Why You Shouldnt Vote for Black Cross

[14:39:57] Black_Cross : communism can't work

[14:38:57] Black_Cross : Marxism can't "work"

This thread serves more as proof as to why people shouldn't vote for you, Liche.

hmm?

I didnt post the part where you guys made fun of me for an hour.

By the way, being admin has nothing to do with being a revolutionary communist...I dont know if that ever occurred to you.

Also, I should stress the fact that he trys to impress you by being an ass hole, I dont think people like that should be in Administrative power, because that proves he is trying to look good to you, so he would probably only do what he thinks you expect of him.

Liche wrote:

hmm?

I didnt post the part where you guys made fun of me for an hour.

We didn't make fun of you, we talked about you, as simple as that. But hey, post it, as BC said, we have nothing to hide.

Liche wrote:

By the way, being admin has nothing to do with being a revolutionary communist...I dont know if that ever occurred to you.

I think that's a remark you should pay attention to.

Liche wrote:

Why you shouldn't vote for Black_Cross
[14:39:57] Black_Cross : communism can't work

[14:38:57] Black_Cross : Marxism can't "work"

You're the one who linked being a communist and a revolutionaire to being an admin. Your whole intitial post implies that, since Black_Cross stated that communism can't work nor marxism (and it should be noted that the quote is not only altered but also wholly taken out of context), he's not eligible for the post of administrator.

Who's the one who shouldn't mix being a communist with being administrator?

Liche wrote:

Also, I should stress the fact that he trys to impress you by being an ass hole, I dont think people like that should be in Administrative power, because that proves he is trying to look good to you, so he would probably only do what he thinks you expect of him.

What do you define as "being an asshole"? And why should he try to impress me? He's simply being himself according to the context.

I expect nothing from him but what he has proclaimed to do. I trust him for I have a fair understanding of his principles given what I've been able to see from his debates and judging from the impressions he has caused on other comrades. That's why he's supported not only by me but by many others.

Unlike what you think or would like this thing to look like, this is not nepotism and it won't work as such.

If we revolutionaires support him is because we do consider him capable of being a good administrator and because he stands for our principles. Is that a crime or what?

Stop trying to manipulate people's decisions. As someone who attempts to manipulate people's decisions I think your eligibility as administrator is rather questionable, at least more than Black_Cross's. And this is being in practice demonstrated by you.

Im not manipulating peoples answers as much as you try too cover up the truth by over explaining simple things. Im talking about when you guys failed to overthrow the website (which is physically impossible) and claimed Kenzu is an unfair admin, and should stop being such a "reactionary". when after all it is his website, and he is free to do with it as he chooses. you all say claimed he isnt doing what he said he was gonna do, when its more along the lines of him not doing what you want him to do. and I never said you were making BC do that, I was just pointing out a personality flaw I have noticed in home over the past year or so he has been here (mostly the past several months we've had the chat box) you all so claim Reformists fail, when you guys have tryed several times unsuccesfuly to bring a revolutionary change to the forum, where as I simply once made a post suggesting we reform and get a new admin, which worked on its first attempt. I also think it is funny how your lackeys think this is unfair the way Kenzu dose things, when the only reason you became admin was because Kenzu knew he wasnt going to be able to go on as much and appointed you WITH NO ELECTION. so technically if you guys want to accomplish your goals, you would need to step down as admin, and run in this new election, which I tryed too sugest, but you rambled on about some other stuff (which is what I refer too over explaining).

and also sorry if I got monoki confused with another of your goons that said they werent coming back ever again.

Liche wrote:

Im not manipulating peoples answers as much as you try too cover up the truth by over explaining simple things.

This is amazingly senseless. So providing arguements somehow becomes "overexplaining" and covering up the truth. Interesting fallacy.

Liche wrote:

Im talking about when you guys failed to overthrow the website (which is physically impossible) and claimed Kenzu is an unfair admin, and should stop being such a "reactionary".

So that is acting like an asshole or what? What does this have to do with anything?

By te way, "overthrowing" the site is possible through hacking. And we didn't even attempt it so how did we fail?

Calling Kenzu an unfair admin is expressing one's opinion and it's valid to express it and the opinion can become even a well-founded accusation if a consensus regarding to the concept of "unfair" is reached and Kenzu fits within it. Also, I recall people calling him autocratic for very specific reasons based on acts which actually fall within the definition of "autocratic".

Mind me telling you as well that these protests emerged out of the fact that Kenzu had claimed to be dmeocratic and that this site would be ruled in a democratic fashion. People wanted to point out that this was not true.

At this point it is already clear who wants to impress whom.

And now. He's being called by revolutionaires a "reactionary" because he favours reformism. But hey, that's his political views contrasted to the revolutionaires' how are they relevant to administratoship?

Liche wrote:

when after all it is his website, and he is free to do with it as he chooses. you all say claimed he isnt doing what he said he was gonna do, when its more along the lines of him not doing what you want him to do.

My my my... and who is trying to impress someone here?

If Kenzu says his site is democratic then it should follow people's will. He as the ultimate administrator in this site therefore must do as the people wishes. That's how democracy would work in a framework such as this forum's.

In the practice opposes what he has claimed, then, people are in their full right to consider Kenzu.

Liche wrote:

and I never said you were making BC do that, I was just pointing out a personality flaw I have noticed in home over the past year or so he has been here (mostly the past several months we've had the chat box)

Oh dear... so now you have psychiatrist complex. So tell me please Dr. Liche what symptoms made you get to the conclusion that Black_Cross suffers from a "personality flaw"? Would you mind explaining what you understand as "personality flaw"?

Now, you called him "my puppet". Are you aware of the implications of such accusation? You're basically claiming that Black_Cross acts according to what I dictate.

Liche wrote:

you all so claim Reformists fail, when you guys have tryed several times unsuccesfuly to bring a revolutionary change to the forum, where as I simply once made a post suggesting we reform and get a new admin, which worked on its first attempt.

Now this is funny as hell... I must ask, were you aware that a forum and society do not work in the same way? Also, what do call "revolutionary change"? How is that appliable to a forum?

Are you implying that reformism works because you made a suggestion which because of the workings of this forum which make its owner's determinations absolute except by hacking, ended up being the only plausible option? Amazing... just amazing.

And for the 3rd time in this discussion you're mixing political convictions with adminship while the former is irrelevant to the later.

Liche wrote:

I also think it is funny how your lackeys think this is unfair the way Kenzu dose things,

You got to love this. Really "your lackeys". So now all the guys who stood up against Kenzu with very specific reasons for doing so are my lackeys... awesome. Fuck their criteria, fuck their reasons, fuck their motivations... they're just my lackeys blidnly following my tyranny.... Wow... just wow. You have completely discredited the quite valid arguements of several comrades and have spitted right in the face of logic itself...

Liche wrote:

when the only reason you became admin was because Kenzu knew he wasnt going to be able to go on as much and appointed you WITH NO ELECTION.

He made me administrator in a time where practically nobody came. I was literally the one keeping this site alive and who spent most time here. I had known Kenzu back then for nearly 2 years and a half so he trusted me the management of this site when it was still a young and non-consolidated community which didn't even have the structural foundations for such elections.

However, as far as I'm concerned I haven't been unfair as an administrator: no one has come yet with a sustainable foundation for such a claim. I've pushed a lot the democratic agenda of this site because I happened to be in the right possition to do so where other comrades were not. I tried to bring back as many of the ones who left to EMY as possible so help this forum not lose part of its integrity and I've done as much as possible to abolish censorship and make people's will count. I've indeed limited myself in a fair ammount in order to conciliate a bit with Kenzu, and where we haven't got to a consensus and Kenzu has find the changes unacceptable he has simply reverted the changes I've made.

Records and witnesses won't let me lie and I include Kenzu.

Else, I don't recall anyone calling for me to step down because of my poor managerial performance which, again, was greatly hindered by getting to consensus with Kenzu and overall half of the site's community's indifference towards democracy in this site.

Liche wrote:

so technically if you guys want to accomplish your goals, you would need to step down as admin, and run in this new election, which I tryed too sugest, but you rambled on about some other stuff (which is what I refer too over explaining).

I always stated that if people wanted me out as administrator I would step down at once, and I keep that. Yet... who has asked for that? Who has given a solid reason for me to leave as administrator? Is it even necessary? And if so, to what end?

And our objectives are not to have two admins or to make admin cycles, our objectives are to make this forum as democratic as possible and that is achieved by counting with a proper structure that allows people's will to influde in the way this forum is managed, that is achieved by the managerial staff listening and debating with the people on how to manage the site and ultimately following the people's will. As simple as that. It's not matter of changing admin each 2 weeks, it's not matter of having 2 or 3 or 15 admins. It's about the administrators giving a fuck about the people not only in words but in practice.

Based on that, how is my resignation necesary? How is my resignation necesaru to achieve democracy?

Liche wrote:

and also sorry if I got monoki confused with another of your goons that said they werent coming back ever again.

So now if people agree with you they're your goons... that's nice! They don't have criteria, they're just a bunch of bootlickers who follow blindly the orders of their master... You have said this two times in this thread and to Black_Cross at least 3. If you had any respect left Liche, this is definitely going to blow what is left of it.

You're incurring in a fallacy in which you absolutely dishear their arguements, the reasons for their actions and cancel them as simply the act of blindly following some (unexistant) leadership.

Do you realize why they've wanted to leave? Do you realize why many left? Many came and left during a whole period in which I was absent, for very clear reasons the same reasons that habve made who you claim to be my goons. Their actions and words are product of a condition. Is taht impossible to realize for you? You're being outright disrespectful to a good ammount of members of this community and you're of course dismissing lofic by incurring in a fallacy.

You're impressive. And you think you'd make a good administrator at the same time you're posting overtly manipulative, incendiary and fallacious threads? When you're directly attacking the members of this community? When you're acussing others of doing what in reality you do? That is to try to manipulate others for your own personal gain, to accuse others of trying to impress someone (namely an admin).

You're incurring in so many fallacies and overt personal attacks here...

I wonder if you really deserve to stand even as candidate for adminship.

Oh and "overexplaining" is a misguiding and fallacious term. You're simply saying I shouldn't come up with arguements because that is "overexplaining". How the fuck can you be "too clear" or "too explanatory"? That doesn't even make sense. You're not even explaining why my arguements are "overexplanatory" you're simply stating it. This is nothing but a strawman fallacy with which you, later in your post, accuse me of using strawman fallacies myself.

Liche, you can't win. You are the somalian islamic tribes, and Zealot is the Red Army itself, with all the nukes.

Well, if I do recall, the Soviet Union eventually failed.

The Red Army never failed.

Hutin_Khan wrote:

The Red Army never failed.

Afganistan, its the bomb, havent you ever played Risk?
Or seen any movies, like theres a supernatural thing in Afganistan, it defeted USA (your favorite), Red army, and Alexander the Great.

It did not defeated Alexander the Great. It did not defeated the Red Army (the soviet expedition in Afghanistan was a political failure, just like the american expedition in Vietnam) and it did not defeated the American at all.

True lol.

Im talking about a movie...


and Zealot, to you, You do the exact same thing as Kenzu, like I said, if you want to be Democratic, you would have to Resign as Admin, and have an election.

Liche wrote:

True lol.

Im talking about a movie...


and Zealot, to you, You do the exact same thing as Kenzu, like I said, if you want to be Democratic, you would have to Resign as Admin, and have an election.

i got nothing against you Zealot, but he got a point, you talking about democratie, and you where never elected to be in the function what you got. You say Kenzu wasn't democratic enough... Now, you aren't that to... resign and let us elect u.

Liche wrote:

and Zealot, to you, You do the exact same thing as Kenzu, like I said, if you want to be Democratic, you would have to Resign as Admin, and have an election.

Oh really? Am I doing the same as Kenzu? Please explain. And please adress my points, or reserve your comments to yourself.

Redrevolution17 wrote:

i got nothing against you Zealot, but he got a point, you talking about democratie, and you where never elected to be in the function what you got. You say Kenzu wasn't democratic enough... Now, you aren't that to... resign and let us elect u.

I'm sorry Tom but you don't seem to be the most appropiate critic of my adminship given your lack of activity in this forum. Else, I suggest you read my post since I cover the point you're adressing in it.

Man, you can't compare Kenzu to Zealot. Kenzu is an incompentent piece of shit, and Zealot is a zealous admin who did more for the Forum than anyone here. So stfu, nub.

Hutin_Khan wrote:

Man, you can't compare Kenzu to Zealot. Kenzu is an incompentent piece of shit, and Zealot is a zealous admin who did more for the Forum than anyone here. So stfu, nub.

Zealot pls proof now that you are a good moderator...

thank you.

Swearing and saying the truth are legal activities , here.

RedRevolution17 wrote:

Hutin_Khan wrote:

Man, you can't compare Kenzu to Zealot. Kenzu is an incompentent piece of shit, and Zealot is a zealous admin who did more for the Forum than anyone here. So stfu, nub.

Zealot pls proof now that you are a good moderator...

thank you.

I'll quote Mr. Voltaire (although I'm quite sure he was not the first man to think this over), maybe not his exact words, but the idea: I may not agree with what you say (I'll add as well "and the way you say it") but I'll defend to the last breath your right to say it!

I'm fully against censorship and everyone here knows it. We have dicussed this even democratically and we got to the consensus that swearing is not punible here. Offending might be, but then again, isn't an offense in this context an opinion as well? An opinion with nil relevance if the object of said offense knows or at least believes not to be true? As they say here in Mexico "If the coat fits you, wear it", that is, if said offense fits with what you are, feel offended if not, don't.

Hutin here is expressing his views on Kenzu, indeed, in a rather impolite manner, yet thos are his views and he may have a reason both to express them and to have chosen said manner. He is in his whole right to think what he might about Kenzu and Kenzu is in his right to defend his name. If what Hutin says can be disproven by Kenzu, Hutin shall remain silent as a slanderous (or rather libelous, or whatever) offender and Kenzu shall take no offense. Yet, Hutin counts with the right to deffend what he has said and why he has said it so and shall he prove his point and manners valid his point must be taken as good both by Kenzu and the rest and shall the reasons for Hutin's comment be reverted by the one who suffered the offense. Shall just the manners be not proven righteous must Hutin moderate his language and be accused of being unncesarily aggresive.

Take into account the context, take into account both sides, let each defend his views and prove their points valid and then take a determination on what to do. Confront the subjective truths of the involved parties with each other and both with objective truths. Never blindly follow a set of dogmatic rules. That's the way to moderate properly, my Belgian friend.

Well, I don't want to abuse of your good intentions , Zealot. I'm sorry for being impolite.

So that's how it is Liche?... whatever

I find no need to respond to anything in particular since Zealot tore your arguments in half (that is, if your posts constitute an "argument").

RedRevolution17 wrote:

i got nothing against you Zealot, but he got a point, you talking about democratie, and you where never elected to be in the function what you got. You say Kenzu wasn't democratic enough... Now, you aren't that to... resign and let us elect u.

He's a puppet!!!

ZK wrote:

This is amazingly senseless. So providing arguements somehow becomes "overexplaining" and covering up the truth. Interesting fallacy.

Can you say 'corporate media'?