this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
131 points (100.0% liked)

badposting

417 readers
377 users here now

badposting is a comm where you post badly


This is not a [email protected] alternative. This is not a [email protected] alternative. This is a place for you to post your bad posts.

Ever had a really shitty bit idea? Joke you want to take way past the point of where it was funny? Want to feel like a stand-up comedy guy who's been bombing a set for the past 30 minutes straight and at this point is just saying shit to see if people react to it? Really bad pun? A homemade cringe concoction? A cognitohazard that you have birthed into this world and have an urge to spread like chain mail?


Rules:

  1. Do not post good posts.
    • Unauthorized goodposting is to be punished in the manner of commenting the phrase "GOOD post" followed by an emoji that has not yet been used in the thread
    • Use an emoticon/kaomoji/rule-three-abiding ASCII art if the rations run out
  2. This is not a comm where you direct people to other people's bad posts. This is a comm where you post badly.
  3. This rule intentionally left blank.
  4. If you're struck for rule 3, skill issue, not allowed to complain about it.

Code of Conduct applies just as much here as it does everywhere else. Technically, CoC violations are bad posts. On the other hand: L + ratio + get ~~better~~ worse material bozo

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Please let me know if this is supposed to be in a different comm

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I once had someone unironically tell me that this would be a good idea

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

Unironically why would it be a bad idea though?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 47 minutes ago

It would be like direct democracy for everything, only indirect, with the people not actually voting on issues.

It would make each candidate extremely averse to doing anything that might upset people, and end up orienting all policies toward short-term results.

It would require a huge amount of infrastructure and time, basically incorporating 30 minutes or more out of everyone's day just to run these perpetual elections, not including looking up all the issues. Turnout would suffer, and people with the time and that kind of patience for it would be disproportionately represented. A liberal's wet dream. I can't even say I'd do the daily voting myself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago

it would be impossible to get anything done because it necessitates endless campaigning; with no minimum term, all of your focus and all of your supporters' focus would have to be directed at keeping you in power

the moment you stop focusing on staying in to do something else, one of your opponents gets in, and then you can't do anything

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

Total instability. Constantly changing governments, rules, laws, regulations, and so on.