Constitution of PDF

[Spring Onion]

Why Not ?

defence establishment

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

defence establishment

But Defence establishment has its own set of Laws and Rules that are equal to Constitution

 

[Nattmara]

If I rephrase that MODS are PM and Presidents . Nothing wrong If MODS have such powers .
No Freedom is absolute . There are limits and while framing it , Limits must be decided .

No Freedom is absolute, but having a higher power leads to inequality which is an immediate violation of the constitution clause of "all PDF members are equal Netizens." Unless you meant that all are created equal? Keeping with that spirit, set forth by US Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, all netizens on PDF do have the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness... but not freedom from consequences for their actions.

I think our confusion arose from the wording of your statement, which can lead to misinterpretation of the constitution, which is a legal nightmare. All PDF citizens are not equal, some have rights others don't, such as positive and negative rating ascribing or moderation rights and access to the seniors section. But we all have the right to pursue happiness and liberty and to live, we should just exercise caution when pursuing our happiness at the expence of another

But Defence establishment has its own set of Laws and Rules that are equal to Constitution

Yes, but they also have a rigid hierarchy and chain of command that sees each higher tier have unequal rights compared to the lower tiers. It also striates the chain of custody of information, where lower tiers report to higher tiers, but higher tiers aren't obligated to share their knowledge with the lower tiers.

If PDF's TTAs only shared their knowledge with other TTAs, Professionals, Mods and Admins this would be a rather miserable situation.

Defense establishment laws are often contrary to democratic values anyway, such as the use of military courts and indefinite detention and martial law, if we're trying to build a constitution based on democratic rights, this may not be a solid course at all.

Interesting conversation though, are the Plebs plotting a revolution?

MODS will be chosen on the basis of positive ratings

If this is the case, then shouldn't people like @waz be demoted in favor of @jhungary and @SvenSvensonov and @Nihonjin1051 who've higher positive rating counts?

Moderation in beliefs and temperament is more important than any internet ego-stuffer like positive ratings which are biasedly ascribed by those that can ascribe them. Has an Iranian TTA given a + rating to a Saudi member? Or a Chinese TTA to an American member? Or an American Professional (Americans seem to have a higher number of Pros then any other nationality) to a Chinese member? Positives alone are a poor measure of quality when those that give them are biased in doing so.

I've seen one-liners be given + ratings, trollish one-liners at that, not even anything good. Meanwhile the most substantial of posts goes unrewarded.

Then again, no one should mistake length for quality.

 

[insight-out]

Good point . Experience of such a member is Valuable like Diamond



Webmaster is God , who created PDF . His only job should be Guidance

Well, webmaster is hardly that powerful, but I get your point.

But we differ as far as the role of God is concerned. God does not just guide humanity, but that's another discussion.

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

No Freedom is absolute, but having a higher power leads to inequality which is an immediate violation of the constitution clause of "all PDF members are equal Netizens." Unless you meant that all are created equal? Keeping with that spirit, set for by US Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, all netizens on PDF do have the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness... but not freedom from consequences for their actions.

I think our confusion arose from the wording of your statement, which can lead to misinterpretation of the constitution, which is a legal nightmare. All PDF citizens are not equal, some have rights others don't, such as positive and negative rating ascribing or moderation rights and access to the seniors section. But we all have the right to pursue happiness and liberty and to lives, we should just exercise caution when pursuing our happiness at the expence of another



Yes, but they also have a rigid hierarchy and chain of command that sees each higher tier have unequal rights compared to the lower tiers. It also striates the chain of custody of information, where lower tiers report to higher tiers, but higher tiers aren't obligated to share their knowledge with the lower tiers.

If PDF's TTAs only shared their knowledge with other TTAs, Professionals, Mods and Admins this would be a rather miserable situation.

Defense establishment laws are often contrary to democratic values anyway, such as the use of military courts and indefinite detention and martial law, if we're trying to build a constitution based on democratic rights, this may not be a solid course at all.

Interesting conversation though, are the Plebs plotting a revolution?

If this is the case, then shouldn't people like @waz be demoted in favor of @jhungary and @SvenSvensonov and @Nihonjin1051 who've higher positive rating counts?

Moderation in beliefs and temperament is more important than any internet ego-stuffer like positive ratings which are biasedly ascribed by those that can ascribe them. Has an Iranian TTA given a + rating to a Saudi member? Or a Chinese TTA to an American member? Or an American Professional to a Chinese member? Positives alone are a poor measure of quality when those that give them are biased in doing so.

I've seen one-liners be given + ratings, trollish one-liners at that, not even anything good. Meanwhile the most substantial of posts goes unrewarded.

Then again, no one should mistake length for quality.

Very Good points .

But equality in real sense will only be gained when Modes of production , Forces of production and Production itself are equally distributed . Under Utopia or a True Socialist regime , Such concepts can exist .

We can add it in the constitution on how +- ratings be given . I have seen plain statements getting + ratings .
Such Ratings should be on the Merit .
I got my only + rating from a Pakistani on a thread related to India being beautiful but my 3 - ratings are from Pakistani members for showing map of AB , which shows Pakistan as part of India . I deserved those - ratings .

 

[Hyde]

I remember such thread was created by me couple of years ago and we did amend some rules after taking consultations from fellow members and MODs. I remember my idea was to have clear constitution with chapters and paragraph numbers so that a member can challenge MODs decision based on the wording of the constitution. It would have really become very credible after further amendments with MODs learning new experiences after dealing with members

I hope you guys can suggest good points for PDF management to consider

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

This is a for-profit enterprise owned and managed by an individual. It is not and should not be a democratic institution. It need not even be unbiased. It is what the webmaster/owner decides it is.

@WebMaster is not dictator

 

[William Hung]

And here we've hit a problem. As @William Hung noted this morning in a conversation with @Cossack25A1 , such is not an equally applied rule, rather it's subjected to the whims of the moderation staff, which makes our Constitution less relevant as we're functioning like a Police State or Multi-leader dictatorship, which leave the stated rights in the Constitution meaningless or not applicable to everyone, and thus we also arrive at a problem were not everyone is equal.

The thread William Hung and Cossack25A1 where commenting has seen uneven responses to hate speech, which is still present in that thread.

Hi!

I totally agree with you. We can come up with a perfect constitution where everyone can agree with, yet it would still be meaningless if it is not enforced properly. Right now, I see that’s the biggest issue in this forum, well at least for the Far East section. That section is ruined because of that. Good members had left or stay inactive because of the immature trolling that overwhelms that section. Well-intentioned thread will also end up getting dominated by trolls, partially due to the biased moderation in that section.

GHQ is supposed to be there to deal with these kind of situations but its not working.

I can only think of one solution, but its too radical:

This forum (or any forum) relies, in good faith, on the fairness, unbiasedness and responsibility of the elected mods. But its almost impossible to find these kind of perfect mods. One solution: elect mods based on their religious beliefs, i.e. ones that are deeply and genuinely religious, then make it a prerequisite for becoming a mod that all mods must first make a vow and promise to God to upheld the forum’s constitution, to be fair and responsible to all, etc. This way, it doesn’t matter if the mods is perfect or not, even if he hates a certain group of people, he/she would still act fair towards them because of the vow and promise that the mods had made (assuming he/she is religious and thereby took the vow seriously). So we can still come up with a constitution that is fair to all, gives everyone equal rights, etc. But also add into this the prerequisite that all mods and staffs need to be, say religious and devout muslims, who will make religious vows to upheld the constitution and see it that their work in this forum is part of their religious duty.

This way, the forum will not have a secular constitution, but a theocratic constitution. However this would also make the NSA folks and CIA stalk this place

This solution is partly a joke lol, but thats the only solution I can come up with that could deal with the biased moderation in a few section (such as the Far East section).