Does Dave have a vision for this forum?

[Napoleon]

The all important forum poll.

[minionofmidas]

It's the social progressives that seek to destroy Dave's vision for this forum as we know it.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Who is this Dave you speak of?

[© tweed]

in all likelihood he either or some combination of a) hardly reads it or cares [which I, for the record, do not believe to be the case, given certain instances where he has swooped in on threads seemingly out of nowhere to provide an answer, etc], or b) regards our machinations with a delicate blend of amusement and bemusement.  as for the poll question, it certainly does not exist in the form that Inks, Gustaf, etc have recently taken to claiming it does.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

For a guy who has a vision for this forum, he doesn't seem to be heavily involved with it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He's given even less indication of having such than who Lacan called 'good old God' has.

[Хahar 🤔]

Relying on "Dave's vision" makes about as much sense as interpreting the Constitution based on "original intent".

[Politico]

Most of the Democrats on here have a vision for this place that can be summarized succinctly: Diet Democratic Underground.

Dave is obviously less partisan than the above-mentioned Democrats. I suspect he sees this as a place to discuss election results, along with being a forum for exchange of various analyses, in a respectful, bipartisan manner (e.g., not calling somebody absurd/trollish for not supporting a Democrat for president).

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Most of the Democrats on here have a vision for this place that can be summarized succinctly: Diet Democratic Underground.

I'm guessing you're a masochist and you like attracting negative attention?

[The Mikado]

Honestly, Dave's vision, such as it is, would be a place where people discuss how much of the vote obscure counties in New York gave to Birney in 1844 demonstrates important patterns in the growth of abolitionism.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No.  He has a vision for the main Atlas and it's a good one...the forum?  Neh.

[Torie]

Honestly, Dave's vision, such as it is, would be a place where people discuss how much of the vote obscure counties in New York gave to Birney in 1844 demonstrates important patterns in the growth of abolitionism.

Hey, sometimes when I am not too busy being a dirty old man with an "aesthetic" eye, I now and then swing that way a bit mixing and matching history, ethnicity and psephology. He must love my act.

[© tweed]

Honestly, Dave's vision, such as it is, would be a place where people discuss how much of the vote obscure counties in New York gave to Birney in 1844 demonstrates important patterns in the growth of abolitionism.

I don't know how much Dave even has been known to view patterns of data in a historical context; he just seems to be an obsessive-compulsive data compiler for the sake of it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Most of the Democrats on here have a vision for this place that can be summarized succinctly: Diet Democratic Underground.

Dave is obviously less partisan than the above-mentioned Democrats. I suspect he sees this as a place to discuss election results, along with being a forum for exchange of various analyses, in a respectful, bipartisan manner (e.g., not calling somebody absurd/trollish for not supporting a Democrat for president).

Uh, I doubt you even have the slightest idea of what's been going on here recently.  Please, take your rhetoric elsewhere.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Honestly, Dave's vision, such as it is, would be a place where people discuss how much of the vote obscure counties in New York gave to Birney in 1844 demonstrates important patterns in the growth of abolitionism.

Indeed. If someone does not find that sort of thing interesting I'm not sure how they would end up here.

[Jerseyrules]

Relying on "Dave's vision" makes about as much sense as interpreting the Constitution based on "original intent".

Agree with your message, not your metaphor

[Gustaf]

So, as way of example, the first 3.5 pages of this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=620.45

...constitutes an example of what Dave thinks is over the line.

The first 2 pages of this thread is another one: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=666.15

And perhaps the best example of all.

Here is a post from a new poster back in the day who started a thread with this:

I can reveal that the vice presidency will not be john edwards. the kerry team, are cleverly determined to keep the fact that it will be Tom Vilsack (governor of Iowa) or Evan Bayh (Indiana Senator and VP. The Kerry team has identified the mid-west as the correct battleground to beat george bush. The choice will be made in weeks privately depending on how kerry fairs in missouri, iowa, wisconsin, ohio and pennslyvannia. Here, i swear my research is right,

Governor of New Mexico and ex-ambassador,  Gov Richardson, who has dealt with the North Koreans, will be Kerrys secretary of state. Richardson meets with the n.koreans in may over disarming its WMD. sure up new mexico? has alot of respect from republican commentaters, so a major asset to counter radio/

Secretary of Defense will be Wesley Clark, who has huge military expeirence and most importantly respect from NATO countries. It was rumoured i england, that Clark had received support from Blair, as the best democrat candidate. is tough in defense, sures up veterans vote.

Howard Dean, will be the energy secretary, in a ploy to get the nadar vote. kerry is determined to  exploit the environment  concerns which gore didnt take advantage of.

Hillary Clinton is going to neutralise the private ambitions of the republican party to take New York.  the republican party believe the battle is ohio, penn, wv and new york.

John Edwards is a ploy by the democrat party to show the democrats are concerned with the south vote, when in fact they are targeting the north/midwest. However, john edwards, will be used in the midwest and be given a big role in the kerry administration.

With the dekotas, nebraska and kansas having huge drop in bush over  4 months, the democratic party are trying to find a way to bolster the economy. Secretly, senators and congressman have been campaigining since kerry won Wisconsin. The loss of 10,000 farms on average in each of the 4 states has caused great disharmony in the states. Chuck Hagel from Nebraska has been approached by the kerry campaign as he has voiced huge frustration over bush/cheney policy on farming.

The two candidates are intended to centralise kerry, and as 90% of the vote has been determined. the democrats believe they need someoe tough, central minded to take on Cheney. hence the last two men left to stand are the govrnor of iowa and the senator of indiana.

My sources and research is creditable, if you have any questions or disagreements, i will be happy to dispute any claims.

Currently on tour, in Pierre, South Dekota, writing my book  "How America accepted Neo-Conservatism"

It's basically a crazy person rant about how Edwards will not be the VP, etc. You can imagine the responses - they were along the lines of "WTF" "troll" etc. The guy also claimed Kerry had a decent shot at winning the Dakotas and talked about smoking weed.

Here is how Dave responded:

I'm sorry to see that the quality of discussion has gone so far downhill.  A new forum member puts up a thoughtful, in-depth, lucid post and all you guys do is attack him because you don't like the contents of the post?  Please discuss the merits of the argument he presents.  If you are concerned with a new poster just creating havoc, please report the post to me via the link at the bottom of the post. Thanks,
Dave.

So, yeah, that pretty much sums up Dave's vision for the forum. Of course, the moderators don't go anywhere near as far as Dave himself would if he had the time to moderate. But there is obviously no question at all that Dave would never have allowed a thread like the Deluge if he was running things hands-on.

[Mr. Morden]

So, yeah, that pretty much sums up Dave's vision for the forum. Of course, the moderators don't go anywhere near as far as Dave himself would if he had the time to moderate. But there is obviously no question at all that Dave would never have allowed a thread like the Deluge if he was running things hands-on.

Absolutely.  If Dave was actually moderating the forum himself, the moderation would be much more severe.  (Remember, when the infraction system started, Dave originally proposed that anyone with 20 moderated posts would be banned!)

In fact, if Nym was moderating every board himself, the moderation would be more severe than it is now.  So really, the anti-mod brigade should be working towards imposing an additional layer of bureaucracy below the current mods, so as to dilute Dave's vision even further. 

[© tweed]

karlosthejackal = nomorelies

[Torie]

Gustaf's and Morden's posts above should help concentrate the mind a bit hopefully. I think what Dave is saying is pretty simple: focus on the assertions, not the poster. In the quoted post Gustaf put up so filled with "errors" and speculations that were way, way out there over the rainbow, packaged as something close to factual assertions, those assertions alone should have kept folks plenty busy.

I am a bit surprised though that Dave didn't seem to care that the guy was hawking his book yet to be completed. My "problem" with the post is that it seemed after all of that foreplay about the assorted and sundry niches of a host of folks, that its real intent was to be an advertisement - an "epic fail" advertisement, but an advertisement nonetheless.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm sorry to see that the quality of discussion has gone so far downhill.  A new forum member puts up a thoughtful, in-depth, lucid post and all you guys do is attack him because you don't like the contents of the post?  Please discuss the merits of the argument he presents.  If you are concerned with a new poster just creating havoc, please report the post to me via the link at the bottom of the post. Thanks,
Dave.

So, yeah, that pretty much sums up Dave's vision for the forum. Of course, the moderators don't go anywhere near as far as Dave himself would if he had the time to moderate. But there is obviously no question at all that Dave would never have allowed a thread like the Deluge if he was running things hands-on.

Wait a second…how can you compare Dave’s reaction to comments on the 2004 Election Board with the Deluge on the FC Board?!   The 2004 Election Board was THE most important board at the time.  Where as the OT and FC Boards are always the least important.

We’re not asking to be uncivil outside of the OT and FC boards, but we are asking to allow us a little artistic freedom in poking fun at each other on these two boards.

I really really don’t understand what the perceived threat is.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hi,

I decided to remove all boards not related to discussing election results and maps. Users that never submitted a single map into Atlas database will be permanently banned.


Dave.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Gustaf,

you know I don't have a problem with the way you run your board.  But in regard to the FC board, I don't think, at least from what I have seen about Dave, that you're thinking this through.

For example, how many years have we had FF/HP threads?  Surely Dave has noticed them by now, but has he ever said anything about them?  But the way you portray Dave, he would be against half the stuff that goes down on the FC board. 

Also, some of the other Mods (not so much you yourself) have taken on a siege mentality and act like they have sworn to give their lives in order to protect the forum…when there is not even an enemy threatening it.

Whatever the “enemy” is perceived to be, it’s all in their mind.  And it is apparently spreading through the Mod team like a mass hysteria.

But those Mods have yet to answer the basic question:  What, exactly, was threatening the forum to necessitate a change and prompt the Mods to clamp down on the trash talking on the OT and FC forums?

Again, I ask:  What was/is the threat?!

[Gustaf]

My impression is that Dave really doesn't follow what goes on in the forum anymore. And also that he has somewhat given up on keeping it moderated.

I always tended to have different ideas about how moderation and posting on here should work but I sort of learned how to live with being a minority.

Thrash-talking between equals is not a problem, IMO. It's when it turns one-sided and nasty that it becomes a problem.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What I've always considered Dave's "vision" for this forum comes from a post he made responding to Libertas (one of Dave's more glorious moments, I suppose) where he said this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's perhaps a bit idealistic and simple, but it's a "vision" nonetheless and one I can respect, even if it's not always accomplished, sadly.

Gustaf is probably right that if Dave was running moderation himself it would be much more strict (although I do think that Dave would be more likely to change his mind about moderating etiquette than several of the moderators) so I suppose people should count their blessings about the current moderating system. As inconsistent as it can be, the current moderation system at least aims to protect the continued existence about the community aspects of this forum, which I doubt Dave would be as concerned with.