Taijitu
Forum Meta => The Role Play Council => Archived Role Play Boards => Archive => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: St Oz on March 26, 2007, 12:23:22 PM
-
All this democracy and voting crap has been a lag on the RP and I have been very disappointed by many of the issues and how they were solved. This RP council seems to have no power because nobody really bothers to cast votes and such because of the amount of time it takes to do anything. I'm quite tired of all this bullshit and I call for a vote for the RP Council to dismantle itself and vote in two strong Moderators who know what the they're doing. Anyone have any comments?
-
I second this motion! While there has been some success (expansion of the Resource System for example), it has done nothing that could have simply been done in the OOC Forum.
It also doesnt help that the idea man behind the RP Council, Acle, has been quite inactive since its birth (I remember him saying something about exams but, that was how long ago?).
As for "two strong moderators" well, I hope they are two active and objective moderators that become chosen.
-
As unhappy as I am to say this, I, too, think that the Council isn't doing much worthwhile... all these questions could be asked in OOC because the Council has no power to enforce its decisions.
-
I liked the voting on colonies, for reasons that are blindingly obvious, but I don't really have an opinion as yet.
-
What Oz and Bustos said, because I'm too lazy and tired to think right now.
-
Brilliant idea, based on the assumption that both Moderators will be neutral in their decisions and are active role play members.
-
I liked the voting on colonies, for reasons that are blindingly obvious, but I don't really have an opinion as yet.
Which can still be done in the OOC Thread.
-
I liked the voting on colonies, for reasons that are blindingly obvious, but I don't really have an opinion as yet.
This should still be done. It's already been used to settle a dispute between Varkour and Mercantalist States, it's been proven useful.
For objective moderators, I believe the last act of the RP Council before it's dissolution would be to campaign several moderators and put it up for a vote. We should test the forums up and coming Condorcet voting method on this ;)
DOWN WITH DEMOCRACY.
-
also i believe it should be three moderators. things just work better with uneven numbers.
-
Democracy sucks! Down with the RP Council!
-
I also think that the moderators should be "right-wing", "moderate", and "left-wing". That way we don't get all communists or all fascists or anything.
-
one of each.
conservative capitalist, one moderate and one liberal socialist.
-
That would be preferable. Will the RP Council decide if there are three moderators and who they should be? Or will it be done OOC?
-
For objective moderators, I believe the last act of the RP Council before it's dissolution would be to campaign several moderators and put it up for a vote. We should test the forums up and coming Condorcet voting method on this
Mind you, at the rate things are going right now the proposal won't even make it to a vote :(
EDIT: Scratch that, I spoke too soon.
And picking moderators based on OOC political beliefs ???
-
How about picking Moderators that have a sense of story and a sense of military and a sense of society.
-
That sounds good too.
-
The moderators are the key point to the new system proposed, if they all are skewed towards one way of doing things, anyone who wants to try something diffrent will be run out.
-
Yeah, but then you can call in admins that RP to take names and kick ass.
-
I know none of you would support me but I'll throw my name into the crowd.
-
If we are nominating already, or throwing names into the crowd, I'd like to add myself the the list of canidates as a potential moderater.
I agree with PUR, three mods would best. Two mods leave risk of a split vote.
-
The reason I like to mods is because if it does leave into a disagreement they fight it out and find the most rational terms. If it is a three way moderating team not only do you have too much power spread out you have the 2:1 factor where 2 gang up on the 1 and the 1s voice is never heard.
-
I am afraid of deadlock, if neither mod will fold or no compromise can be attained.
-
If we're nominating, I'd like to throw my hat into the ring. My attributes: I'm a Justice, and if Amy trusts me to be rational, you should too; I fulfill PUR's requirement of a "liberal socialist," should we be using her model; remember my map compromises between Myroria and Oz back in the Lex forum?
In other words, G-C = awesome mod. At least in my opinion.
Also, I would prefer a triumvirate of moderators, precisely because of the possibility of deadlock. I also think that we should shuffle moderators, so as to prevent Oz's situation where the two always gang up on the one. Or just appoint moderators that, while they disagree, respect each other and value each others' opinions.
-
i agree with GC on this one, switching who moderates would be a good idea,
I'm not sure what the requirements of a mod is but if someone were to inform me of the rights and responsibilities, i believe id have a better grasp on if id like to participate on this.
-
to bad im not active really
-
I am FOR three OOC: politically oriented mods. #1 if we get Bustos, Ryaz, and Myro as mods, the place will be so pro libertarian it is not funny and any "commie bullshit" would be more likely to be ignored. #2 Though a moderator can claim to be unbiased, no man is a paragon of pragmatism.
I second G-C for liberal moderator, and second bustos for conservative moderator. For "moderate" moderator, I nominate Mor'os.
-
Bustos is actually far from conservative. Rather, he's incredibly libertarian.
And though I still am not sure what appointing people based on politics has got to do with anything (the fact being that if we are looking for objective OOC moderating I'd think we'd want to detach it from politics) I suppose I may as well accept the nomination. All political tests to date have repeatedly confirmed me to be frighteningly moderate.
-
I think I should just be a mod because I actually have the map... It'd be much more efficient if the mods and I didn't have to relay "oks" about certain expansions, I argue with them, then eventually making a peace where Oz is kicked out of his position because he didn't think the imperialism was right.
-
Not sure about this, but I'll throw my name in for a conservative mod. And I second Mor'os/Prag. for moderate
-
i'll throw my name in as i am fiesty and will take no shit if appointed.
-
By conservative I meant pro-business, by liberal i meant pro-government. We don't have your ordinary divisions between republican and democrat on this forum, we have them between libertarian (bustos, myro, ryaz) and communist (g-c and i, since our comrades have abandoned the cause!!!)
The current norms of "conservative" and "liberal" by American standards are so similar it actually doesn't matter. And don't started with this "it's not on a normal spectrum" stuff, libertarians are right wingers who just happen to like not banning anything.
-
What you mean is, left and right on an economic scale.
-
*rolls eyes* DONT BLAME THE GUY WHO DIDNT SLEEP... wait you're not blaming me... yet....
Anyways, yes, economic, not political, because on IRC and in forum posts and on the SB when it was tried, we didn't argue about politics, we argued about economics. This forum people don't get so firey about government types as they do economics, and I say we should have economic-biased mods so I don't get some libertarian saying something I did doesn't make any sense. I would nominate myself for it, but I don't want to compete with G-C, who I believe would be more than able to moderate (even if not economically/politically biased) at least he won't go deleting threads because they aren't going his way ;D
-
Wow...a lot happened here since my internet was down....
The idea of the RP council was what attracted me to this region in the first place because it serves to discourage shitty expansion RPs; but it does have the unintended consequence (the lesson of NS) of slowing down RP.
And if we're going to nominate mods, I'd like to be one.
My reasons are:
I only read the RP boards, and stay out of the rest of Taijitu politics.
I read (or skim, if they are too long winded) most of the RP posts.
I'm active in all the sides of RP, and invested a lot into it (DSE, shops, RPs).
I also agree that Oz should have a role in this since he has the map.
-
Very true. We seem to tolerate all sorts of governments; I-S' 1984 government, various theocracies, Bustos' corporatocracy, various monarchies, whatever Oz has, and even a few democracies here and there.
I've noticed that, back in the Lex and here as well, people actually go to war over economics. The anti-PLTO holocaust was supposedly to prevent imperialism, and secondarily to stamp out its socialist membership (I'm including YV and CQ). The anti-SA war was fought for totally obvious purposes. I mean, it's implicit in the name. Included in Ryaz's cassus belli for the Veramark War was an admonition to dismantle the "socialist" system.
Point is, Xy is right, and people on this forum get pissy about economics.
And I pledge that I will never delete a thread unless the other two moderators (or other moderator as the case may be) agree that it should be deleted. Closed temporarily, yes. Deleted, no.
-
I dont see why ANY thread should be deleted, bar it doesnt violate actual forum rules.
Not everyone's RP politics is a representative of the player's REAL politics. I'd look at a person's history of people skills (ability to discuss ideas without degrading to a mudfest), open mindness, and objectivity; not a person's politics.
For example: G-C. A political opposite compared to me, however he IS an Supreme Court Justice, which weighs heavy as per his objectivity, however his voting history (RP Council) has shown that he is clearly biased against imperialism.
I dont want mods that I know are going to automatically vote a certain way based on the issue, rather have mods that will diliberate every issue, as objective as humanly possible, then form a decision. Otherwise in a 3 mod system, its the moderate that retains the most power for its really his/her vote that counts, as the right wing will always vote a certain way and a left wing will vote the opposite.
I'd rather have three mods that vote objectively everytime, not based on personal politics. I believe my history has reflected that, based on my voting record in the RP Council as well as maintaining the Resource System.
-
I don't think anyone will support me because I overreact a bit from time to time (If by "time to time" you think "Holy Jesus he bitches and whines a lot"), but my strength is society so I think that'd work out.
By the way, I support the society-war-story mod trio. Maybe even a "statistic" mod.
-
So...there are quite a few nominations then?
Surely the people who want to be Mods will vote for themselves? Or if they are barred from voting at all, there wont be anyone left to vote for them...how are we even selecting the Moderators? Will there be campaigns? Or just voting by people who have not put themselves forward?
Anyways, the people I think would make good Mods are Pragmia and Bustos (either or both). :)
-
Understand, I knew all along that any colony-creation polls were going to pass, and that any vote against them was essentially a protest vote. Thus, my voting record on colony creations should not be considered at face value. Rather, think of it as...an expression of the value of dissent ;D
Besides, I know I announced somewhere that I would stop casting "no" votes on colonies just because I could.
Oh, here's another thing you'll like about me; this is my only moderating job (on this forum). I've held such positions in other forums, but I have no such responsibilities here to distract me from the issues of RP. Unlike Prag, who has the Senate to run, among other things.
-
Example: Should I commit a terrorist attack against you, how many of you would send you army in immediately and try to kill me before trying diplomacy? Would you immediately assume it was Xyrael backing the terrorists just because I posted the post???? (that's aimed at both Bustos and Myro, but actually anyone would assume it was I funding the terrorists instead of doing it for entertainment)
Bustos, while G-C has made it blatantly obvious he is against imperialism, you have made it blatantly obvious you are pro-imperialism by merely putting down colonies on the original document instead of waiting for someone to suggest them. Which is why we need economically biased moderators who don't need to separate themselves from issues which are too deeply rooted to be separated from.
G-C voted against colonies on the RP council based on principle, should his duty as a moderator require him to seperate himself from his IC issues with colonies and look at the general nature of the RP, I believe we could count on G-C to be quite objective, as with you Bustos.
Personally, we need a triumvirate, with the moderate as the tie breaker, the question is who is moderate enough to be moderate? I would suggest Talmann, as not only is he quite pro-capitalism, he also associates himself well with socialists, or Pragmia, who chooses sides based on facts.
-
I wanted to try something different then a socialist nation that i did in Ranholn. I just got tired of dealing with the mass socialist hate going on. :whip:
Who the mods are should be something impotent
-
I'd rather have three mods that vote objectively everytime, not based on personal politics. I believe my history has reflected that, based on my voting record in the RP Council as well as maintaining the Resource System.
I dont expect you to know my voting record but, I have in two cases voted against colonization. Once against Myroria due to his colonization consisted of one post RP and against Merchants due to a disputed claim by Varkour. The times I voted for included an extended RP and no disputed claims. My personal issues or politics had nothing to do with the way I voted. Evidence of my impartiality regarding imperialism.
Whereas G-C flauntingly voted against, no matter the situation surrounding the colonizations.
I did not mean to single out G-C. He was the best target that had an obvious pro (supreme court justice) and con (actual voting history) concerning his background (depending on who else joins the list, currently has my vote as one of three mods; you may consider that as my official endorsement for him at this time).
As per your situation:
Example: Should I commit a terrorist attack against you, how many of you would send you army in immediately and try to kill me before trying diplomacy? Would you immediately assume it was Xyrael backing the terrorists just because I posted the post?Huh? (that's aimed at both Bustos and Myro, but actual anyone would assume it was I funding the terrorists instead of doing it for entertainment)
Well there isnt enough information for me to determine what I'd do. However...
Using a RL example of terrorism, the 9/11 attacks in NY, PA, and DC. There were investigations to find out who was behind the attacks, which lead to the demand of the Taliban to give up Osama, and refusal leading to the actual invasion of Afghanistan. Such would be my course of action based on what I can assume of the situation you have proposed.
I post as many different people under the same account (I'm a post number whore) depending on the thread, whereas some others create new accounts to clearly show a different person/group. I also have never assumed that just because you, or anyone else, made a post that it is public knowledge (unless explicitly stated), unlike many other potential candidates for mod.
-
I'd rather have three mods that vote objectively everytime, not based on personal politics. I believe my history has reflected that, based on my voting record in the RP Council as well as maintaining the Resource System.
I dont expect you to know my voting record but, I have in two cases voted against colonization. Once against Myroria due to his colonization consisted of one post RP and against Merchants due to a disputed claim by Varkour. The times I voted for included an extended RP and no disputed claims. My personal issues or politics had nothing to do with the way I voted. Evidence of my impartiality regarding imperialism.
Whereas G-C flauntingly voted against, no matter the situation surrounding the colonizations.
I did not mean to single out G-C. He was the best target that had an obvious pro (supreme court justice) and con (actual voting history) concerning his background (depending on who else joins the list, currently has my vote as one of three mods; you may consider that as my official endorsement for him at this time).
As per your situation:
Example: Should I commit a terrorist attack against you, how many of you would send you army in immediately and try to kill me before trying diplomacy? Would you immediately assume it was Xyrael backing the terrorists just because I posted the post?Huh? (that's aimed at both Bustos and Myro, but actual anyone would assume it was I funding the terrorists instead of doing it for entertainment)
Well there isnt enough information for me to determine what I'd do. However...
Using a RL example of terrorism, the 9/11 attacks in NY, PA, and DC. There were investigations to find out who was behind the attacks, which lead to the demand of the Taliban to give up Osama, and refusal leading to the actual invasion of Afghanistan. Such would be my course of action based on what I can assume of the situation you have proposed.
I post as many different people under the same account (I'm a post number whore) depending on the thread, whereas some others create new accounts to clearly show a different person/group. I also have never assumed that just because you, or anyone else, made a post that it is public knowledge (unless explicitly stated), unlike many other potential candidates for mod.
Thanks for the endorsement, Bustos. If we are going for the three-mod ideology-based system, I'd vote for you for the right-wing mod. (So many hyphens) Of course, if we end up with a two-mod system, my choices are entirely different. ;) And not to quibble, but the Taliban did offer to put Osama on trial in exchange for us not invading, and we refused.
-
Just to clarify, I am aware of that. We wanted him put to trial in our courts instead. Now I wonder if ever found, would he survive the capture? Lots of trigger happy American soldiers but, that is besides the point.
You do bring up good point, though. We need to settle on the issue on the number of mods (why people choose who should be left up to the individual when the big vote comes). A three mod system seems to be the popular choice, but one, two, and four mods have been offered up. A quick vote, perhaps?
-
If i was active i would step up for being a mod, but im not... i like doing otherstuff to much.
Right now bustos and g-c are the clearest for the two right/left or how ever the hell you wish to call it.
the middle is the most important really, and is pragmia active enough?
no less then 3 mods in any situation
-
Uneven numbers of mods are absolutely necessary to prevent an RP from being bogged down in a tie. Should the vote later be revealed to have an err, it can be corrected. Logically, RP Mods should not make themselves involved in every RP, only in RP's where their services are requested. Resting the power in one hand is absolute, and few are objective enough to handle that. Resting it in two or four, you can easily have a deadlocked jury, and the problem is never solved. A problem solved with err is better than a problem left unsolved, at least RP can continue on its norm.
The note about terrorism was not aimed at the precedent set by the US invasion of Afghanistan, but instead countless insurrections such as Chechnya and Palestine, where politics and human rights groups prevent you from committing atrocities irl where on the forum reciprocations are unlikely. Genocides come and go on the forum, at least there is opposition by the int'l community in real life.
-
@ Ranholn:
Unlike Prag, who has the Senate to run, among other things.
I think Prag has enough on his mind....
-
You people are talking about bias when I voted pro-imperialism and anti-imperialism evenly. I didn't care if it was imperialism in general but that they had a good story behind it. In my own opinion it seems that most of you have voted for or against it because of IC reasons rather than OOC reasons. Such things like RP chaos are solved by moderators not by a group of people to vote on it. If anyone of the lexicon remember... How did the PLTO fall and how did the La Sava Pact Succeed? The Ozians controled LSP directly not by voting. PLTO was primarily voting and they couldn't get motions passed in time until they found themselves being bogged down by all the issues.
-
Well, that and all of our members were a bunch of damn pacifists save Pragmia and Eluvatar :P
And as to imperialism, my only concern is people who get too carried away with it, do it for the sake of trying to win RP or some such madness. RP is not meant to be won.
-
Well, that and all of our members were a bunch of damn pacifists save Pragmia and Eluvatar :P
And as to imperialism, my only concern is people who get too carried away with it, do it for the sake of trying to win RP or some such madness. RP is not meant to be won.
Quoted for truth. All of it.
-
So three mods it is or we need a vote? Does anyone oppose three mods?
-
I vote for three mods.
-
I agree with 3 as well.
For a middle mod, I'd propose Oz or myself. I actually chose my spot on the map for this reason, the island chain allows me to play a conservative foreign policy and focus on economics like Britain did with Europe for much of its history. I feel Oz generally does the same thing too (but I never played in the Lexicon either so my history is limited, which is another case I make for myself ;)).
-
I have no nice way of putting this, so I won't try to.
Choosing Moderators based on OOC political beliefs is stupid, moronic, asinine, idiotic, short sighted, foolish, dumb, ignorant, silly, ill thought out and just plain a bad idea. Moderators aren't supposed to be debating politics and the feasibility of economics and their effects. Moderators are supposed to simply be objective and capable of making an unbiased decision, not going on about why democracy sucks or why communism is such a terrible and doomed idea and so forth. This is RP, and the way I've always viewed it is that with such matters we give the benefit of the doubt.
Moderation needs to be as deliberative and depoliticized as possible. Why in Hell's name would you go out of your way to make is political?
-
I have no nice way of putting this, so I won't try to.
Choosing Moderators based on OOC political beliefs is stupid, moronic, asinine, idiotic, short sighted, foolish, dumb, ignorant, silly, ill thought out and just plain a bad idea. Moderators aren't supposed to be debating politics and the feasibility of economics and their effects. Moderators are supposed to simply be objective and capable of making an unbiased decision, not going on about why democracy sucks or why communism is such a terrible and doomed idea and so forth. This is RP, and the way I've always viewed it is that with such matters we give the benefit of the doubt.
Moderation needs to be as deliberative and depoliticized as possible. Why in Hell's name would you go out of your way to make is political?
Werd. Or as G-C puts it, "Quoted for truth. All of it."
To date, there is no opposition to a three mod system. We now need to sort all the candidates that desire to be one of the three so a seven day vote can be made.
So far (alphabetically):
Bustos
Gallipoli-China
Mercantilist States
Myroria
PUR
Saint Oz
Simple
Talmann
Anyone else?
-
I have no nice way of putting this, so I won't try to.
Choosing Moderators based on OOC political beliefs is stupid, moronic, asinine, idiotic, short sighted, foolish, dumb, ignorant, silly, ill thought out and just plain a bad idea. Moderators aren't supposed to be debating politics and the feasibility of economics and their effects. Moderators are supposed to simply be objective and capable of making an unbiased decision, not going on about why democracy sucks or why communism is such a terrible and doomed idea and so forth. This is RP, and the way I've always viewed it is that with such matters we give the benefit of the doubt.
Moderation needs to be as deliberative and depoliticized as possible. Why in Hell's name would you go out of your way to make is political?
But the problem with that is that it is impossible for people to be completely objective. People have goals, agendas, aspirations, and if the moderation staff is made up of people with similar goals, they will, consciously or not, try to further them. Only when there is ideological balance among the moderating staff can this be avoided. If a moderator tries to use his/her position to further their goals, and always see other moderators blocking them, eventually they will give up trying to do so.
That is the closest to objectivity we can get: a balance of vested interests.
-
I think G-C & Pragmia BOTH have a point. I think mods should be as unbiased as possible, at least as far as what they're modding is concerned (in this case RPing). But mods ARE human (usually), and all humans have some biases. I think the main thing with 3 mods, is that we have a diversity of opinions. I wouldn't want 3 imperialist mods, OR 3 pacifist mods.
-
Pragmia, you are correct, I'm not asking people to consciously be political about RP, I'd much prefer 3 objective moderators (which is who I'll vote on) but I want to be assured that their subconscious won't get in the way. The gut instinct that tells them which way to vote before they actually think about the topic and rely on reason. Pragmia, you are an American, taught by American books, living in the capitalist paradise, you probably have 3 or more televisions/computers, two cars, and a house or apartment with two designated parking spots. That inevitably biases you, one way or the other, into a certain mindset, and it would take effort for you to consciously break that mindset.
My point isn't to have non-objective mods, it's to have objective mods who will be trumped when they vote based on their subconscious bias.
-
I belive it is time I make my voice heard for the first time since the debacle when Taijitu RP was first getting started.
First of all, all posts prior to mine has good points in one way or another.
Second, I agree with the least number of mods for a smooth RP is uneaven and more than one thus making it three (3)
Now, for my point. In five weeks, I will graduate from my education and will most likely be completely unemployed for a couple of months, that leads me to think that I will have time eavailiable to put myself up as electable mod.
Those of you who know me a little know that I am a bit over-exentric from time to time but that I actively try to distance myself from my own bias. You probably also know that the few times I have been somewhat aggressive in my forum-behaviour is when I percive an unfair OOC conflict as basis of an RP-thread or when RP has gotten out of hand so that people feel preyed upon and the fun part of RP is lacking.
-
Pragmia, you are an American, taught by American books, living in the capitalist paradise, you probably have 3 or more televisions/computers, two cars, and a house or apartment with two designated parking spots.
I do have three televisions, but only one of them works, the other two antiques from a by gone time. We have one car here. I have one computer which me and my three brothers fight over unless you count my father's laptop, which he's usually using for work.
And God, you make it sound like I'm some brainwashed zombie just because I live in the Great Satan America. And what does being tought like an American mean? You think I'm taught the same way here in suburban Massachusetts that they are in, say, rural Texas or some such?
But this is off topic, even if I did need to vent.
-
But his post DOES demonstrate his point about bias. O:-) ;D
And, though not relevant, I also fall short on TVs, cars, and parking spots. :( :)
-
my choice: GC; St. Oz, Bustos
that should do!
-
Pragmia, you are an American, taught by American books, living in the capitalist paradise, you probably have 3 or more televisions/computers, two cars, and a house or apartment with two designated parking spots.
I do have three televisions, but only one of them works, the other two antiques from a by gone time. We have one car here. I have one computer which me and my three brothers fight over unless you count my father's laptop, which he's usually using for work.
And God, you make it sound like I'm some brainwashed zombie just because I live in the Great Satan America. And what does being tought like an American mean? You think I'm taught the same way here in suburban Massachusetts that they are in, say, rural Texas or some such?
But this is off topic, even if I did need to vent.
Xy, please don't fall into the trap of thinking all Americans own a lot of commodities. Because it simply isn't true. America, like all such countries, has its class divisions, and though your point about education is valid, your point that every American is affluent fails.
(Way to alienate a supporter, G-C :trout:)
Also, since we're doing a True Confessions sort of thing here, my two televisions are old and in the process of dying, one of two cars is practically shot, while the newer one replaced a car that spontaneously combusted, and all our parking is used by middle-class/wealthy parents to drop their soccer-playing progeny at the nearby playing field. Oh, and let's not forget quite a bit of credit card debt, though no mortgage.
-
I'm not gonna talk about Xy's comment... mostly because it describes me... :shrug:
-
lol ok, Middle class America (American values) are described by what I said. True confessions told, my family owns four television sets and three computers plus a laptop and four vehicles. Two of those vehicles are broken down and cannot be sold, so are a financial drain, two televisions do not turn on, three remote controls are broken, two computers are old and the only good computer (mine) has is functioning off an internet that shares broadband with... oh... 200,000 other people. I live in an apartment with a shower that doesn't work, a toilet that won't flush, and a sink that's clogged because my apartment manager is too cheap to fix it. Instead, the other shower, when it decides to work, only spews out lukewarm water at best, and the assholes upstairs have something against me since i beat the ceiling with a broom to make them stop vacuuming at midnight, so they do the dishes while I shower (not joking), and this is a "good life" by my standards after living in a trailer in Texas and in a car in the streets of Santa Monica.
And the education system is true Pragmia, though the opinions reflected by Texan textbooks may not be the same as Massachusetts, you cannot flaunt the "liberal" nature of your state at every chance. The beginning of your text books probably even mentioned we got our democracy from the Greeks, then ironically moves into Rome, which was great because of Greece, without mentioning in the slightest that Caesar was tantamount to Hitler, or that the 13 Iroquois nations in NE America actually invented a democracy which is what American democracy is truly based off of (not Greece). It also likely mentioned the tycoons as great businessmen that did aweful things, then it likely failed to mention the populists in the 1890's, then it most likely quickly skimmed over Teddy Roosevelt's reforms and moved quickly into how America won world war 1, then the glories of the 1920's, the horrors of the depression, but it likely failed to mention how the socialists won 30% of votes in the 1920's presidential elections even though the presidential candidate was running from a jail cell after being charged with treason. It then likely continued into how FDR brilliantly reformed America... and then how America won world war 2 (which is a farce)
all high school and lower classes are required to follow a specified state approved curriculum, which in turn is most likely monitored by the federal gov't, and many text books still show pre-1989 maps. Just because you didn't become brainwashed by the system doesn't mean millions of other Americans didn't In fact, I believe that that's the reason we argue about economics and not politics on this forum, precisely because we never believed what the text books told us.
anyways, that's not the point of this thread, so let's stop this [hijack] (If you reply with a rebuttal to anything i said, don't expect a reply) and let's continue with the real purpose of this thread.
G-C, Bustos, and um... let's mix it up, Talmann (if you think you're up for it, otherwise St Oz)
-
A quick note about textbooks before we [/hijack]. Because publishers normally find it a money drain to publish state-specific books, they usually publish a single book that is designed to win adoption in as many states as possible. Therefore, states like Texas really do control which books get adopted in Massacheusetts (sp?)
In the first place, Texas is a far larger market. Publishers would rather sell their books in Texas than in less populous and more liberal states. Second, Texas' textbook adoption board is very...vocal in its demands. Far more so than in other states. It is also more influenced by lobby groups than adoption boards in other states, and, since this is Texas we're talking about, these lobby groups tend to be conservative. Third, Texas has very poor funding for its educational system. This encourages teachers to rely maily on the textbook for lesson plans, rather than going out and preparing their own.
Which books are adopted in Texas, therefore, are usually which textbooks are marketed to other states, and, since the market is dominated by only a few publishers, these are the ones that must be accepted if schools are to have any texts at all.
Now [/hijack]
-
So far (alphabetically):
Bustos
The Empire
Gallipoli-China
Mercantilist States
Myroria
PUR
Saint Oz
Simple
Talmann
Anymore latecomers?
-
kudos to Bustos for remaining on topic, for this seems like a dilemma that needs fixing right away,
maybe we can hold another discussion about education and backgrounds at a later date?
i do understand the need for these "background checks" though in ascertaining the proper combination of candidates.
...for now i think this area should be reserved for listing possible candidates and solidifying the outlines of what our new mod structure is going to be.
-
should we start with a voting thread yet?
-
Here. (http://forum.taijitu.org/index.php/topic,1215.0.html)
-
A quick note about textbooks before we [/hijack]. Because publishers normally find it a money drain to publish state-specific books, they usually publish a single book that is designed to win adoption in as many states as possible. Therefore, states like Texas really do control which books get adopted in Massacheusetts (sp?)
In the first place, Texas is a far larger market. Publishers would rather sell their books in Texas than in less populous and more liberal states. Second, Texas' textbook adoption board is very...vocal in its demands. Far more so than in other states. It is also more influenced by lobby groups than adoption boards in other states, and, since this is Texas we're talking about, these lobby groups tend to be conservative. Third, Texas has very poor funding for its educational system. This encourages teachers to rely maily on the textbook for lesson plans, rather than going out and preparing their own.
Which books are adopted in Texas, therefore, are usually which textbooks are marketed to other states, and, since the market is dominated by only a few publishers, these are the ones that must be accepted if schools are to have any texts at all.
Now [/hijack]
Woah I was reading this thread and I saw this...
That statement has a great point, but it is not fully correct. In Massachusetts, the books chosen are different from the books chosen in Texas, though perhaps they are the same as in some parts of California and New York. And as you noted it is in texas that teachers rely more on textbooks-- here in Massachussetts the Textbook is far from everything.