December 17, 2006 at 4:16 am #245347
LadonParticipantDecember 17, 2006 at 4:32 am #245354
MindGameParticipantDecember 17, 2006 at 8:50 am #245389
“iamcharles” wrote: 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?
Disputes arise in any discussion of plans for the future and this party welcomes discussion on such plans. Lechnology, in the initial response to this thread, provided a fine example how such issues can be resolved by citing past precedent of RevMen weighing in on a discussion and thereby providing evidence in support of his contention. Is such methodology perfect? I would agree with you if you stated it was not. But it does provide a more sound basis for judgment than looking to the examples set by various national governments or appealing to mob infatuation with a cult of personality.
“iamcharles” wrote: 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.
If you believe that RevMen has authorized this exercise in “brickfilms politics” because he is dissatisfied with the status quo and is looking for a new direction in which to take Brickfilms, by all means support another party. If you feel that this election is a method to elicit those who are best able to support him in carrying forth along the lines of the estabished tradition and mores of the site, perhaps the WWRD party is for you.
“chosen1” wrote: This group is sacrilegious.
The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 7:Verse 5
“MindGame” wrote: -MindGame, kind of interested in running for Minister of Filming Resources.
Since we only have a couple weeks left until the election, I am going to second Mindgame’s offer; but we can still have others apply for the position (my reservation is not that MG is unqualified, merely that I don’t wish to impose my will upon the members).December 17, 2006 at 9:33 am #245391
LechnologyParticipantDecember 17, 2006 at 12:51 pm #245414
An Old OreParticipantDecember 17, 2006 at 6:53 pm #245475
“Watson” wrote: [quote="saulgoode"]it does provide a more sound basis for judgment than … appealing to mob infatuation with a cult of personality.
I know that this comment is directed at TPSFALP, because I know that it is your opinion of our character. That is unfortunate, and it’s a misconception. We certainly don’t seek supporters based on personality, and we’ve made our position clear. It is misleading to characterize us with such a statement, and I think you owe more to the people of this site.[/quote]
Your knowledge is unfounded and my comment was not targetting specifically your party. Yes, I do feel the elections should be more than an exercise in mere fandom and I am pleased that your party has put forth issues that can be discussed over the coming weeks. And yes, the formation of the WWRD Party was precipitated by a desire that the elections be more than just a “prom queen” popularity contest and that the outcome might prove of more benefit to the community; but that does not mean that it lays claim to any exclusivity in desiring this goal — nor does it mean that the elections can not be “fun”, as our party’s name (like your own’s) should indicate.
There have been a lot of people who have contributed to the growth of Brickfilms and its establishment as one of the premiere hobbyist communities on the Web. There is an obligation for those who participate in the administration of the site to rise above their personal aggrandizement and place the interests of the community first. It is the hope of the WWRD Party that the election will produce such administrators, regardless of which party is their sponsor.December 18, 2006 at 8:18 pm #245676
CrazyanimatorParticipantDecember 18, 2006 at 8:33 pm #245680
CometgreenParticipantDecember 19, 2006 at 12:41 am #245746
KrickParticipantDecember 19, 2006 at 6:47 am #245810
The topic ‘The WWRD Party’ is closed to new replies.