board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Veto Option on Invitations

Post Reply   Page 3 of 3  [ 50 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3
Should each member be given one veto on invites? (Read first post before voting.)
Poll ended at Mon 14 Feb , 2005 4:18 am
Yes
  
76% [ 26 ]
No
  
24% [ 8 ]
Total votes: 34
Author Message
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Feb , 2005 1:26 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:
Steve, look away.

Big sloppy hugs :hug: and kisses :love: to Estel.

ooo la la :drool: :dance:

I think I've just discovered the best thing about having you here Voronwe - you're not scared of Steve, so you'll flirt with me (you'll probably do it just to make fun of him =:) )

I am content :love: :hug:

:LMAO:



Dindraug - Sometimes, you do have to look at a compromise. Yes, the majority have voted yes, however there is enough of a minority saying no, that we should look again at this discussion.

The veto is, after all, about protecting a minority - should we ignore those that think differently in this case, because we don't completely agree with them? If that is the case, why should I be fair to anyone on these boards who may be a minority? Screw the veto - majority rules everytime!

No - I think we have all shown that we won't have that around here. Sometimes compromise is the best solution.

The real question is - if a person get's invited that you really don't get along with, and you would like it to wait until the boards open, do you think people would actually ignore you about it?

If you came into an Invite Discussion thread and said that if this person came now, you would have to leave, and if everyone could possibly just wait until the boards opened, do you actually think that that person would get 100% of the vote with no abstains and no no's?

I don't think so.

Unless I loved that person dearly (and almost everyone I love that much is already here), if I read that you wrote that, I would vote no on the person. You're a wonderful person, and one of those that a adore, and I wouldn't want you to be unhappy.

The same goes for the majority of the people who post here.

So just what is so wrong with a compromise that says the veto is vetoed if 100% of the rest of the votes are yes?

To be honest, it's never going to affect you - you veto someone, and they're not going to get in. Why? Because you are cared about deeply.


Top
Profile Quote
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Feb , 2005 2:08 pm
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
Voted yes. Can't imagine using a veto myself, but it offers protection to people who feel strongly about not having a person here. And it saves us the difficulty of trying to weight percentages. Simple majority rules unless a veto is cast - I like processes I understand!

_________________

Living well is the best revenge. --George Herbert


Top
Profile Quote
Mummpizz
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Feb , 2005 2:48 pm
Gloriosus
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed 08 Dec , 2004 11:10 am
Location: history (repeats itself)
Contact: Website
 
Can I use my veto on this discussion?

Maybe we should change the simple majority with a two-thirds quorum. Or three fourths.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Feb , 2005 7:53 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Mumpzz, we'll never get a quorum here. Even on this vote, which people feel pretty strongly about, only 34 out of 80+ members have voted.

I think it's a mistake to imagine extreme situations ... I can't imagine having an invite thread up where one person and only one objected to the invitee. And if someone were in that position and considering a veto, I think they would raise their issues first and let the problem be discussed, not just enter the thread and say "veto." Theoretically it could happen, but it's very unlikely to happen, and I think whatever system we adopt should reflect likely scenarios rather than unlikely scenarios.

I can think of one person, for example, that I would want to veto because of a personal interaction. This person is very well liked on the boards and I suspect that an invite thread will appear for them before too long. I thought about what I would do in such a case, and I don't think I could get away with saying 'veto' without explaining why. Just ... as a matter of practicality. I don't want the other members looking at me sideways, you know? AND, most important at all, it might be that I have misjudged this person. I would in fact want the feedback from other members who supported them before saying 'no' with such finality.

Finally, we are talking about a delay rather than a prohibition. As Ethel said, the veto is just simpler to understand and execute than a weighted vote would be.

Jn

edit to add: This is the last day for voting. The poll will close tomorrow, Saturday, at 4:18 am GMT - that's 10:00 pm tonight, EST and 7:00 pm tonight, PST.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Feb , 2005 12:09 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Jnyusa wrote:

I can think of one person, for example, that I would want to veto because of a personal interaction. This person is very well liked on the boards and I suspect that an invite thread will appear for them before too long. I thought about what I would do in such a case, and I don't think I could get away with saying 'veto' without explaining why. Just ... as a matter of practicality. I don't want the other members looking at me sideways, you know? AND, most important at all, it might be that I have misjudged this person. I would in fact want the feedback from other members who supported them before saying 'no' with such finality.
Jny, that's exactly what I meant when I said a veto should be explained and the others should be allowed to discuss it with the person to try and change his/her mind. :)

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Feb , 2005 12:31 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5171
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
But lets say there was somebody that everybody (or just about everybody) except one person wanted to have here, even after discussion? How would that person feel if they deprived everyone else of what they wanted? How would she or he be treated by everyone else? I see much more of a potential for there being a problem if we allow an absolute veto. After all, even in small doses absolute power has the power to corrupt absolutely.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Feb , 2005 2:55 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
But that's what Jny was saying, I think - and me too.

If someone, even after discussion is set about the veto, I suppose they would just have to live with it - but they would have had the chance to change their mind.

I quite agree, though, that it would be an awkward position for the person - and maybe a deterrent from using the veto in the first place.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Feb , 2005 3:04 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
If the veto were forever, then I would oppose it, Voronwe. Then it would have time to 'corrupt' and might come to reflect the relationships between members here rather than concerns about a particular invitee.

The reason the veto option was proposed was not because we wanted to give one person complete power over the outcome of the vote, but because we anticipated cases where there would be, say, 70% in favor and 30% opposed. Or even closer votes, where a simple majority would mean that a person was being invited who had a significant number of 'enemies' here. The original conception of the voting, in the minds of some, was that the invite threads would attempt to reach consensus by discussion. But that becomes more difficult as the board grows and new members invite their friends who may not be known to the original members. Simple majority seemed too callous toward original members ... hence we questioned a way to mitigate that, and Ethel proposed the veto which seems a simple solution for cases where there is strong minority objection and the invitee is seriously objectionable to a few.

I personally don't envision it being used in any other situation.

The other things is ... the voting in general makes all of us somewhat uncomfortable, and a veto that ends when the board opens provides a certain incentive to finish the things we have to do to open the board.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Feb , 2005 4:39 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
People, the vote on this should technicaly be ended at this point. The results are 76% in favor of a one-time veto for each member that would last until the board opens to the public, and a simple majority ruling on the invites in the absence of a veto.

I know this has been controversial, but we're going to have to accept results at some point and move forward. There can't be endless votes about how to vote because until one solid decision is made, no one knows how to count a vote.

So let's accept this majority, and simply be aware that most of us want the veto to be used judiciously, only for extremely good cause, and that the wishes of friends and fellow members should be treated respectfully at all times even when we disagree.

Thank you!!

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Berhael
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Feb , 2005 11:15 am
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
Thank you Jny for conducting this, you're a gem. :)

I accept the results, and since the thread has run its course...

*click*

^ my one and only reason for wanting to become a mod. I've always wanted to do that. How much of a geek am I... :mrgreen:

_________________


"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 3 of 3  [ 50 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3
Jump to: