Current Events

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Clayton — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:48:04 GMT

Does that make GS preppers? And we all know that preppers are terrorists. Therefore, GS are terrorists. Not sure if the logic is valid but pretty sure the conclusion is true.

Clayton -

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Wheylous — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:36:29 GMT

Approve the November thread, please?

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

DanielMuff — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:35:11 GMT

Wheylous:

While waiting for my Nov Low Content thread to be approved, here is Goldman Sachs apparently being the only prepared ones in the storm:

Goldman Sachs is the shining light of New York.

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Wheylous — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:41:51 GMT

The thing is that I wanted to make LibertyHQ be an umbrella place for libertarians. I plan to segment the forums in such a manner as to allow many different types of libertarians to coexist. For example, I wanted to make "oldies" forums for minarchists and AnCaps so that newbies aren't freaked out by sharing forums with anarchists.

But I will link your forum (for now! muahahaha)

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Clayton — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:36:14 GMT

Clayton - I hope to make forums for LibertyHQ myself as well :P

Never underestimate the power of outsourcing. Perhaps we can work out a gentleman's agreement regarding decorum/rules that will make you comfortable with linking it.

Clayton -

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Autolykos — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:44:23 GMT

Thanks!

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

fountainhead — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:38:07 GMT

@Autolykos

Yes, generators. I live in New York and did a tour of the Wall Street area yesterday. Pretty much everything is shut down while they're pumping out flood water. The stock exchange and the like, however, are running on generators.

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Autolykos — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:34:28 GMT

Ah gotcha. Generators, I take it?

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Wheylous — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:33:30 GMT

They're the only ones with electricity (according to the EPJ).

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Autolykos — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:29:54 GMT

Sorry but how does that picture show that? Or was it a joke?

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Wheylous — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:25:05 GMT

While waiting for my Nov Low Content thread to be approved, here is Goldman Sachs apparently being the only prepared ones in the storm:

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Wheylous — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:08:38 GMT

Clayton - I hope to make forums for LibertyHQ myself as well :P

But I guess that for now I can put some links on the "Forums" section.

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Autolykos — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:48:18 GMT

SkepticalMetal:
Why the heck does it require your full name on the Registration page?

I'm not sure, to be honest. But since it's only one text field, you don't have to put down your full name if you don't want to. The really interesting thing to me is that even I (the forum admin) can't see what anyone put down as his full name.

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Autolykos — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:47:01 GMT

As the person who created the Voluntaryism Forum, maybe I can help.

hashem:
There's a section for challenging admin decisions. If the designer was so sure that admins would make controversial decisions that he created an entire section for it, that worries me. If my input is valued, I think mods/admins should be restricted to doing absolutely nothing except removing real spam.

Having been in many forums over the years, I think there's a very good chance that people won't see eye-to-eye at some point. It could be among the forum staff, it could be among the membership, or it could be among both. Rather than have an authoritarian "my word is law" kind of attitude, I thought it would be better to have an area for criticism of how the forum is being run. I, for one, don't claim to be able to run a forum "perfectly" (whatever one takes that to mean).

hashem:
Also, the idea that the challenge section is separate is related to the next thing:

There doesn't seem to be a "View all active topics" section like here on Mises.org. This section is the one reason I find these forums valuable, it's like a feed of what's going on in all sections without having to check them individually, constantly—and certainly a thread in the section to challenge mod decisions would be less noticed and so less likely to gain popularity except among people who frequent that section (but the point is this is true with all sections, the point of aggrogating them is to create a community that's not devided while the actual content is organized into different sections).

Actually there is a "View Active Topics" link near the top left of the main forum page. In addition, forum sections that contain new posts will be marked with a different icon.

Hope this helps!

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

hashem — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 04:16:41 GMT

Daniel, yes he was powertripping. I apologize for characterizing him as a clown guy—but only if it was a violation of forum rules I agreed to when signing up, otherwise I stand by my judgment.

Hey Arristipus, I like the idea but right off the bat a few things strike me:
- There's a section for challenging admin decisions. If the designer was so sure that admins would make controversial decisions that he created an entire section for it, that worries me. If my input is valued, I think mods/admins should be restricted to doing absolutely nothing except removing real spam. Also, the idea that the challenge section is separate is related to the next thing:
- There doesn't seem to be a "View all active topics" section like here on Mises.org. This section is the one reason I find these forums valuable, it's like a feed of what's going on in all sections without having to check them individually, constantly—and certainly a thread in the section to challenge mod decisions would be less noticed and so less likely to gain popularity except among people who frequent that section (but the point is this is true with all sections, the point of aggrogating them is to create a community that's not devided while the actual content is organized into different sections).

Current Events

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** October 2012 low content thread ***

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *

Re: * October 2012 low content thread *