We have a problem in the Wiki!

[woobadooba]

We agreed that those who have not been members prior to July 4th can not vote on the rules. We also did this with the understanding that they would likewise not be able to participate in making up the rules.

After all, it wouldn't make much sense to refuse to count their vote if they are allowed to participate in making up the rules.

Can we make it clear at this time to anyone that may be confused about this that the rule also forbids these people from participating in making up, or debating the rules?

EDIT: For some reason the poll question did not fully appear. Please note that the following question is the poll question:

Are those who are NOT allowed to vote on the rules allowed to participate in making up, or debating the rules?

 

[sentipente]

Is this your idea of curtailing discussion on matters that you find uncomfortable?

 

[woobadooba]

Is this your idea of curtailing discussion on matters that you find uncomfortable?

No.

 

[sentipente]

No.

Then as long as the forum is open anyone can discuss anything that is being discussed in open areas. You will notice that I have restricted my comments to areas that are truly problematic, like a rule that cannot be enforced.

 

[tall73]

Woobadooba, this poll is not in line with wiki guidelines.

We need a poll that closes in four days and that is PUBLIC so we can see if those voting are eligible.

Please ask that this one be closed and start a new one that meets those guidelines.

 

[woobadooba]

Woobadooba, this poll is not in line with wiki guidelines.

We need a poll that closes in four days and that is PUBLIC so we can see if those voting are eligible.

Please ask that this one be closed and start a new one that meets those guidelines.

We are not voting on a new rule here. I am just simply trying to get a general consensus on the idea of whether or not forum members generally have the understanding that this rule implies that people that can't vote also can't participate in making up the rules.

By the way, I asked you a question in the Wiki.

Please explain to me how you are being consistent in allowing
people that can't vote on the rules participate in making up, or debating rules.

 

[tall73]

Woob, you do need another vote. It doesn't matter how people understood it, you did not vote what you are saying in the poll.

If people didn't vote for it then we can't make that rule without another 4 day official vote.

 

[woobadooba]

Woob, you do need another vote. It doesn't matter how people understood it, you did not vote what you are saying in the poll.

If people didn't vote for it then we can't make that rule without another 4 day official vote.

There has to be a general understanding of what a rule means. Rules often have suppressed clauses, because it would be too exhaustive to define them as they apply to every circumstance, or context. This is where reason comes into play.

Having said that, I am going to ask you again, how is it consistent to not allow certain people to vote on a rule, but to allow them to participate in making that rule up?

It's a simple question that deserves an honest answer.

 

[tall73]

There has to be a general understanding of what a rule means. Rules often have suppressed clauses, because it would be too exhaustive to define them as they apply to every circumstance, or context. This is where reason comes into play.

Translation: If you want to know what it REALLY means ask woob.

No, if a rule is not stated it is not there.

Having said that, I am going to ask you again, how is it consistent to not allow certain people to vote on a rule, but to allow them to participate in making that rule up?

It's a simple question that deserves an honest answer.

I gave an honest answer in the place you asked it.

We need all the input we can get. Good ideas can come from anywhere. We just don't have to take their advice.

Now, the rule did not state what you want. You will just have to live with that or start a poll that can change it. This one cannot.

 

[woobadooba]

Translation: If you want to know what it REALLY means ask woob.

No, if a rule is not stated it is not there.



I gave an honest answer in the place you asked it.

We need all the input we can get. Good ideas can come from anywhere. We just don't have to take their advice.

You are being unreasonable.

 

[tall73]

You are being unreasonable.

No, I am just insisting that you follow only the rules you vote.

You may start a poll if you want a new rule.

 

[woobadooba]

No, I am just insisting that you follow only the rules you vote.

You may start a poll if you want a new rule.

No, you are being utterly unreasonable!

let's take the command though shalt not kill for example...

What does that mean?

Are we to take it at face value?

This is my point. You can't just take it at face value. If we did we would have to apply it to all forms of life, even microscopic organisms.

Again, rules have suppressed clauses that can only be drawn out through reason.

To say that those who can't vote on a rule can't participate in making up that rule, is just simply being logically consistent with the rule. To suggest that they can make up a rule that they can't vote on is absurd!

The bottom line here is that we need to be logically consistent with our own rules, or get rid of them altogether.

Please, be reasonable!

By the way, to address the members of this forum and ask them for their input on the meaning of a rule as it applies to a specific context, doesn't constitute making up a new rule; rather, it serves to add clarity to a rule that already exists.

 

[JonMiller]

In politics, people who can't vote provide guidance all the time. It is clearly seperate.

JM

 

[tall73]

No, you are being utterly unreasonable!

let's take the command though shalt not kill for example...

What does that mean?

Are we to take it at face value?

The Maker of the rule clarified the meaning in several ways. He didn't take any votes to do so. He is God. He can clarify His rule.

However, we made our forum rules. And what you are saying was not there. We have a process by which we make rules. That process says nothing about what is inferred or thought or hoped or might be in someone's mind at the time. It is the language that becomes the standard. What you want is not there.

If you want a new rule then you will just have to vote it.

To say that those who can't vote on a rule can't participate in making up that rule, is just simply being logically consistent with the rule. To suggest that they can make up a rule that they can't vote on is absurd!

Hardly. Staffers help congress all the time. Yet they don't vote. They hold COMMITTEE hearings. Those people give input, but don't vote. They get constituent feedback. Yet the constituents don't vote.

Even in the church people can come to the church board, as it is open, but only the members can vote. So no, that is not logical at all.

The rule said what it said. It talked about voting, not wiki participation.

The bottom line here is that we need to be logically consistent with our own rules, or get rid of them altogether.

Please, be reasonable!

Reasonable is not taking a plain definition and reading in what you wish was there.

By the way, to address the members of this forum and ask them for their input on the meaning of a rule as it applies to a specific context, doesn't constitute making up a new rule; rather, it serves to add clarity to a rule that already exists.

A. You are not clarifying a rule you are adding a new part of the rule. It does not say what you want it to.

B. What would you do if someone recruits 1,000 people from random forums to come and vote the other way. You can't even see who voted. This poll tells us nothing.

 

[woobadooba]

Tall,
your argument about congress is flawed because
a. you have not proven that they made up a rule to not allow certain people to vote on a rule, while allowing them to make up the rule.
b. They cast their vote when they agree on what is to be voted on

Again, you are being utterly unreasonable.

If a person can't vote on a rule, then that person can't make up the rule. To allow that person to make up a rule that he can't vote on is absurd. And that is exactly what your argument is--absurd.

 

[tall73]

Tall,
your argument about congress is flawed because
a. you have not proven that they made up a rule to not allow certain people to vote on a rule, while allowing them to make up the rule.
b. They cast their vote when they agree on what is to be voted on

A. I gave more than one example.

B. Have you looked at the constitution? Does it allow staffers to vote?

C. The moderator proposed what we voted on and we voted it. Folks made no objection at the time.

D. If you want a new rule, put it up to a real vote.

Again, you are being utterly unreasonable.

Disagreeing with woob is not the definition of unreasonable.

That will be my standard answer to any further charges from you of being unreasonable or absurd.

If a person can't vote on a rule, then that person can't make up the rule. To allow that person to make up a rule that he can't vote on is absurd. And that is exactly what your argument is--absurd.

You didn't even dispute the church board example, yet you continue to say you position is the only logical one.

Sorry, but I am not buying it.

Disagreeing with woob is not the definition of unreasonable.

 

[woobadooba]

A. I gave more than one example.

B. Have you looked at the constitution? Does it allow staffers to vote?

C. The moderator proposed what we voted on and we voted it. Folks made no objection at the time.

D. If you want a new rule, put it up to a real vote.


Disagreeing with woob is not the definition of unreasonable.

That will be my standard answer to any further charges from you of being unreasonable or absurd.

You didn't even dispute the church board example, yet you continue to say you position is the only logical one.

Sorry, but I am not buying it.

Disagreeing with woob is not the definition of unreasonable.

AGAIN!

If a person is not allowed to vote on a rule, how is it logically consistent to allow that person to make up that rule?

It's simple logic, and you are ignoring it.

As for your argument about the church board, it is still logically inconsistent, because even if the church members are allowed to offer their suggestions in making up a rule for the church, while not being allowed to vote on that rule, you still face the problem of inconsistent thinking. You see, if they are allowed to make suggestions for a rule, then they ought to be allowed to vote on the rule.

You are an intelligent person, Tall, as well as a good debator. However, this is one argument that you will not win, because your only options are to agree that you are being illogical in your argument, or to ignore the fact that you are being illogical.

 

[sentipente]

AGAIN!

If a person is not allowed to vote on a rule, how is it logically consistent to allow that person to make up that rule?

It's simple logic, and you are ignoring it.

You are allowed to consult any resource you desire, e.g. persons knowledgeable in the field or books and encyclopedia, in the rule-making process even if that resource cannot vote.

 

[tall73]

AGAIN!

If a person is not allowed to vote on a rule, how is it logically consistent to allow that person to make up that rule?

It's simple logic, and you are ignoring it.

As for your argument about the church board, it is still logically inconsistent, because even if the church members are allowed to offer their suggestions in making up a rule for the church, while not being allowed to vote on that rule, you still face the problem of inconsistent thinking. You see, if they are allowed to make suggestions for a rule, then they ought to be allowed to vote on the rule.

You are an intelligent person, Tall, as well as a good debator. However, this is one argument that you will not win, because your only options are to agree that you are being illogical, or to ignore that you are being illogical.

I am sorry if you find it to be illogical. But your rules of logic seem to ignore examples everywhere.

The church business session would be a closer parallel than the church bord. Only members can vote. But the session can call in anyone they want to get advice. If we are making a major purchase we might call in someone to help guide us. If we are undertaking a major endeavor we might do the same. They have a role in the decision. They don't vote.

Does an expert in a court case make the decision? No. But his input is considered in the decision.


Nor have you given a LOGICAL reason why someone cannot give input on something that they don't vote on.

Woob says is not a law of logic.

This will be my standard answer to further baseless charges of being illogical.

 

[tall73]

You are allowed to consult any resource you desire, e.g. persons knowledgeable in the field or books and encyclopedia, in the rule-making process even if that resource cannot vote.

Yup. Go look here for more info in the congressional example woob.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_hearing