpose now when you say things like “there is nothing constructive about this”. My thread is literally a proposal to what I see as a problem. Why is it so hard to fathom that I am not saying YOU personally are corrupt. I have made it so demonstrably clear that I am talking in generals: YOUR changes enables potential cronyism. Quit the BS and find me a quote from you that demonstrates how I, or any others, are “actively trying to undermine” your decisions; other quotes on how I, or any others, have twisted your words ONCE; evidence of said personal attacks which make you so upset; something that supports your thesis that the community will non-chalantly commit to a vote-off on a whim, when this has happened a grand total of zero times thus far.

I have asked for evidence of this before, and looking at your constant dodges clearly showcases to me that you’re really just talking out of your rear. You continue to dismiss everything I, or anybody has said in relation to this topic, as personal attacks, and it’s frankly sad to see that you have to resort to these fallacious tactics instead of actually adressing any of my points.

The ownership policy was enacted when Windows left, - and - in part when Seth got upset, which resulted in 20 Admins instating you as – server owner -. If the community widely wishes for changes, and you won’t deliver, what do you think that will end up with?

Quote

It's also important to note that having executives where there are generally very few of them, to be able to control the potential flood gates proved to be exceptionally valuable to the process

I agree. Quit with the cronyistique policy, and have a community vote on executives instead of the owner.

Quote

I've already flexed on my original position. The community doesn't run this server, I do. If the community doesn't like that, then at this point maybe the community should be finding other servers to play on, rather than moan that they have no power, because at the end of the day this isn't a democracy.

Good to know that you don’t value community feedback nor community engagement. I’m not asking you to run the server as a democracy: I want you to not enact changes that blatantly enables corruption and to not change policies enacted by the community without a community vote.

Quote

I don't think it's wrong to care about the server, or my position on it, especially when I'm the one funding it, and putting considerable amounts of my time into maintaining it and trying to grow it.

Have I implied otherwise? Feel free to quote me.

@GeekGuy432#5440 My main grievance with the "new" ownership policy is the fact that it enables cronyism. I'm not saying either of my proposals are perfect, but I would prefer both to what we have now.

Vouch.

@redeastwood#5441 in what manner?

@wild1145#5438 It’s frankly quite sad if you actually take these threads so close to heart that you think we’re insulting you. I choose to believe that you don’t, and that you’re simply obfuscating. Feel free to tell me otherwise, but so far I, nor anybody else, have attacked you, nor intended to “insult” or “accuse” you of anything. Saying “this is a blatant corruption issue that should be amended.” is in noway an insult, and the only way you could see it is if you purposefully misconstrue it as such. What I have made clear in the last thread and this one is summarized here:

Quote

I don’t think it’s a good idea to have the server owner appoint executives when those same executives are the ones who decide whether a vote-off is to be held or not
And if you claim this see as a personal attack, then you're being obtuse on purpose.I don't why you being voted in by our staff (by a margin of 20 votes) should bar me critizing a solitary change you've made. I never claimed you "weren't good enough to do the job", and again, you're being deliberatively obtuse and it's honestly pathetic.

Just because you’re not here doesn’t negate the fact that plenty of people have already made clear that they’d be willing to take up the mantle as owner of the server. I don’t get why you think it’s a valid concern (or point therof) that the owner (not you specifically, I can’t believe I have to make this so clear), would “run with the money to the Bahamas. So yes, this is actually something that would be a nessecity in the future. And no, neither of these proposals would trigger any “drama”, and I can simply point to the past use of the ownership policy.

“Executives will continue to be put in to place by me, and that's not negotiable.”
And another thing that is dissapointing is that you admit that you’d simply stick two fingers in each ear if the community has a legit concern instead of trying to mitigate this concern.

" it's a really shit place to be, and shows how a lot of the server don't really care about anyone but themselves."

Then perhaps you're not fit to be owner if this is how you're going to take any constructive criticism in this manner. I don't understand how this thread, nor any of my other concerns in other instances display me as being full of myself? I've criticized every past owner, some more than others, but it's all come from me wanting a better server?

@wild1145#5434 I didn't accuse you personally of being corrupt. Stop taking things personally when they're not. At this point it's just obfuscating.
We've had two instances where we've had to enact the ownership policy, so of course it needs to be perfect.

Title is just clickbait.
For starters, I would appreciate if you would read the following two threads for background:
https://forum.totalfreedom.me/…appointed-by-the-owner/19
https://forum.totalfreedom.me/…es-from-owner-vote-off/13

Since the original thread by RedEastWood was withdrawn I wanted to create this thread to keep the discussion going.
Simply put, I don’t think it’s a good idea to have the server owner appoint executives when those same executives are the ones who decide whether a vote-off is to be held or not. Thus, this is a blatant corruption issue that should be amended.

I have two proposals that both will mitigate this problem:

1) Have executives appointed by the general community, Admin community, a council or another person OTHER than the owner to prevent this possible cronyism. This doesn't mean we have to revert to the old system we had in place previously, but that is also an option.

2) Remove the need for executives to decide whether or not to have a vote for the owner’s removal. Thus, if people (Or simply Admin(s)) wish to stage a vote-off they could.

I didn’t agree with the premise of the thread, but I saw it as a better alternative than having the owner-appointed executives decide whether or not to remove the owner, who might’ve instated them.

@square#5415 Every reason you give is invalid like yourself.

@square#5413 What's a valid reason?

@Ashaz#5410 What's this you've said to me, my good friend? Ill have you know I graduated top of my class in conflict resolution, and Ive been involved in numerous friendly discussions, and I have over 300 confirmed friends. I am trained in polite discussions and I'm the top mediator in the entire neighborhood. You are worth more to me than just another target. I hope we will come to have a friendship never before seen on this Earth. Don't you think you might be hurting someone's feelings saying that over the internet? Think about it, my friend. As we speak I am contacting my good friends across the USA and your P.O. box is being traced right now so you better prepare for the greeting cards, friend. The greeting cards that help you with your hate. You should look forward to it, friend. I can be anywhere, anytime for you, and I can calm you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my chess set. Not only am I extensively trained in conflict resolution, but I have access to the entire group of my friends and I will use them to their full extent to start our new friendship. If only you could have known what kindness and love your little comment was about to bring you, maybe you would have reached out sooner. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now we get to start a new friendship, you unique person. I will give you gifts and you might have a hard time keeping up. You're finally living, friend.

@wild1145#5330 You keep going in circles. I never agreed to “live” with any of your proposals in regards to the ownership policy and executives. There was literally a call-out thread where not a single comment was for your enacted changes. zekurt said it best,

Quote

Changes that were implemented through a vote by the community should in turn be removed via a vote. If you're able to present plausible merit for removing it, the community vote will reflect that.

Again, the reason why I am against your changes is because it foster a crony enviroment wherein the owner now appoints the executives, whom are the ones who are going to decide whether or not to impeach (xd) the owner. Good luck to the server if they want a new owner, but the executives don’t, because they are loyal to said owner. Saying that you think it’s strange that the community now all of a sudden are against a policy, because it’s you who enacted/reversed it is silly. For a third time: you can change your mind. I don’t know which policies you are referring to then you say you “reversed” this change, but that doesn’t matter, because I am still against this policy.
There is nothing in this thread that you can point to that even hints at anything being meant as a personal attack against you, which is also why you just keep going in circles saying shit like

Quote

but at the end of the day it really is and people either need to own that fact, or they're just kidding themselves..
I take it personally because quite frankly, this entire thread is. The sooner people realise that the better…

Which is why I’ve pointed this out already on the thread. I already told you why I am against the change you’ve made, which is I why I see it as unfair and disingenuine to simply dismiss my argument to an insult. There is no reason to take these suggestions so personally, when all they aim for is for the betterment of TF.
I’ve outlined my reason for supporting this proposal in my first comment above:

Quote

Effectively, the executives (whom are now appointed by the owner), have to unanimously vote for an impeachment before the actual voting for removal can occur for Admins - meaning that the owner can appoint executives who won't go against the owner out of that reason.

But I also gave three (better) alternatives to this proposal, whom you seemingly continue to ignore. And even if this suggestion was to have community support (seems like it’s 50/50 atm) and were to be implemented that certainly doesn’t entail that every Admin will make a vote-off thread for you everytime you make a some-what controversial decision. The only times a discussion for a vote-off thread has come up was due to blatant abuse or lack of commitment from the server owner, so to somehow argue that this suggestion is a slippery slope is honestly laughable.
If you don’t believe in your Admin team, then why do you have it?

What if one day you woke up and your nipples were completely gone like no scars or anything, just flat skin and then once you leave your room you find out your dad died last night and then several days later, you find out that for your entire life your dad had been sneaking into your room while you slept and sucking on your chest to make to gigantic hickeys where your nipples should be because you were born without them not for any sexual reason, just so you would fit in
god bless you dad

Plz go

"Because it spams my cmdspy" is a shit reason. I think we should value 'freedom' above a small inconvenience for Admins. Name is "Total Freedom" afterall.

I would understand if the commands are actually somehow lagging the server, but if it's just because they like using //set 0 or some shit, then I don't see any point in banning that. If going by this logic, then I should have been sanctioned a multitude of a times as well.

Why would anybody ever intentionally spam a "useless" command like /ping? The only reason I can come up with is text-book Reactance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology) , which would mean that simply banning this behaviour would just cause more of it to happen. Telling people that it's not allowed to spam commands would have the exact opposite of the intended effect.

Vouch.

@wild1145#5280

Quote

3) Not anymore. Once you have an account the only reason it would be deleted is in line with data protection regulations.

It shouldn't be that hard to implement. Simply giving a newly-created forum account a trial period of 15 days or 2 months of some sort of set amount of activity would completely fix this "potential" problem (which I realistically don't see as a problem).

And I agree, this very much requires some thought, but I can't really see any downsides to my third suggestion that can't easily be amended. I think we once again should value liberty, in this case meaning that all players should be able to vote on changes that affects their experience on the server.

@Darth#5286 You said that you could make an “arguable case that he is the worst President the US has ever had”. That doesn’t mean there is a “potential” to make a case, you said that you could make a compelling case for him being the worst President in history, which I disputed by noting that there are so many others far worse than Trump by example: Bush.
Arguments pertaining to morality and “showing what he’s willing to do” are completely frivolous. I would think the trail of tears, slavery, Japanese internment, Jim Crow or death of over half a million civilians warrants a bit higher recognition than “Trump makes US look bad”. Sorry, but to even imply that there is a compelling case is silly in my estimation. By a plain-text reading of your comment, it sounds like you value the life of five Americans over the lives of more than half a million Iraqis when you say the following in the context of why one might argue why Trump is the most shit President.

Quote

[…] the attack on Congress, which he inspired resulted in the death of five people, four of which were his own supporters, and the other being a police officer defending the site

Bush is a war-criminal, Obama is a war-criminal and Trump is a war-criminal. Trump is not worse than Bush, and there certainly isn’t a compelling case for him being the worst President in the history of the US.
The argument made was that Hussein was harbour WMD and he was going to use them on the US, not because 9/11 happened. It was a factor, yes, but not the sole reason for entering Iraq. Iraq is such a shit show than I highly doubt can be replicated in the same manner in today’s US (I could be wrong), but it’s a false notion to imply that Trump would somehow get clearance to stage a ground invasion of Iran, and that he would create an equal shitshow as Bush. Iraq is such a unique asshole that it would be disingenuine to simplify either of the mentioned things to this degree.

Quote

He absolutely fucking mutilated our COVID response, by urging people NOT to wear masks, and not to socially distance. He also demonstrated that he is completely clueless in regards to the pandemic despite having some very intelligent advisors, such as suggesting that cleaning chemicals be used inside the body to kill the virus. Advertising the use of an untested/unproven drug to treat COVID, when there was no evidence it helped, shows that he doesn't mind his own citizens dying/suffering as a result of taking drugs improperly. Thousands of lives could have been saved if he was competent.

I agree. What’s your point?

Quote

@wild1145#5285 because the entire argument so far is "Wild could appoint someone to stop him getting removed" which is exactly the way the original policy was introduced and such is a moot point to argue my recent change changes anything in any real way... If I really wanted I could circumvent whatever you do here, or simply decline this suggestion... I'm challenging what I believe to be a weak argument that has no real basis

No it's not a moot point wtf. You are not challenging anything we say by making a fallacious argument essentially saying that it's silly for us to now suddenly wish for certain changes.
If policies were shit before, then they are still shit.

To somehow misconstrue this into being meant as some sort of personal insult or grudge against you is ridiculous. Again, I am in complete agreement with OP in the current context. However, I also see some better alternatives, which is why I listed them in my comment above. We arent arguing your recent "changes" change anything (wtf does that even mean?). If we want a policy amended, then we want it amended. Period.

@wild1145#5284 i think you are the one not understanding. I am in full agreement with OPs proposal if no other changes were to be made. Its not an "excuse" to raise the fact that there is always a possibility for an owner to go rogue, and thus to dismiss this and tell people to "own it" is ludicrous. You are taking this personally when its not.

@wild1145#5275

Quote

@wild1145#5275 and let me remind you all that at the time the ownership policy was written executives were appointed and not voted... This is no change different now to its original inception.

I dont see why this is even worth mentioning. "We cant make changes to new policy because it was already shit before" is not an argument.

@wild1145#5277 No? Its definitely a valid concern considering we also trusted Seth to not go rogue. We certainly have credible reasons to be wary and to dismiss these arguments as nothing but personal quarrels with you is absurd.