board77

Imp, I see what you mean. I didn't vote yes because I think I'd ever need a veto... I voted yes because I see this as the best compromise between those who would rather just have the board open and those who need some safety still. Perhaps that means I should have voted no? Darnit now I'm confused.

Quote:

Isn't that what a majority of people want? Opening up the boards - and doing it in a timescale of 6-12 months?

No, it was an assumption made a couple of times and nobody has really discussed it. Several people have made the assumption enough that new people have assumed that the majority want the open board and as soon as possible. It is my understanding that we have not had an agrement on opening up the board and certainly not when that will be.

Sorry to sound blunt, but I do think it is quite important that we understand this is not decided yet .

I better put up a discussion thread about it (in the Business Room) then, because *I* am working on the assumption that the boards will open up, eventually.

I also work on that assumption, but not sure when. I have no doubt if a discussion starts or a vote starts, we will open up fairly soon.

I just don't think it is a good idea, and I think there are a lot of people here who think it is too soon. I just don't think it is right to make either move until everybody is happy with that or at least content enough not to decide to throw in their chips here.

I'm the other "no", but admittedly I thought a lot less about it than Impenitent. I just thought that a possible vetoer should explain the respective reasons, and, if those reasons were weighty enough, enough naysayers should be rallied.

I think it's fair to say that opening up could well happen before 2006. It's also fair to say we don't have a timetable, and that announcing one would only aid those who wish to destabilize the board. :mrgreen:

Seriously, I think that so long as an explanation is provided, this is fine. And someone who wants to say "personal reasons" should expect to get some private messages inquiring as to why they can't be explained here, of all places. Open is as open does.

Ok I'm the third to vote no. I just don't see a reason for it.. if a person comes here and follows the rules, why is there a problem? if they arent hurting someone they should be allowed to post... if on the other hand they are breaking rules, attacking posters etc, then they would be banned.. what other reason is there for not wanting someone on the site? Not everyone agrees with everyone else, and people do have personal problems with other posters, but thats personal between the two people. Why does the person who is already here have more rights that the person that is not. If person A who is a member here doesnt like person B who we are voting on, but no one else on the boards has a problem with person B, why does Person A get priority just because they were here first? For all we know, maybe person A was the problem. It just sounds a bit to elitist to me.. Whats the big deal. What can possibly be so wrong that two people cant manage to be civil to each other or avoid each other.. In the real world you dont get to pick and chose who you work with at a big company or anything. you deal with it, you adapt. We may vote on who enters this site, but we certainly dont vote on who leaves.. If someone just can't possibly post with another person, then I guess they have a decision to make. The rest of us shouldn't be penalized because of their inability to work things out.

But then everyone knows I don't want any voting system at all. I'd be happy with open boards tomorrow. It's what I believe is best for these boards, and even though it certainly isn't the majority opinion here, I think its healthy to have the disent so there you have it.

I guess I just feel that no ones opinion matters more than the majoritys does.

gimli... I'm with you, and your post has also made me decide (I hadn't voted yet). I don't want the veto option either. I can only see it causing more hurt. Like you, I also want this to be an open board and could live with it being open tomorrow. But I will acquiesce to what the majority says, I'm just stating my opinion.

Although I'd be happier with just the majority vote, I think the veto plan is important while we're still a closed community, simply because it's the best compromise option. That's why I voted yes. I doubt I'll see anyone using it.

Voted No, I was and will be never for "majority rules". But recently I asked for the invitation of someone here and I was imagening that someone was speaking his/her veto over it, for whatever reason.

15 are happy that person comes, one not , with maybe a good reason for something that happened in the past and that caused tremendous hurt etc. The veto is spoken, and that person will not appear here till boards are public. 15 people unhappy, or maybe even 16 because that one person had to argument for her life to make sure people agreed with her/him.

I think if someone got good arguments, things could be reconsidered, or re-voted, with those arguments that brought a new light on it. But to immediatly make a veto the overruling decision doesnt sound fair to me.

And as last, this board will be public in what a year?. Then the same problems still might occur, it only is delayed. Better deal with it asap.

Just my two cents ofc, and my apologises for the many spelling errors, sitting at school here and not to relaxing with so many people watching over my shoulder..

Gimli-

I do value the felings of those here more than those not yet here. Potential members are just that, potential. Once they are here, they get treated the same as anyone else no matter how I may have felt about them coming in. But I value the feelings of those already here more, simply because they are part of my community in the here and now, not in the maybe later. We have already seen several folks turn down invites, have we not? I don't want to be constrained "on spec."

All--
I voted for the veto on the understanding that at some point in time, in the not-too-distant-if-indefinite future, the boards will be open. Thus a veto is in effect a "not yet" or "can I have a little while to get used to the idea" vote, not a "No, never, me or them, uh-uh, bite me." In the end, all who want to be here will be here. At least for a while...

Thought about this long and hard, and decided to vote NO in the veto matter.

I tried to put myself in situations on both sides of the fence so to speak. It is difficult to think of a situation where I would use the veto, and the only one that pops to mind when I would consider it is if I had a major personal problem with someone. Yet, how is that fair to the other members of this board who may like that person? This person may be an intelligent and fun individual who would contribute lots to this community, and my personal issue I feel has no right to deprive this community (temporarily) of that member, or the many other people here who would vote YES of getting their wish. If I started a thread for a good friend and got a lot of YES responses but someone vetoed it on the basis of a personal problem, I would feel sad, and probably think that person a little too critical and prone to radical actions...
I just dont feel ok with one vote being able to trump any number of yes votes.

If the only situation I can really understand using the veto in is a personal problem scenario, I would not feel comfortable answering questions or giving rundowns of the past to justify what happened between theorthetical person X and me to cause me to veto. Personal things are just that, personal... and if I truly had a personal problem with someone I would probably pass on using the veto precisely for the reasons of not wanting to rehash things or tell others my versions of some past story. I would simply vote NO, to be true to my feelings. If this person bothered me SO TERRIBLY I suppose I always have the option of not posting here or posting here less, but with b77 continuing to grow, two posters that dont like each other are not really forced to see each other much on here, so I dont think I would absolutely refuse to coexist with someone.

Sorry if this is confusing, just tried to explain my view.

Count me as another no vote. I don't like the idea of giving one person the ability to outrule a large majority. However, if there was an opportunity for a large majority to overrule the veto (just as the U.S. Congress can overrule a veto of the president) I would be support the idea.

There's an idea - the veto wouldn't work if 100% of the rest of the votes were yes - no abstentions, no "no's,"

Least then the majority would be somewhat protected.


Something like that anyway.

Steve, look away.

Big sloppy hugs and kisses to Estel.

Don't worry. Estel and I have an open relationship when it comes to here.

Quote:

If this person bothered me SO TERRIBLY I suppose I always have the option of not posting here or posting here less

The problem is Enchie, why should you have to post here less because you feel uncomfatable because somebody else is invited in? That makes no sense, it's like having squatters. You suddenlt find you have no access to your home because somebody has broken in ans claimed it. Is that right?

Quote:

There's an idea - the veto wouldn't work if 100% of the rest of the votes were yes - no abstentions, no "no's,"

Least then the majority would be somewhat protected.

Sorry Estel, I have to poke at this. It is not about protecting the majority. Their posting life is not going to be dramatically altered for the worse if X is not invited. That person is not here yet, so they will not suffer except that they would not have the oppertunity (yet ) to post. the only person who would be efected really is the member here who would veto. If they have real issues, they superseed the desires of a potential member.

Think where we came from, and who we are. We need some mechanisim to protect us before the damage is done. The needs of the members here must far outweigh the needs of those who potentially may be members.

And lets face facts. In reality, there are very few people who would be vetoed. This is a worse case scenario response, not an everyday whim.

I would expect it to be used maybe once.

I would have access, Din. No one would be locking me out. In this event, I would virtually "lock myself out" on no one else's bidding... it would be a personal choice... a choice that we all have in most of life's situations...we are always free to leave a place... unless its a prison ...but like I said further down in my long winded blahblah up there , that was theorthetical speculation, since in the end I think I would be able to stay and just minimize interaction with that person, because the board is big enough to allow me to maintain a bit of distance.

If we consider this board as a public place (what it will eventually become from what Im hearing)... then think of the analogy of... a pub... or coffee shop... lets say a certain coffee shop is a hangout for me and a group of friends...lets say one day a person I detest comes in there and henceforth starts having coffee there everyday. No one is kicking me out, no one is kicking him or her out, but spotting each other, one of us may decide to stop coming there so often (if the dislike is really that paramount)... more likely, we will just sit at tables at opposite ends of the room and try not to get in each other's way

EDITED: because I cant type.

Leoba is wise.

I think it's important to open. But I think it's important to know what we are when we do.

I want all my friends here, ASAP, and there isn't time to invite them all, so opening up will be a joyous time for me. But I want to know what it is we're offering them.

I'm not properly objective right now, because I'm so grateful to the people who had the vision to found this place, and the generosity to invite even people like me, who at the time of the petition hadn't learned to stand up yet.

Kicked once or twice, we do learn.

I voted no.

Because...

oh hell I'm lazy

What the dwarf said.