The Dutch beach volleyball player who served time in prison after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in England has won his second match at the Paris Olympics.

Dutch beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde, who served time in prison after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl, won his second match at the Paris Olympics and received an even harsher reaction from the crowd on Wednesday than for his first match.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    You said they would be democratically elected. That requires an election. So give me these simple election rules please.

    • sandbox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, go ahead and quote where I wrote the phrase “democratically elected”. I know my own ideology better than you do.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        This is what you said:

        I didn’t say randomly selected, I said selected with some kind of fair and democratic process.

        If you didn’t mean an election, what did you mean? What is a democratic process that doesn’t involve a vote?

        • sandbox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          Yes, correct. Plurality or majority voting, which is how we usually talk about elections, necessarily imposes the will of a majority upon minorities, and is thus not democratic.

          Again, I’m not saying I have all the answers here - acting like I know best, better than everyone else, is itself not democratic. My position is, and always has been, that we need to get together and collectively determine the answers to these questions through consensus.

          All I can share with you are some of my own ideas, which aren’t anywhere near as inclusive as I would like. I try to consider other people as best I can, and I try to think of as many bases to cover as I can, but I am imperfect and I acknowledge that.

          But ultimately the answer to your question is generally going to be consensus-building and involving all concerned people in the decision making process, in some way.

                • sandbox@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  I did a CTRL-F for “vote” and “voting” and didn’t see it mentioned once.

                  Look, I can tell that you’re getting a bit upset, it’s quite a shock, with having your world view challenged, so I’m going to back off for a little while and give you the opportunity to reflect on what you’ve learned and maybe do a bit of reading yourself to explore these topics a bit more. I know it’s a lot to take in all at once - there’s no pressure, you’ll get there, you’re a reasonable fellow, so I have every confidence in you. I look forward to building consensus with you in the near future and wish you a really pleasant evening. Take care!

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
                    1·
                    3 months ago

                    Then your computer is broken.

                    Consensus decision-making is an alternative to commonly practiced group decision-making processes.[19] Robert’s Rules of Order, for instance, is a guide book used by many organizations. This book on Parliamentary Procedure allows the structuring of debate and passage of proposals that can be approved through a form of majority vote.

                    Stand aside: A “stand aside” may be registered by a group member who has a “serious personal disagreement” with a proposal, but is willing to let the motion pass. Although stand asides do not halt a motion, it is often regarded as a strong “nay vote” and the concerns of group members standing aside are usually addressed by modifications to the proposal. Stand asides may also be registered by users who feel they are incapable of adequately understanding or participating in the proposal.

                    This one was literally in bold and large print:

                    Modified Borda Count vote

                    In Designing an All-Inclusive Democracy (2007), Emerson proposes a consensus oriented approach based on the Modified Borda Count (MBC) voting method. The group first elects, say, three referees or consensors. The debate on the chosen problem is initiated by the facilitator calling for proposals. Every proposed option is accepted if the referees decide it is relevant and conforms with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The referees produce and display a list of these options. The debate proceeds, with queries, comments, criticisms and/or even new options. If the debate fails to come to a verbal consensus, the referees draw up a final list of options - usually between 4 and 6 - to represent the debate. When all agree, the chair calls for a preferential vote, as per the rules for a Modified Borda Count. The referees decide which option, or which composite of the two leading options, is the outcome. If its level of support surpasses a minimum consensus coefficient, it may be adopted.[30][31]

                    There’s more, but that’s enough.

                    Also, I am not upset and your condescension is noted. Hierarchies are bad, talking down to people as though they are your inferiors, on the other hand…