I love when people care to “encourage” others, but maybe you should think about what that word really means and how you are trying to achive it.
Sorry, we cross posted.
Clearly you feel strongly that I am creating noise. I’m not sure what the point of stating that over and over again is?
What is happening is that this is getting away from the content of the proposal. It is not really productive.
Perhaps this entire proposal is just noise? But at least I have engaged with it honestly and sincerely.
I don’t understand the desire to control what people say, where they say it, and how they say it. It feels to me like censorship.
For example: look here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/sports/football/players-support-of-gay-marriage-alters-nfl-image.html
Emmett C. Burns Jr., a Maryland state delegate, wrote the owner of the Ravens, an American football team to "inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions.” He did this clearly using his position as a delegate to influence the speech of Brendon Ayanbadejo, someone Burns clearly does not agree with about same-sex marriage. This act caused another football player from another team to write his own entertaining screed against the censorial nature of Emmet’s request. It is an interesting story and I am grateful that here people are free to say what they want and how they want to say it.
For me, the point is not whether Ayanbadejo was actually censored. It’s that it marches in that direction. Certainly Mr. Burns is free to say what he likes. We all are. But it may also not make him look too favorably in the big picture.
If that is what this “community” is really all about, then that is what it is about.
I apologize for the pointed nature of my comments here. But I’m just trying to understand what this is all about. 
This has nothing to do with censorship. This is purely a practical proposal to make this forum workable for a large group of people, helping it to focus on what really matters, so that people’s time isn’t wasted, rather than allowing it to be side-tracked into the niche concerns of one or two people, as happened to a previous Diaspora working group last year.
I want to be involved, I want to help create good things for Diaspora, but I can’t afford to have to wade through lots of irrelevant junk.
Anyone who feels the need to discuss things which aren’t actually relevant to developing and improving Diaspora is welcome to discuss them in a forum which isn’t geared to developing and improving Diaspora - so no one can possibly be censored by this motion.
(It’s this sort of argument which also got so annoying last year, when a couple of people simply insisted on shouting the loudest…)
ps my comment is not directed at anyone in Loomio, in case anyone takes it that way - it’s explaining a bit further why I voted the way I did.
Goob, in this case your vote was more than enough. The rest is just “irrelevant junk”, IMO. Specially when the proposal was already closed.
The vote has closed; the discussion hasn’t. I can’t monitor every discussion every day, so I’ll comment on discussions whenever I get chance to pop in and do so.