Public hearing for case 009: Off-topic discussion in ELECTION-thread

[Gilgamensch]

OK, DoT:

first thanks for the good reply (better then some other stuff I've seen).

But also a 'said' point, where are your 'facts'. I quoted every passus about what restricts it. You just take my arguments build around it appart. And by the way English isn't my mothertongue either.

OK, let's leave beside the semantic-stuff (non-thread-related=off topic or not).

The reason why I included spamming I am not sure if some people were noy just doing this.

For you reply to my points:

1.) see above
2.) Which rules did they follow? The thing is somebody (actually 2 persons) followed the rules, filed a case, based on our rules. I presented 'facts' proving they are right. And the only thing (till before) I heard was: NO THAT'S not true you are violating Article 1. That is rubbish..........

For Locutus quote: I said for this/similar. But again, that is not the point here. We agreed to 'live' according to our rules. We 'empoured' a court to overlook possible problems.
Now people don't like something and they just want to ignore the rules, they agreed upon.

Then I can only say:

Long live Anarchy

[mapfi]

Our constitution is a written document and as any written text is therefore open to interpretation. This is the court's work to do. Interpretation is however something that has to be done carefully. This is why we have a public hearing, to see if the public agrees on some sort of interpretation and if it doesn't, then always the less invasive solution should be taken. For me, freedom of speech is something very important on this forum. So it may be the case, that the election was disturbed in a inappropriate way, nevertheless since it didn't violate ACS rules it should stay the way it is.
The rules we all agreed on are the forum rules ehich are overseen by ACS staff and our con which is handled by our court. What you are proposoing Ralf, is that the court takes power to rule over ACS rules too and make it's an interpretation of the constitution that is highly questionable. I call that power-hungry dictatorship if you call the opposite anarchy.

[Gilgamensch]

OK, now I gonna say it in another way:

The whole thing started out of people not reading the connie or not understanding it. And now they are trying to defend themselve with the ACS-rules even as they agreed onto our DG-rules. (to be precise, not all of them.....)

Yes, great.........when you don't like it, run back to your big brother and hope he'll defend you..........

Plus I haven't seen any 'proper' argumentation from the people not agreeing with it. Only the reference to the ACS and even their I brought up other 'links'.

[mapfi]

The first one to say I'd have done the nomination differently was me and I certainly know the con, I just interpret it different then you. But the question here is whether the discussion in the thread violates our constitution. I'm convinced it doesn't. Neither was the discussion completely off-topic, nor would the court have the power to even rule over such a matter.

Quite frankly, I find it disgusting the way your turning the discussion now. Because your arguements don't stick your trying to defame people here and in the other thread. That's unworthy of a judge.
I've made my opinion clear, this is the last word you'll hear from me on this matter.

[Gilgamensch]

And again the same blabla............

No proof or whatsoever.

I am bringing in proof and what do I receive, nothing in return, just empty words..........

And on top of it, those claim I am turning the discussion into something.........

Interresting point of view...........

[Devil of Truth]

Mapfi I doubt anybody could say it better.

I’d really love to stay and debate this until the end of time; but it’s damn near impossible to defend a case when the court has already ruled against you… besides Copacabana beckons.

Thanks Gilg and MrB for a good debate.

Long live freedom of speech!

[Gilgamensch]

And again a good post.

And by the way, where has the court already decided?

All what we need................

[H Tower]

Hmm, the thing Gilg and DoT are really debating here is teh meaning of the phrase "Off-Topic."

I'd like to include my own thoughs upon this of course

I believe the topic of a thread is related to the topic of the thread, NOT the topic of the fourm. By this definition, the nomination banter is off topic, and should have been moved to another thread. While it is related to the election, it was innapropriate to debate a possible scandal while a candidate is trying to geta message across to the people. It would be like me debating witha good friend the finer points of ways to fund public schools on a state level and how property taxes keep the poor poor and the rich rich while sitting in a room where two US presidential candidates were debating school vouchers. We would have gotten our asses booted out of the room.

I find it a shame that two of the people I respect the most here have turned to petty insults

DoT: in the off topic forum very rarely do we discuss "the nasty, red, throbbing carbuncle on MrBaggins’ b*tt" Or anyone elses for that matter

Seeing as how several people are at extremes on this issue, and no one is going to be convinced, I want to get some feedback on a ruling I'm going to suggest in judges chambers. Do nothing. But for different reasons, this case rotted on the shelf for too long before being brought up, the thread in question should be languishing on page 6 now except for Dale bumping it yesterday. In the future however, such talk that is not imediately related to the election should not take place there. The irregular nomination deserved a thread of its own where people could fully spend their attention on it instead of trying to pay attention to election campaigns as well in the same thread.

Think of it as a code of conduct ruling for the future. Election threads are only for campaigning, debating the merits of each candidate and exressing support. Other threads, of course are still open for evolving into whatever they do.

[MrBaggins]

A decision Solomon would have been proud of, and my thoughts exactly, too.

The thread is irrelevent now... but the principal won't be in future.

MrBaggins

[H Tower]

btw, DoT, do you mind if I quote you in my sig?

"nasty, red, throbbing carbuncle on MrBaggins’ b*tt"

[Gilgamensch]

Actually H Tower,

I am kind of sorry about it, but hearing all the time the same useless stuff (more or less except DoT in the beginning) makes me tired.

On top of it:

A thought which went through my had last night:

If somebody of those would violate the ACS-rules, will they come to us and start arguing: We have been granted freedom of speech in our connie, now do something against that ACS has banned us!


Your point which you mentioned I was trying to debate all the time, but nothing came from 'the other side'.

Also another example (espacially for our American fellow's):

Their constitution is granted them the freedom to carry firearms/guns. But again in certain states/cities their are restricted from it. Have you ever seen anyone filing a case against, saying you are restricting our basic rights? Also, as far as I know, you are not allowed to carry automatic weapons.

But again, we will not see any proper debate/discussion about it.........

[Gilgamensch]

public hearing is closed.