Profile for Custer


Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Elections: The Candidacy Thread in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #76
*ahem*

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
The Official Electioneering Topic in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #3
An intriguing attack. I will not deny that, when I started the elections, I maintained hope that I would be elected to the position.

However, it is baseless. I will be happy if not elected, and will freely offer advice and guidance to any new moderator - should it be needed, as most candidates come from non-moderating backgrounds. I expect to be elected, but that is because I believe I am the best man for the job. If I did not, why would I be running?

My policies speak for themselves. I am no dictator, I am no glory hound. I just want to keep the boards fun and free.

On the behalf of Support & Enrich, I beg you not to turn this into a mudslinging campaign; my two-fisted fury is renowned, but I do not wish to employ it, nor do I want to be forced by circumstances to throw allegations that sully the reputations of comrades and friends. This should be a nice, clean election, not a fist-fight.

And because I want it to be perfectly clear I'm not running some kind of shadowy coup here, I promise to subject myself to an impeachment system. If more than a third of the members registered to vote petition my removal, I will immediately step down. I get elected and you don't like the job I'm doing? You can fire me.

That is my level of commitment to popular government, and I defy any other candidate in the running to make the same.

[ Tuesday, June 21, 2005 21:06: Message edited by: George A. Custer & The SE Party ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Elections : The Conspiracy Thread in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #21
Support & Enrich understands the Spidweb community and responds to the offerings of cookies and beer with a polite refusal, and counters with the traditional foods of General:

IMAGE(http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/kgk/2004/0904/mango.jpg)

IMAGE(http://www.poplarhillfarm.com/images/2_milk_cartons.jpg)

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
The Official Electioneering Topic in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #1
Repost from the Candidates Thread.

Hello, ladies and gents. I suppose this is where I tell you about my policies.

I'm a strong proponent of transparent, limited moderation. I don't have a sweeping plan, because I know the population of these boards do not want a sweeping plan. Sweeping plans mean your favorite topics locked because they have too much noise and not enough signal, or posts deleted entirely because they contain profanity, or valuable if eclectic members being pecked into contempt and obscurity.

I don't want to stifle the discourse. I don't want to shut down the flow of information. I understand there are circumstances in which censorship are appropriate, and I understand them to be strongly limited. I promise I will take swift and decisive action against excrecable violations, and leave other topics well enough alone unless they become flagrant spam-fests.

I will make a fair and impartial moderator; I have an outstanding history of judging individuals more by their immediate conduct than any kind of 'permanent record' heuristics. I don't hold grudges. I don't single people out.

I'm tolerant. I have a policy and it's a good one. I will make the moderation process clear, and in all cases I will work towards improving threads rather than destroying them.

I have a record of action. I have been a moderator before; I know the drill; I administrate a set of forums which have managed to keep orderly despite all manner of filth and depravity for three years now, and which continue to serve as a community asset today.

As an experienced community member, man of power, and referee, I offer an excellent background for a moderator, one matched by extremely few of my fellow candidates. A mixture between my administrative policy and my vigilance will ensure that both your right to expression and your virgin eyes will be protected simultaneously. And I am an amiable if sometimes abrasive figure.

I offer a powerful mixture of positive qualifications, characteristics, and doctrines no other candidate can match. Vote for me and together we will keep the SW forums fun, friendly, and open.

...

To my fellow candidates: If you share my view on the nature of moderation, if you believe that the job of power should be to enrich and support the discourse rather than picking at it with a fine-toothed comb and a rubric, if you believe that the first priority of the moderation should be to enable members to get along together rather than meting out punishments for butting heads, and most of all if you want to see a transparent, fair, and forgiving moderator in power, I encourage your support. I'm no joke candidate, and I'm no power-monger. My campaign speaks to a serious ideal which has been neglected on these forums of late. Divided, we will be at the mercy of the same-old same-old; united, we can bring the forums to a new flowering and greatness.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
The Official Electioneering Topic in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #0
Please limit all speechifying and significant banter to this topic. Having four or five to check is dizzying.

Repost any significant declarations on previous topics if you like, or post a list of links.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
General Moderator Election Poll in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #23
Here's the thing. You can give all of your 39 votes to yourself, you can distribute them equally among all 39 candidates, but only three people actually go on to Round 2. You can influence who that is much better by distributing your Round 1 vote well than by just throwing everything to yourself.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Elections: The Candidacy Thread in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #73
Hello, ladies and gents. I suppose this is where I tell you about my policies.

I'm a strong proponent of transparent, limited moderation. I don't have a sweeping plan, because I know the population of these boards do not want a sweeping plan. Sweeping plans mean your favorite topics locked because they have too much noise and not enough signal, or posts deleted entirely because they contain profanity, or valuable if eclectic members being pecked into contempt and obscurity.

I don't want to stifle the discourse. I don't want to shut down the flow of information. I understand there are circumstances in which censorship are appropriate, and I understand them to be strongly limited. I promise I will take swift and decisive action against excrecable violations, and leave other topics well enough alone unless they become flagrant spam-fests.

I will make a fair and impartial moderator; I have an outstanding history of judging individuals more by their immediate conduct than any kind of 'permanent record' heuristics. I don't hold grudges. I don't single people out.

I'm tolerant. I have a policy and it's a good one. I will make the moderation process clear, and in all cases I will work towards improving threads rather than destroying them.

I have a record of action. I have been a moderator before; I know the drill; I administrate a set of forums which have managed to keep orderly despite all manner of filth and depravity for three years now, and which continue to serve as a community asset today.

As an experienced community member, man of power, and referee, I offer an excellent background for a moderator, one matched by extremely few of my fellow candidates. A mixture between my administrative policy and my vigilance will ensure that both your right to expression and your virgin eyes will be protected simultaneously. And I am an amiable if sometimes abrasive figure.

I offer a powerful mixture of positive qualifications, characteristics, and doctrines no other candidate can match. Vote for me and together we will keep the SW forums fun, friendly, and open.

...

To my fellow candidates: If you share my view on the nature of moderation, if you believe that the job of power should be to enrich and support the discourse rather than picking at it with a fine-toothed comb and a rubric, if you believe that the first priority of the moderation should be to enable members to get along together rather than meting out punishments for butting heads, and most of all if you want to see a transparent, fair, and forgiving moderator in power, I encourage your support. I'm no joke candidate, and I'm no power-monger. My campaign speaks to a serious ideal which has been neglected on these forums of late. Divided, we will be at the mercy of the same-old same-old; united, we can bring the forums to a new flowering and greatness.

[ Tuesday, June 21, 2005 20:16: Message edited by: CSTR. ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Elections: The Registration Thread in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #1
VICTORY[i]!!![/i]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Elections? in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #112
You can keep on posting in this topic if you like, but it doesn't mean anything. Candidacy is here and registration is here.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Elections: The Candidacy Thread in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #3
I intend to win.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Elections: The Registration Thread in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #0
If you want to vote in the elections at any point, register here. It is 4:50 PM Saturday June 18, and registration ends at 4:50 PM Saturday June 25.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Elections: The Candidacy Thread in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #0
Are you a bad enough dude to run for moderator? (Even if Drakey is a meanie and does not actually install you!) If you think so, declare so here!

It is 4:47 PM Sunday June 18 local time. No new posts will be taken after 4:47 PM Tuesday June 21.

GO!

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Your gift or talent in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #19
IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/Uss-akron-inflight.jpg)

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Anyone Like Anime? in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #17
Bad onomatopoeia, maybe, but not precisely Engrish...

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Elections? in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #47
quote:
Originally written by spy.there:

The proportion of male mods to female mods is unbalanced: in the ratio of 10 to 1. It should be 10 to 2 - to represent Spiderweb Boards properly. Thus we should elect a new female mod.
:P Sorry, Alec and MM, for bursting your bubble.

Quotas? How savage. I thought we were meritocrats here. :P

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
THE GREAT DEBATE, PART III in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #40
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

At first I like the sound of the argument that people are going to buy drugs anyway, so we should recognize the fact, and let the government exert some control over the process to minimize bad side effects, and extract some tax money from it as well, instead of letting criminals get all the profit. Sounds persuasive.

But we could make an exactly analogous proposal about contract killings:

People are going to pay hit men to rub out their enemies, and all the money will go to organized crime, and there are risks to innocent bystanders. So instead, we should legalize murder for hire. If you really want someone dead, you should be able to hire the Marines to send in a trained sniper team. Yada yada yada -- pretty much all the good things you could say about legalizing drugs seem to me to have analogues in this proposal.

Now it sounds to me as though there must be a problem with this form of argument.

Interesting point. But drug use is inherently self-destructive; hiring a hitman is obviously intended first and foremost to destroy someone else.

And as for using the drugs to intentionally harm innocents, the same can be done with a tack hammer, and God knows we haven't done anything about that. In the case of unintentional harms, I'd be for the same kind of regulations against public use we have against, say, cigarettes, where they are applicable.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
THE GREAT DEBATE, PART III in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #37
quote:
Originally written by Zeviz:

A question for Alec:

Under your system, how are you going to prevent a minor from buying dangerous, mafia-supplied version of drugs from the dealer down the street, who can undersell government-sponsored retailers by not paying taxes and diluting his drug with other substances?

The power of the market. I mean, the kind of situation I'm describing is already in force for cigarettes, and certainly someone could black-market them for cheaper than they cost now, but people usually prefer to buy from someone whose product they are familiar with. Not to mention the fact that the ability to buy in bulk ensures that large companies subject to laws about transparency and oversight dominate the market, because they're essentially the price-setters for raw goods.

As Stranger points out, there's a black market, but it's miniscule. Compare that to the multibillion dollar black industry behind most major drugs, and you can see how government regulation could help.

My chief position is not to eliminate drug use, because I'm firmly convinced that's impossible. Maybe banning reduces drug use, but it leaves those who still use drugs without the same venues for rehabilitation.

While I can't show statistics for a country using this policy because it hasn't been applied yet - the farthest anyone I know of has gotten is de-criminalizing soft drugs - I can tell you that the countries which fight the hardest drug wars - the US, China, the Southeast Asian countries, etc. - also have a robust drug use among the least fortunate. The policy of illegalization does not work; its legacy has been corruption, misery, and failure. I can't produce statistics to defend my plan in comparison to, say, decriminalization. But I can certainly use them to argue that the system we have now is unsatisfactory.

[ Friday, June 17, 2005 09:29: Message edited by: CSTR. ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
THE GREAT DEBATE, PART III in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #27
No country currently has a policy of full legalization; some countries, such as the Netherlands, have leagalized marijuana and other hallucinogens, but harder drugs remain illegal more or less everywhere with a government.

The vast majority of overdoses and other drug-related casualties are caused by impurities and irregularities; there's no guarantee that a street dealer will provide a pure, regularly metered product; in other words, because most drugs are cut with various materials, any given dose may well be essentially poisonous.

The plan is ultimately best when you consider that under a banning system, drug revenues are not going anywhere good. At their most innocent, they're buying status symbols for vicious criminals; at their worst, they're covering up criminal investigations, buying illegal weapons, and getting entered into similar corruption.
Contrast this to a system of responsible legality, in which the revenue that doesn't go to treating drug users or discouraging potential users goes to those who worked to produce the drugs, who aren't going to be engaging in some kind of back-channel activity by doing it and have no incentive to delve further into crime.

That's in terms of pure fiscal matters. The problem of agency is more abstract, and I'm too tired to go into detail on it right now.

[ Friday, June 17, 2005 01:25: Message edited by: CSTR. ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
THE GREAT DEBATE, PART III in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #25
While I cannot readily dispute that the banning of drugs reduces consumption, I can state with absolute confidence that it does not eliminate it, and it comes with the price of incredible increases in crime.

Prohibition in the United States serves as a good model for what happens when drugs are prohibited for a purely moralistic goal, e.g. "no one should be using them therefore selling, using, or possessing them is illegal". The result of the amendment to the Constitution prohibiting alcohol was the rise of syndicated crime, the haemhorraging of millions of dollars of the economy in corruption and enforcement during a period of national history in which money was deadly tight, etc. Overall, Prohibition wasn't even effective in stamping out alcoholism; alcohol use was prominent during and after the effect of the law itself.

I believe in full legalization of all currently controlled substances. Distribution should occur only through a thoroughly licensed retailer and in no case to any clients under 21, production will be strictly monitored, a heavy tax will be levied and its revenues will be applied to recovery programs and propaganda, and all substances should be subject to strict supervision by the FDA.

While in principle this is certainly not as tough a stand as illegalizing drugs, I do not believe illegalizing drugs is better in anything except principle. Legalization offers benefits which banning cannot, including government revenues, ability to control production and distribution through licensing and taxation, ability to control quality and dosing (thereby eliminating the vast majority of overdoses), and ability to use a major percentage of drug revenues to help addicts recover from drugs.

In addition, a society with a responsible policy towards legal drugs would recognize the importance of strong aggression against the most physically damaging substances and warning tolerance towards less physically damaging ones. In a banning system, government has no non-hypocritical way to say consuming pot (non-addictive, relatively non-toxic) is more permissible than smoking PCP (extremely addictive, profoundly toxic and with a range of permanent side-effects).

This also allows specific drug-based offenses to be held specifically contemptible by law. Selling addictives to a minor, consuming mind-altering drugs before operating heavy machinery, etc. should be held under specific contempt, and there is no way for the government to do this without calling the root of the offense "involving yourself with drugs", where it really should be "misconducting yourself with drugs".

My core position holds that in a pragmatic situation, a ban gives the government far less agency to solve the social problems arising from drug use than responsible legalization. I have no statistics at this time, but my position is rooted in good sense and ought to be relatively solid without them.

A debate on the basic principle behind legalization would be fascinating, but we are at a critical impasse here and it would be startlingly irrelevant. My contention is that, considering the comparative ability of the government to act in suppressing the social problems caused by drug use between a criminalized system and a legalized system, legalization is the clear winner. Assuming your aim is to help people and not just random tyranny, responsible legalization is just the better answer.

[ Friday, June 17, 2005 00:49: Message edited by: CSTR. ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Elections? in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #18
quote:
Originally written by Medicine Man:

Are there qualifications for candidacy?
No, but you probably shouldn't run unless you actually expect other people to vote for you.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
I don't normally pass these on but this is important... in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #7
I'll have you know I have a degree in surveying from the Devry Institute of Technology. I'm completely legit.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Elections? in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #14
quote:
Originally written by Zeviz:

Do your schools have elected student governments? If they do, you have a pretty good idea of what "moderator elections" on this board would look like.

As for more practical aspect, there is a reason Misc forum was shut down. Do you want to get the General forum shut down as well?

The Misc forums got shut down due to clutter and idiocy, which has since mostly drifted out of town.

I'd say the elections are unrelated, and may well have been a high point.

Only four moderators can mod any board at once.

--

Drakey was amenable to the idea last time.

For the record, the election would consist of the following:

Registration topic. Voters have a one-week period in which to register, under the expectation they will later vote. This allows us to weed out duplicates without discriminating against members with low post counts (or for irredeemable spammers and other bag-fans). When the topic is closed, the voting rolls will be finalized.Electioneering. Members will announce candidacy; all official candidates must have announced themselves. (No write-ins will be taken. (Sorry, Alcritas voters. (That is, unless he gets an account.))) This topic lasts however long we think we need, to be decided later based on interest.Primary voting. Each eligible voter has as many points to assign among candidates as there are candidates to vote for; they post and do so. The primary voting will last the longest, as points may be redistributed at any time while the primary voting topic is still open and a candidate may drop out, assigning his points to others. When primary voting officially ends, the three candidates with the highest point totals move on to runoff voting.Runoff voting. Each eligible voter can vote for one and only one candidate; whoever has the highest vote total wins the spot.

[ Thursday, June 16, 2005 17:30: Message edited by: CSTR. ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Elections? in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #0
The moderation staff of General still by and large reflects the days when a separate SW misc board existed.

Mind, General now is nothing like Misc then, but at the same time, it's nothing like General then either.

Elections were pretty neat, and would be fun to have again. I don't know if we'd want to have the previously elected mod step down (*cough* Alorael *cough*) or ask a mod who uses his/her powers relatively little in General nowadays to do so (*cough* Schrodinger *cough*), or even if the administration is amenable.

But I'd like to hold them and see what happens.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Anyone Like Anime? in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #6
Huge Eva fanboy. Leery of everything else.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Harry Potter in General
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #9
Harry Potter teaches evil Satanic messages to children. Evil.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00

Pages