December 15, 2006 at 11:07 am #244743
The What Would RevMen Do? Party has as its main goal to promote the continued success and ensure the smooth running of Brickfilms.com. We recognize that the reason and the purpose of this current restructuring is not to promote “democracy” nor is it a result of any particular weakness of the present structuring; the purpose of this restructuring — indeed, of this very election — is to relieve RevMen of some of those duties and responsibilities by delegating them to trusted members who are able to make decisions without placing undo burden upon Brickfilms’ top administrator.
The WWRD Party acknowledges the fact that the viability of Brickfilms is directly connected to the continued aegis of RevMen and promotes the candidacy of those who would endeavor to implement his vision for the future. Candidates who receive the endorsement of the WWRD Party will be expected to demonstrate the ability to make decisions on their own while having those decisions reflect an understanding of RevMen’s principles of open-mindedness, tolerance, freedom, and playfulness yet still exhibiting a focus on conservative growth and a single-mindedness with regard to the stated objectives of Brickfilms.com (i.e., to promote and support those engaged in the art of bricfilming).
WWRD Party candidates will not endeavor to represent the “will of the people” beyond the extent that will coincides with the “will of RevMen” (which historically has proven to be a great extent). We allow that the institution of Ministers is toward the goal of easing the burden upon our esteemed RevMen in administering our growing empire and are accepting of the fact that all site administration matters are best framed from the standpoint of “what would RevMen do?”
Candidates who wish to be considered for endorsement by the WWRD Party or to nominate another for consideration should post in this thread (note: endorsement from the WWRD Party does not preclude a nominee from being a candidate for any other party).
Candidates for the Ministerial positions for which elections are being held:
Minister of Community Projects – In charge of potential and ongoing community projects.
Minister of Discussion – In charge of the forums and the chat.
Minister of Film Rating – In charge of setting standards for and encouraging the rating of films in our directory
Minister of Film Contests – In charge of coordinating official Brickfilms contests.
- Richard Frost[/*]
This post will be edited to reflect any changes in candidacy for those positions.
EDIT: Lechnology is the current spokesperson for the WWRD Party.December 15, 2006 at 2:33 pm #244763
You bring to light an important distinction and I have updated the initial post to reflect this. Your nomination for Minister of Community Projects has been accepted (with myself providing the second to the motion) but, as you pointed out, any appointment is purely speculative at this juncture (as would be the positions of Minister of Discussion and Minister of Film Rating).December 15, 2006 at 3:08 pm #244768
DBParticipantDecember 15, 2006 at 10:07 pm #244897
CrazyanimatorParticipantDecember 15, 2006 at 10:17 pm #244905
KrickParticipantDecember 16, 2006 at 1:29 am #244975
TimParticipantDecember 16, 2006 at 2:48 am #244996
“Krick Films” wrote: I would like to join this party. It seems to be the most logically thought out and rational.
Touché. Which is why I would like to be considered for this party as well. Saulgoode is a very informed person in my opinion. I would especially want to be a nominee for the minister of film ratings, since I have several good ideas for an overhaul of the system that I’m sure would closely follow the WWRD initiatives.December 16, 2006 at 11:54 am #245079
I hate to be the killjoy but all this brickfilm politics has not really left me convinced.
However this does seem the most sensible proposal, The aim of this politics business is to distribute the time and effort into running the site across more people. Increasing productivity. This party unlike others doesn’t seem to have lost site of that.
Correct me if I am wrong, but will there not be disputes on “Revs Aim”. its not an easily defined “thing”. Isn’t there a weakness of definition on purpose? It seems to go against the aim of the introduction of brickfilm politics, if we are constantly looking to rev to see hat he would do, and more so engaging in discussion amongst ourselves in Revmens aim.
I’m not saying that this is a bad or unworkable idea at all; I am just interested on what will be referenced as Revs aim, if disputes of certain things come about.December 16, 2006 at 5:35 pm #245161
chosen1ParticipantDecember 16, 2006 at 6:50 pm #245189
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.