board77

I don't want to waste my veto on Teh Angle, so nobody invite him, please.

Another veto-related musing.

I presume that - if the Veto is made by post rather than in the poll - someone could vote 'No', then wait until the end of the voting period before throwing in the Veto as well, with hours to spare.

Imp - sorry! I was in a hurry, saw that Guru thought I was talking to him, and just said 'someone else' without checking who it was.

Ax - Yeah, I think as a practical matter that is what it would be.

Jn

First - I don't think the veto should be in a poll.


If it's that important to you, I want to hear why - maybe I really like the person. It would really piss me off that that person not only wasn't invited, but that the person who vetoed them didn't even have the respect to come out and say "I really don't want this person here, and here is why..."

At least if we got told the reason, people wouldn't be getting needlessly frustrated and angry about it.


Secondly - I like the idea of a simple majority with the veto.

However! I agree that each person should only get one. It could turn into a very volitile situation otherwise. If there is a veto being cast, I want to know that the situation was exceedingly important to the person casting the veto. I wouldn't want it to be one of situations where someone had an extra veto left, and there was no one left that they really really didn't want here, but they had had a small arguement with the invitee once a year or so ago, and didn't really feel like having them as part of the boards, so hey, why not just veto them.

I think that's it for now - I'll come back and edit if there is anything else (in other words, the furniture delivery guys are here now, and I have to go )

Estel, see above in my post... what would you consider a satisfactory explanation for a veto?
... and while it might be nice to see it, in the end would how people judge the validity of the veto explanation and whether they are convinced that ya, this person shoulnd be here, have any bearing on the veto standing as valid?

Whether the reason makes sense to others or not, I assume the veto stands right?

I just find this confusing... if someone casts their once-per year veto vote on a person who is otherwise doing well with the Yes'es, I can think that in a likely scenario the veto-er might have a personal problem with the invitee...in which case, others won't likely be much swayed by the explanation...



...is my mind just boggled by too much studying? Just wrote a 2 hour test...

Veto means "I can't/won't co-exist with this person on the boards and am willing to over-ride all the yes votes and live with the consequences"

A difficult thing to do; I'm sure it would only be done in extreme circumstances.

I wish we would just open the damn board to all and sundry; I'm heart-sick over this on-going fracas.

Me too, Imp, me too.

(btw, sorry to hear about your computer )

It is tough Imp and Ber, but there are still folks out there I would not want to post with. Sorry about that, but there it is.

I keep of TORC now to avoid being stalked by them, by the bitchy snappy comments that have been a part of their posting style for about a year now. I really do not want to see them here.

I know that should we open doors, we will have the same sniping w have on TORC and I am not prepeared to deal with that.

Give it time, it is way to early to allow the likes of Oreo on, and he will come as soon as it opens just because he wants to cause trouble.

There are others who will do the same.

Morality of turning somebody down is one thing, what about the ethics towards the posters already here?

I know, Din, and I understand; but I still wish it didn't have to be that way, can't I?

The way I see it...even when we open, and if Oreo and the likes arrive...they won't last here very long, precisely because of what attitude they will probably have.

(and I bet in some cases the admins will be fighting over who gets to press the ban button. )

We should probably decide first whether we want to ban him right away, or simply ignore him. I mean, you're going to want to ban him as soon as he starts posting, and you're not going to trust anything else he might say.

What worries me is the accounts he signs up under names other than "oreo" or "orodreth". Can you see IP addresses here? How are you going to know when it's him? Are you going to ban people right away? I mean, I think overall its best to just ignore everybody who starts acting like a tool, but BECAUSE folks can register under whatever name they want, the anonymity WILL be gone.

I hate guessing games. I don't want to wonder if this TORC name I recognize is really that person, or someone else.




*E*

Damn...good point.

Maybe we shouldn't make registration all that easy.... Maybe we should have it like many other boards do, open, but every user still has to go through admin approval anyway.

First of all that would, at the very start, eliminate all the possible 'b77fucker' accounts, or even stuff like 'IhateIE'... I wouldn't like to think we'd accept someone with a username that's meant to hurt someone.

Second, that would mean the admin would never miss a new member. If someone whose name they recognise from TORC registers, in case of serious doubt they could email that TORCer and ask, just to make sure- or at least they'd have the email account to compare, etc...you know.

Third, maybe we ought to have a 'If you are or were a TORC member, what was your username?' question in the registration form. Optional, of course, because we don't want to be the Spanish Inquisition, but I imagine a lot of people would appreciate it upon registering.

That's sort of what I was thinking, Ro. And maybe if we only do that in the begining.

Have you ever been in line at midnight to get a copy of Lord of the Rings or something? Those are the die-hards who've been itching to get into the video store for months. You go in for a casual rental weeks later and it's a much more laid back process. If we had a release date, so to speak, for board77 to open, then I imagine we'll get all the freaks in here right away. :mrgreen: lol

So even though by opening the boards we are eliminating the invitation process, we can still have an idea of who is on the boards because we are seeing usernames we recognize. If the (I had to call it screening process, but you know what I mean) is working fine, then we can simply switch to an absolute free-for-all fiesta that any passer-by can join in on.

I have trouble imagine non-TORCers having any interest in this site, but I know we can welcome them with open arms. I remember the drive-bys that The Grey Havens would get, and it was pretty funny how everybody would jump on the wee ones, but I know that wouldn't happen here.

And if we made an "unadvertised" switch to completely open boards, then no one would be waiting at our doors about to explode from holding in things they've been waiting to spew at us for months.

I like the idea of having a "who were you on TORC" thread. The new people who register here won't all have malicious intent when they sign up - perhaps they really just don't like their TORC names and want to try something else! I mean, we can still do that here (Nin wasn't Nin when she first arrived and Eruname had some numbers in her name), but I think we could ask them to let us know who they are at TORC for reference sake. It'll keep things straight.




*E*

I've been in the line at MediaMarkt the morning of the ROTK EE release. It wasn't a very impressive line, but a line nevertheless.

Also I've been in line at midnight to get Harry Potter...hmm...the Goblet of Fire. Never seen so many kids out past their bedtime.

I think I'll copypaste what you said and what I said into...er...whichever thread's the appropriate one.

edit: Seems like this one is.

I've been having so much fun, or stretching my brain in every thread that I can't keep them straight, either. It's just one big party.




*E*

If I can just clarify Din, I was not making any demands ("Open the MB right now!"), I was expressing a wistful hope.

Who are the Three you cannot abide? I'm curious because you seem so tolerant.

(I know, I'm nosy :mrgreen: ; but how can one find these things out unless one asks? )

Capitalising the Three makes it sound ominous in a Tolkien-esque way...

"And they were the Three, the Three Un-B77-ables, who would not enter the Turf for as long as Dindraug son of Dondereg could wield a "no" vote."



Excuse me for making fun of a touchy subject, but I've been reading this Tolkien guy and it's kinda rubbed off.

:mrgreen: The capital does make them loom rather large, doesn't it.

On Second Thoughts Din don't tell me; I think in this case my curiosity ought not to be satisfied. I don't ever want to be in the position of knowing something I'd much rather not know. Could get awkward.

Impenitent wrote:

:mrgreen: The capital does make them loom rather large, doesn't it.

On Second Thoughts Din don't tell me; I think in this case my curiosity ought not to be satisfied. I don't ever want to be in the position of knowing something I'd much rather not know. Could get awkward.

Probably best, and I think you would be surprised. Probably not exactly the people you think, but there you go.

There are others I think a no vote would surfice for and if not, well then I would have to think about it, but not automatic veto's.

And you think me tolerant?....I have a tolerant reputation?....ummm, probably a good thing. I do bear grudges for a long time though, it's my Dwarf DNA

But after all that nice Gandalf fellow was tolerant, except to Balrogs, and Ringwraiths and Orcs and Trolls and Dragons and Wargs and......

Still I would not manipulate innocent hobbits to go change the world just because I had taken sides, no sireee

The Society For Prevention of Appointing Life-Threatening and Hunger-Causing Quests to Hobbits wouldn't approve.