I don’t see a problem with it.
We can vote on people already. It’s called putting them on ignore.
There are a number of posters I’d be more than happy to vote off the board. However, I’m certain the same is true in regard to many posters toward me, which makes it an interesting problem in mixed game theory, i.e. who to kill off first to maximize your ability to remain alive the longest.
STranger
Why should dissenting opinions be presented any differently than majority opinions?
That almost sounds fun.
My point is that the standards should be the same for each. Within very broad limits, your right to say something should not depend on the degree to which it conforms to prevailing orthodoxy.
No problem with putting restrictions of the expression of dissent?
Dude, you are fucking bullet-proof. The only people who would try to vote you off are the few people who can’t deal with a well thought out, well-presented statement of facts, in greater detail than any other poster bothers with, in the name of fighting ignorance.
On the other hand, your name totally sucks.
As much as I may get annoyed by some posts/posters, the blackballing thing just rubs me so entirely the wrong way that I could never do it.
I belileve that my posting style is pretty much a mirror image of the board’s more assertive anti-conservative or anti-Republican posters. And they outnumber me by a good number. So my question is, why should I have to behave in a way that is considerably from my opponents? I’m not trying to pick a fight with you personally, but your attitude…or what seems to be your attitude…is one that I know many others here share, and that is that my behavior is somehow much more egregious than that of my opponents who behave much the same way or worse, but because the majority here agrees with them in principle not a word of complaint is raised. And my view is what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I’m not going to sit by passively while my side gets hammered and lied about and assailed and insulted in just about every unfair and untrue way possible without coming to its defense in as assertive a manner as I can. I do draw the line at being dishonest however, despite the dishonest or intentionally disingenuous claims of some of my opponents otherwise.
You think it’s a good thing you’re the conservative version of Der Trihs? Shit. Why don’t you try being the conservative elucidator? That might at least be entertaining.
I can’t buy this premise. I totally don’t understand the respect for bricker.
You and me both, Hazel.
(Aside: I once voted for myself, as part of experimenting in Day 1 with a game mechanism that we could cast multiple votes. I almost got lynched for that.)
I’m considerably different from Der Trihs because I don’t contend that my political opponents are invariably guided by evil intent; I am different from Der Trihs because I don’t wish death on American soldiers and citizens; and I’m different from Der Trihs because I make sense.
Trying to be a conservative elucidator on this board would be impossible. Apart from the fact that elucidator rarely contributes anything of substance to a discussion, being a successful comedian requires that the audience like and relate in a positive way to the performer (or in this case, his politics). Try to imagine the response elucidator would likely get on a conservative board and I think you’ll see what I mean.
Heck, I’ll go for that. 
Hey, I’ve never had a bad thing to say about her.
But yeah I’d be voted off the island pretty quickly. Boo to this idea!
They exist now, just in a non-formalised way. Try genuinely advocating a controversial and unpopular position and see what happens.
You get yelled at, not banned. I do it all the time.
Are you saying that you don’t understand what Kyla said? If not, why do you disagree. Bricker can be a bit of a stickler sometimes, but always with his understanding of the facts and logic on his side.