Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote: Steve, look away.
Big sloppy hugs and kisses to Estel.
ooo la la
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
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.