BANNED AT LIBERTYPOST
See other BANNED AT LIBERTYPOST Articles
| Goldi banned censored delete elpee |
Title: Clarification requested if needed
Source:
libertypost
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 12, 2015
Author: sysadmin LP
Post Date: 2015-01-12 10:44:49 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 34191
Comments: 61
To: tpaine Subject: Clarification requested if needed >> sysadmin-LP -- It has come to light that I may have misinterpreted some part of your offer. If so this was not intentional on my part, I was piecing together parts of several emails to arrive at a cogent description of the entire package. ----- I asked you in my 'offer' emails to post them at LP, because you refused to allow me to comment there. --- Instead, you pieced together parts, which in my opinion led to an non cogent description of the entire email exchange. >> Information short, what I gathered from your emails and what I have attempted to represent: --- Your accepting ownership of LP is contingent on the following conditions: --- 1. If 25% or more of LP active users indicate they do not want you as owner, (that is, do not vote for you) the offer is withdrawn and you do not accept ownership. (This logically translates to 75% approval. A vote for another option is counted toward the 25% figure.) ---- 2. You will not take ownership until a suitable moderator is selected with a 75% approval rate from LP members. --- (If you have been following the discussion thread on LP of course you already know this but I wanted to put it on the table as accurately as possible.) ------- I have been attempting (like others) to follow your comments on those threads, and and like the others, I find them confusing. Why don't you just post our original email exchange, in its entirety, and then try to explain why you decided to make this a complicated four choice election instead of simply asking the members if they wanted me as an owner? ----- If 25 individuals had voted no, that would have been the end of it for me. >> If I am mistaken in any of this please provide a precise statement of the contingencies which I will post in its entirety on your behalf. If there are any significant errors in my reporting of your offer I will publicly apologize for my error in interpretation and take whatever action is necessary to insure a fair vote, including invalidation of current votes and starting the process over if it comes to that. Despite our differences you made a bona fide offer and it is my desire to give you a fair shake. ------ sysadmin posted on 2015-01-12 9:11:42 ET -------- The way you put on a four part 'election' did not make it a fair shake for anyone, imho. --- But it did indicate that my ownership of the site was not acceptable for at least 25 out of the 100 or so active members. So be it...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-20) not displayed.
.
.
.
#21. To: Fred Mertz (#19)
TPaine: 23 Perciles: 6 Status Quo: 24 Shutdown: 11 With supposedly 64? votes counted, 11 were for Hari-Kari. Hardly a consensus.
How am I lying? He was a terrible choice. He couldn't get 25% of members to vote for him. The sysadmin chose, along with many members, to shut it down.
Status quo was a no vote for you and a yes vote for sysadmin who expressed his desire pre and during the vote to close the place. You and Pericles combined couldn't get a bigger majority than shut it down. Apparently Americans don't like to be controlled by a foreign agitator in Pericles or a know it all windbag like you. Don't worry. You are here now and you can pontificate as much as you want. You will be liked and respected as much as you were over there.
I just went through that thread and counted 4 for Hari-Kari/first choice. One person voted 3 or 4, so you could make it five votes. I stand by my guesstimate above - 90/10 or 80/20 to keep the place alive. sysadmin and his family couldn't take the intense pressure involved.
No one made me a 'choice'. -- I told the sysadmin I would play at being the owner, -- unless 25% of the members vetoed me. -- And frankly, I'm glad they did. The sysadmin made one of the 11 votes to shut it down.
The ballot was rigged, and the counting was communist approval style. One voter could vote for three choices. The whole process is as crooked as the Willard M. Romney nomination in Tampa.
That's his story, and he's sticking to it.
In case you are upset and want to learn something from this experience, don't talk behind someone's back, especially when you know it's going to get right back to them.
sneakypete didn't get the message yet. He posted here in the past until he got fed up with A K A Stone's antics. meguro did too until Stone banned him.
Where can we meet if LP goes down? LF. Is Stone back on his meds? If not,that place is nothing but a lunatic asylum. sneakypete posted on 2015-01-12 LOL
Well, sneakypete is one poster whose stuff I usually enjoy reading. He's on www.rights-right.com/ and I am registered there too. Like many sites these days, its not very active. Too bad Stone pissed off petey so much.
- 90 percent want elPee to carry on [Options 1, 2 or 3] - 10 percent want to shut it down [Option 4] So, what do they do? They shut it down. They've chosen the easier wrong. Please help me out here. You claim that 90% want LP to continue and 10% wanted shut down - that's 100%. And you are claiming that both positions are wrong with one being easier than the other? I can't wait to hear you logic on this.
You are entitled to your opinions. Best....
11 of 43 voters selected a shutdown as acceptable. The 64 figure is not significant.
More of a choice not to deal with it, rather than an inability to deal with it. But it is the best & most appropriate decision. To anyone who disagrees.... fine.... start a new forum. Problem solved.
Approval voting, if adopted nationwide, would be the single best thing that could ever happen to break up the 2 party monopoly. It's not a new thing either. www.electology.org/#!approval-voting/cc04 The current system, billed as a great thing for democracy, is far inferior.
With supposedly 64? votes counted, 11 were for Hari-Kari. Hardly a consensus. Still, hardly a consensus. You're entitled to your opinion, and my best to you sir.
One of my objections is to not defining the vote counting method prior to the vote. If the method were known, some folks would likely have voted differently. Note that some people started changing their votes, once the election rules became known.
But it is the best & most appropriate decision. To anyone who disagrees.... fine.... start a new forum. Problem solved. Excellent accessment of the situtaion.
Pete is a militant atheist who regularly attacks my faith. He is also welcome here. He is also right on a lot of issues. Maybe most. He is willingly ignorant about matters of God.
I'll concede that, yes. SysAdmin had initiated the vote a bit ahead of me. One could re-tally the votes in instant run-off fashion if interested. I doubt it would have made any difference, particularly since Tpaine wanted 75%. I won't bother though. I've other things to do, and the decision is made.
Yes, 80 - 90% wanted elPee to remain alive and in operation. Votes for Options [1, 2 or 3]. That would take some funds, effort, time and energy to keep the place going. That is the harder right thing to do IMO. 10 - 20% wanted to shut it down - Option 4. That's easy to do with the one time effort...and wrong IMO. I don't know why you didn't get it. Do you get it now?
Many decisions can be unmade, like that one. But why bother? If we all collect here now, at LibertysFlame, this will be a bigger site than LP was, with more people and more viewpoints. And a clean slate too, for those who wish to avail themselves of it.
Not if some get their way....and they know who they are.
Probably pushed him over the edge. I had a very strong feeling it was all over when Neil posted his close-it-down comment. After that point, sysadmin's comments indicated no real consideration was ongoing. Neil mentioned that he visited sysadmin at Thanksgiving when he was back in the States. They know each other in real life. Goldi and sysadmin knew each other, maybe back in college. Neil never met Goldi in person but knew sysadmin. Then we have this post by sysadmin: And what was LP's first server and where was it located? Don't post the answer but you should be hearing bells ring.
It's done. He wanted out and he had the strongest connection with you and you only. I doubt you could talk him out of it if you tried.
It's ancient history, how LP started and all that. Excruciatingly dull stuff. I'll spare you any explanation. You'll thank me later. : )
http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36973&Disp=21#C21 TPaine: 23 Perciles: 6 Status Quo: 24 Shutdown: 11 With supposedly 64? votes counted, 11 were for Hari-Kari. Hardly a consensus. tpaine posted on 2015-01-12 12:58:31 ET With 84 comments and the thread locked, I count 64 votes with only 45 discrete individuals participating. Of those, only 7 stated a first preference of shutting down the site. If status quo/sysadmin were not an actual choice (it seems it was not), then a vastly different choice would have been faced, tpaine, Pericles, or shut down LP. That breakdown of 36 clear first preferences is: 14 -- tpaine As for the "approval" vote, some voters cast their approval in order of preference and others did not. Some votes, if they be votes, are unclear. The vote is a mess and the only thing clear is that the voters were not clear about the process. That "approval" breakdown is: 20 -- tpaine The 14 people who listed a shutdown as one of their choices and the post number. #4, domer #41, GeorgiaConservative #73, Neil McIver One instruction for the process, on the VOTING thread was: 1. tpaine If you feel the need to discuss the merits or demerits of these various options please do not post that here, please take it to the existing ownership change discussion. NOTE ON THE "APPROVAL VOTE" SYSTEM. That was discussed on a different DISCUSSION thread and never mentioned on the VOTING thread. http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=350039&Disp=167#C167 Yes, there is. My plan is to abide by the wishes of the community. I am going to set up the voting thread momentarily and will put forth 4 choices: 1. tpaine I agree with the idea of purging all email and IP information from the database should an ownership transfer take place. sysadmin posted on 2015-01-10 13:15:29 ET http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=350039&Disp=174#C174 Won't post this on the vote thread, but might I suggest the "Approval Vote" method? In this method, people can vote for more than 1 option. I.e. all they approve of, and then the option getting the most votes of approval wins. There's no run-off required. It's a simple voting technique that, if used in public elections, would actually give 3rd parties much greater standing. Voting for "the lessor of two evils" goes away. Just a thought... Neil McIver posted on 2015-01-10 13:51:31 ET http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=350039&Disp=175#C175 I was planning to vote for my preferences in order, much as you suggest. TooConservative posted on 2015-01-10 14:02:50 ET http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=350039&Disp=186#C186 I note some people are putting in more than one choice, so we can tally it up that way at the end. sysadmin posted on 2015-01-10 18:52:13 ET People who followed the instruction on the VOTING thread got one vote for one choice. People who chose to adopt what Neil mentioned on another thread cast as many as four choices. The first vote was recorded at 2015-01-10, 13:48:59 ET. Neil McIver's suggestion to use the "approval" system was recorded at 2015-01-10 13:51:31 ET, shortly after voting had commenced. sysadmin's coment was recorded at 2015-01-10 18:52:13 ET, about five hours after voting commenced and 56 posts were already on what would be an 84 post thread. Where a voter cast a vote of "1 or 3, in that order," are they counted as equal approval of 1 and 3, or as a preference for 1? At #17, JTIDSGUY wrote: JTIDSGUY posted on 2015-01-10 14:30:36 ET Maybe that equates to #3 status quo, or not. At #55, sysadmin indicated he inserted a vote by tpaine for tpaine. I count 64 total "votes" by 45 people, including tpaine. There are several similar to #76: listener posted on 2015-01-11 11:28:50 ET All four choices are listed in preference order. Is this a vote of approval for each choice or one vote of disapproval for a shutdown? That counts as four votes if approval is counted. Such counting provides my total of 64. Perhaps it should be counted as approval for 3, 2, and 1. At #13, AuntB posted: I did not stretch this non-vote to three votes, one approval each for 1, 2, and 3. I did not construe a desire that the place continues to be an approval of tpaine, Pericles, and/or sysadmin. At #27, stoner posted: or 3. status quo (sysadmin) sysadmin, you have done a good job. Many thanks to you for your efforts. But since this has become a burden you do not want, I will vote for tpaine Is that 1 or 3, or just 1? I counted it as approval of 1 and 3. If counted just for tpaine, then the total is 63 votes and one less for sysadmin. At #35, JustUsealittleBrainPower stated: I counted this as approval of 1 and 3. At #57, TooConservative recorded all four choices. At #76, listener recorded all four choices. At #78, medicalmalcontent recorded all four choices. The last listed choice of #57, 76, 78 was to shut down. Is this three votes to approve shutting down the site? The 45 voters and the post number of their recorded votes. 01 -- IRTorqued 07 -- Fibr Dog 19 -- SOD 26 -- cranky 35 -- JustUsealittleBrainPower 41 -- GeorgiaConservative 62 -- UaDeaghaidh 71 -- Molon Labe 78 -- medicalmalcontent ** -- tpaine (sysadmin at #55 stated he recorded a vote by tpaine for tpaine)
I shouldn't have even included shutdown as an option. I never wanted LP to shutdown. Maybe over the long run, it will prove to be for the best but that was not my wish.
You are one thorough dude Columbo.
Really, I do appreciate all the effort. But thank God it's over. (Unless TC and Sneaky man up)
Thanks for the effort you put into this, nolu. It is as clear as mud to me with the Approval Method applied. I only saw 4 or 5 Option #4 (first choice) votes. Edit: Okay with sysadmin and Neil I see 6 now - just went over there again. Thanks again. All is moot now.
That is the way I took the intent of these votes. There never should have been an "approval" vote unclearly implemented on another thread hours after voting started. It needed far more explanation, and it needed to be explained on the VOTING thread, prior to voting. If sysadmin was not a real option, that should not have been offered. I only see seven people come out and say shut it down.
I said it was rigged too. Sysadmin might as well have been on the ballot 3 times. Once for him, once for shut down, once if stale mate.
And the whole Euro voting preference, I think people got confused. I know I did. The election kinda changed over the first 24 hours.
Vicomte
It's really a moot point now. Regardless of what various people proposed in threads, it is obvious that sysadmin had grown quite tired of dealing with the site and its' denizens. It was kind of him to keep it up for as long as he did so that people could arrange to migrate or at least say their farewells.
Vicomte I'm sorry. The error is all mine.
Easy, you did not atriculate your thought very well. Read it again. It easily can be understood to mean there was a harder wrong and an easier wrong choice. Now you claim that keeping LP alive was the right choice. You are entitled to your opinion but its strange coming from one that abandon that site quite some time ago - and especially if you still maintained an account there from which you could have registered your vote. There were very few on LP in the most recent discussion about the vote that expressed the opinion that tpaine was getting screwed by the way the vote was constructed and the representation that tpaine himself asked for a 75% approval on a four choice vote. If you still have access to LP do the research. If you don't asl TooConservative to fill you in. From what I recall of you truth seeking is not your strong point.
It's a terrible tragedy, but we shall have to endure nonetheless. Heh heh.
Neil --- With 83 comments posted, I count 43 voters with the following breakdown.
#22. To: Fred Mertz (#19)
#23. To: tpaine (#21)
#24. To: tpaine (#21)
With supposedly 64? votes counted, 11 were for Hari-Kari.
#25. To: Nexus6 (#22)
He was a terrible choice. He couldn't get 25% of members to vote for him.
The sysadmin chose, along with many members, to shut it down.
#26. To: Nexus6, know it all windbag (#23)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#27. To: Fred Mertz (#24)
sysadmin and his family couldn't take the intense pressure involved.
#28. To: tpaine (#27)
#29. To: tpaine, sneakypete, meguro (#27)
#30. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
#436. To: redleghunter (#386)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#31. To: hondo68 (#30)
#32. To: Fred Mertz, tpaine (#11)
My guesstimate:
#33. To: tpaine (#17)
Then why did he have such an obvious bias ....
He quite eagerly banned me, then set things up so that he thought he could easily win control of LP. -- When that 4 vote ploy blew up in his face, he blew up LP.....
#34. To: tpaine (#21)
With supposedly 64? votes counted, 11 were for Hari-Kari.
Hardly a consensus.
#35. To: Fred Mertz (#24)
sysadmin and his family couldn't take the intense pressure involved.
#36. To: hondo68 (#26)
The ballot was rigged, and the counting was communist approval style.
One voter could vote for three choices. The whole process is as crooked as the Willard M. Romney nomination in Tampa.
#37. To: Pinguinite (#34)
(Edited)
11 of 43 voters selected a shutdown as acceptable.
The 64 figure is not significant.
#38. To: Pinguinite (#36)
(Edited)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#39. To: Pinguinite, Fred Mertz (#35)
sysadmin and his family couldn't take the intense pressure involved. More of a choice not to deal with it, rather than an inability to deal with it.
#40. To: Fred Mertz, sneakypete (#31)
Too bad Stone pissed off petey so much.
#41. To: hondo68 (#38)
One of my objections is to not defining the vote counting method prior to the vote. If the method were known, some folks would likely have voted differently.
#42. To: SOSO (#32)
Please help me out here. You claim that 90% want LP to continue and 10% wanted shut down - that's 100%. And you are claiming that both positions are wrong with one being easier than the other? I can't wait to hear you logic on this.
#43. To: Pinguinite (#41)
I've other things to do, and the decision is made.
#44. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite, TooConservatice, murron, A K A Stone (#43)
And a clean slate too, for those who wish to avail themselves of it.
#45. To: tpaine, Fred Mertz, hondo68, redleghunter (#5)
Thank you for calling his bluff.
"I've been with LP since Goldi and Neil came up with the idea, helped build the first server, and have worked with it ever since behind the scenes. Turning out the lights is not an easy thing at all but it is something that needs to be done."
#46. To: TooConservative (#45)
(Edited)
#47. To: Pinguinite (#41)
I won't bother though. I've other things to do, and the decision is made.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#46)
Clue me in if you want to. Or not if you don't.
#49. To: tpaine, Fred Mertz, Pinguinite, hondo68, A K A Stone (#21)
#21. To: Fred Mertz (#19)
Neil --- With 83 comments posted, I count 43 voters with the following breakdown.
01 -- Pericles
14 -- status quo/sysadmin
07 -- shut down LP
06 -- Pericles
24 -- status quo/sysadmin
14 -- shutdown
#5, 22rifle
#7, Fibr Dog
#19, SOD
#24, fallujah nuker
#55, sysadmin
#57, TooConservative
#64, redleghunter
#68, byeltsin
#76, listener
#78, medicalmalcontent
#81, Orthodoxa Please limit your response to this post to a single line containing one of the following options:
2. Pericles
3. status quo (sysadmin)
4. shut down LP #167. To: Neil McIver (#164)
There is something very clean about this suggestion.
2. Pericles
3. sysadmin (will continue looking for someone to take over)
4. close down the site. #174. To: sysadmin (#167)
1. tpaine 2. Pericles 3. sysadmin (will continue looking for someone to take over) 4. close down the site.
#175. To: Neil McIver (#174)
#186. To: Neil McIver (#174)
It's a simple voting technique that, if used in public elections, would actually give 3rd parties much greater standing. Voting for "the lessor of two evils" goes away. Just a thought...
So just who decided that these were the only choices? I would rather stick a pin in my eye than have pericles in charge of anything. tpaine is just a bit less annoying. SYSADMIN has been doing an ok job. Raise some money to keep the doors open and look at this matter again later. Maybe the new head cheese can buy an Olive Garden in a couple of years.
3,1,2,4
I haven't been around consistently enough to have a vote, but I hope the place continues.
1. tpaine
3 without a doubt. Tpaine is okay....
02 -- A Pole
03 -- Paul CJ
04 -- domer
05 -- 22rifle
11 -- Murron
14 -- Booshbot666
16 -- The Examiner
17 -- JTIDSGUY
22 -- Infowarrior
23 -- Dead Culture Watch
24 -- fallujah nuker
25 -- Leopold Stotch
27 -- stoner
28 -- Uncle Siggy
29 -- Pericles
32 -- out damned spot
36 -- Izthla
37 -- RLKK
39 -- MJS
40 -- Good Ole Boy
46 -- Tea Party Reveler
54 -- Mister White
55 -- sysadmin
57 -- TooConservative
64 -- redleghunter
67 -- sneakypete
68 -- byeltsin
69 -- Vicompte13
72 -- Marguerite
73 -- Neil McIver
76 -- listener
77 -- Sven Golly
81 -- Orthodoxa
82 -- Willie Green (changed original vote at #12)
84 -- Anon Poster
#50. To: nolu chan (#49)
#57, TooConservative
#51. To: nolu chan (#49)
#52. To: nolu chan, thanks for yet another chuckle over a true clusterfooted event (#49)
#53. To: nolu chan (#49)
(Edited)
#54. To: TooConservative (#50)
I shouldn't have even included shutdown as an option. I never wanted LP to shutdown.
#55. To: nolu chan, (#54)
#56. To: nolu chan (#54)
There never should have been an "approval" vote unclearly implemented on another thread hours after voting started. It needed far more explanation, and it needed to be explained on the VOTING thread, prior to voting.
#57. To: nolu chan (#49)
Vicompte13
#58. To: TooConservative (#50)
I shouldn't have even included shutdown as an option. I never wanted LP to shutdown. Maybe over the long run, it will prove to be for the best but that was not my wish.
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
Vicompte13
#60. To: Fred Mertz, TooConservative (#42)
I don't know why you didn't get it.
#61. To: nolu chan (#59)
I'm sorry. The error is all mine.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]