One could argue that since there is no official mechanisms for ratifying anything on this board as a resolution of the owners of this board, that this is not official policy.
1) i have the inspiration for the concept behind the forum:- the minimal censorship, the maxmimal formalisation, accountability, prioritsaton, tactical and thread seperation, even using technology, ultimately, to propel this discussive concision forward. 2) There are thousands of fora and subfora on the internet that run on clumsy or less clumsy democratic principles but still end up failing or only minimally prospering due to their lack of observance of quality, minimal censorship, tranparaency, accountabiltiy, functionality and more. 3) I have been present here actively developing rule structures for the forum. The rules alone took dozens of hours to generate and still need even more work. 4) I have instantiated a rule for the instantiation of subfora for those with tactially incompatible modes of operation (possibly your insistence on democracy may include this, depends on what you mean by democracy) 5) You, at the point when i made the decision to announce this has perhaps applied what- an hours work to setting up the board.
6) you have so very little invested in this forum so far 7) Could set another board up yourself so very easily 8) Could run a subforum within this forum on whichever pricniples you like 9) The board has qulity and clarity as its focus, not democracy, but instead includes something i refer to as "accountability"
It doesn't really matter if its democratic or not.
7) Democracy always excludes those choosing not to participate. There's never been a single democratic vote anywhere that included those in a coma or otherwise absent from communicative channels of the community.
8) there is only 1 other administrator to vote.
And democracy here might defined as to only include administrators,
I think i can conclude its not excluded from the definition of democracy. Since 1 is a majority when there is only 1 in the eligible population.
9) Since the statement seems to me to be a statement of the obvious.
10) as the person who conceived of the board, the whole framework on which it runs and will advance is mine and must be specified.
Its a correct and legitimate statement even if it hasn't been democratically ratified.
iii) We don't have a definition of democracy to measure it against iv) Even if we diagree there's plenty of room for you to add purely democratic subfora in this forum under the declared rules an any additional requirements you choose. And a subfora discussiong definitions, merits, enfocement and value of such a subfora.
And finally, since its a statement of the obvious, i also dont think its "arbitrary."
Things very rarely become officially ratified policy without an office, officer or official ratification procedure with which to ratify them.
Ok thats the second iteration of my initial thoughts. Still plenty of oimprovement desireable and possible, i think theyre complete enough to stand as a response to your question now.