Status check and poll on recent crack down

The poll perhaps would not be pointless, if there was a vast majority in favor of one thing or another. But the point IS...there isn't a large majority either way. And the idea of a poll is simply to gather opinions.

My sympathies within this thread are known, but I would like to lend a thought to each of your points:

HERS writes:
Silly me, I thought that the object of a poll was to have a democracy, where the majority vote was the outcome.

As you likely now, if it were a ballot referundum issue, where the law said that majority vote made it a new law, then of course. I know that you did not mean to assume that it was, and that we were more informal here. But just plain "majority rule" democracy is nothing more than mob rule. We live in a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. Like it or not, Rich is our elected representative, as we voted him there ( or accepted his position) when we paid to play. I hope that my thoughts to Cat help modify things.

CAT 72 writes:
The poll perhaps would not be pointless, if there was a vast majority in favor of one thing or another. But the point IS...there isn't a large majority either way. And the idea of a poll is simply to gather opinions.

I don't think that a "vast majority", or "mandate" as Rich put it, need be the tripwire. Certainly an 80-20 ratio would cause greater concern. But that is not to dismiss a 50-50 as being not of concern. Because of the way that the question was posed in the poll, I do not believe that a conclusion can be drawn that would negate the poll results as not having value as indicating a possible need for change. Without proposing a solution, one could look at the results and at least ask "Is their a way to enact a change that would pacify many of those in the group that wanted some change, and not alienate those that were in approval of the current status quo"? I am not saying that there is a solution, but only that the poll would indicate a need to look for one on that area. To at least consider that, and I do not pretend to assume that Rich has not, would give value to the poll, and to the efforts made by those who participated in it. My own opinion is somewhat as Rich has stated earlier, that for every problem he solves, he will likely create another.

I don't think that a "vast majority", or "mandate" as Rich put it, need be the tripwire. Certainly an 80-20 ratio would cause greater concern. But that is not to dismiss a 50-50 as being not of concern. Because of the way that the question was posed in the poll, I do not believe that a conclusion can be drawn that would negate the poll results as not having value as indicating a possible need for change. Without proposing a solution, one could look at the results and at least ask "Is their a way to enact a change that would pacify many of those in the group that wanted some change, and not alienate those that were in approval of the current status quo"? I am not saying that there is a solution, but only that the poll would indicate a need to look for one on that area. To at least consider that, and I do not pretend to assume that Rich has not, would give value to the poll, and to the efforts made by those who participated in it. My own opinion is somewhat as Rich has stated earlier, that for every problem he solves, he will likely create another.

Um.....I think that's what I meant to say. LOL.

Cat,
I think I agree ... I just had a few more minutes to write. Cest and access, OK ! LOL

Actually this site is neither a Democracy or a Democratic Republic. It is a benign (I hope....) Dictatorship. You can't vote me out of office, or have a majority forcibly overrule my decisions. The only power you have is to stay or leave. The only power I have over you is to allow you to stay or force you to leave. But since being a dictator of a country with no one living there is kind of senseless, I try my best to make decisions that won't cause everyone to move out.

I am interested in feedback from people about what I do here for them. But I am not obligated in any way to do anything they want me to. But as I wish for this "country" to survive, it is in my and everyone else's best interests if I try to do what is best. Sometimes I have to do things that may be unpopular, not because I know what is best, but because I think it may be best and just hope I am right. When I put up a poll for guidance, it is not because I think a majority may be right. It is because I want to see what a majority may want, right or wrong (in my opinion). That meaning that it is entirely possible that a majority may have different ideas then I do about where this site should be heading. But since I am the dictator here, I may decide to try it my way, regardless of what other people want, just because I can, and who knows? Maybe the long shot may work out after all.

Honestly, if the majority rule thing worked all of the time, it would be a simple matter to become a billionaire at the race track by simply betting on the horse that the most people were betting on. Personally, I don't think that will work at all.

Well, since Rich mentioned the viability of HELL in this thread, and I had also previously compared it to prostitution, I will address those defenses of it made by others, as well as the requests for more to join.

While meant somewhat figuratively, it is called HELL for a reason, and not HEAVEN. It is viewed by many members here to reflect the "lower strata", and that has been stated in other posts in this forum. Even so, Rich says that 30-odd folks have paid to be there. That seems to have surprised Rich, and was unexpected, and I claim some dismay at that fact as well. I see it as a wayward place to spend time, and again as pointed out by others, a disappointing experience. A place to be "down and out", or hasten such. A physicist's validation of the term "down and out" would be the constants of gravity and entropy, against which forces of opposition must constantly be applied if to maintain order. We all make considerable efforts daily to avoid the constant pull of "down and out" in all that we do, or disorder will certainly prevail. "To dust" is my inevitable end, but only after I am no longer able to apply resistance. So why do I want to pay for something that I otherwise expend effort to resist daily? And which is a free consequence of not trying otherwise? As for what is said there, I have my ability to view it when I choose through a member. I have also avoided it, as other members have, because it is a depressing place, a place where things are devalued. Sorry, but the $10 that I keep at the ready in PayPal is for my next slip-of-the-tongue! Besides, what would Wendy think?

It's memberships are new yet...see what happens in the long run.
At first it's a novelty. You do get sick of that atmosphere though unless you have a very specific personality type.
One of two things will most likely happen:
1)It will fizzle out on it's own
2)It will become the "Australia" of the site (no offense meant to Oz--no one loves the present day place as much as I do---I'm referring to it's original history)...and may serve a purpose. If it keeps those personality types happy perhaps the rest of your forums will stay cleaner.
Either way it can't hurt.
Unless ....the site becomes known for Hell more then anything else....then you would have a problem....but somehow I dont think Rich will let that happen.

Originally Posted by NiCoLe L RuSSeLL

Unless ....the site becomes known for Hell more then anything else....then you would have a problem....but somehow I dont think Rich will let that happen.

No, I don't think that would happen. But then again, I have been surprised at what people will pay to have entertainment, and the type of entertainment they are willing to actually pay for.

I say give this 2 years --that's 2 payments---to see who is staying and who is leaving...at that point some roots will b made if they take at all.

Jim,

HELL is what it is. People who pay to post there have different interests compared to those that don’t. The key word is different; not wrong, not right, just plain different. Do I think less of people who like to spend their time and money there? Nope, it’s simply that they find entertainment value in something I don’t. As far as me paying for being there? Not a chance in…well you get the point . In the past and when it was free I visited it every now and that was enough of a sample. To be honest I read some of the threads and didn’t find it funny or amusing. What had sparked my curiosity was to know how many people had paid. When I asked a member that question (don’t remember who right now) he told me that I should become a member and check for myself. Yes, I was curious but not enough to pay $10, and now thanks to Rich I know the answer anyways. When Rich announced the concept of HELL I voiced my concern. My thought was that it was not adding something of substance to the site. The idea of having granting access to only those that pay was a good one.

Regards