board77

Did I not say we should have the membership discuss this? Alas, now we cannot be Darlings. Or Daaahhhhrrrlings Zsa Zsa style. Or Dahlings Hepburn style. Or Darrlinks -- can't think whose style that would be. Oh yes, Natasha from Rocky and Bulwinkle.

Why of course Admins can be called darlings, specially if they are. Just imagine, "truehobbit darling, can you split this post off into a new thread, it has osgiliated too far"

I say, speech forms culture, this kind of speech would certainly form a wonderful (kind of) culture.

All right, if we really can't have Darlings on the ballot (and why not? I think Mummpizz's idea was seconded, thirded and fourthed), can we at least adopt "darling" as the official or un-official form of address for admins? Or for everybody else, for that matter.

"Ranger Cerin, darling, would you please take care of the troll in the Turf?"

I don't remember why we can't have Darlings on the ballot, Frelga. I'm sure Prim could explain it to you, though, as I remember her explaining it to me when I asked about it in the jury room. I think it was about having too many possibilities to choose from? It needs to be a simple ballot?

I'm all for adopting 'darling' as the unofficial form of address for admins.

Don't remember, Cerin.

It's true that it does need to be a simple ballot, given the two-thirds requirement.

I think the main point was that what the committee voted for was to offer the option of "Ranger" to the membership, or leaving it as "Admin." We didn't vote to reopen the whole question.

I think they should be called Savage Dictators. Or perhaps Iron-Fisted Tyrants.

[seriously] If this is merely a cultural thing amongst b77ers, there shouldn't be a vote like this on it. Culture should evolve naturally amongst its members, not be voted upon by commissions.[/seriously]

<dusts off black helicopter and sends it after yov>

What can I say? We love Tolkien. And some of us don't like "admin."

You can call me darling, though.

<wanders off whistling>

Primula_Baggins wrote:

<dusts off black helicopter and sends it after yov>

Help, help, I'm being opressed!

Primula_Baggins wrote:

What can I say? We love Tolkien. And some of us don't like "admin."

If you don't like "admin" then stop using it. Ditto to everyone else. If something else catches on, then it becomes part of our culture. If it doesn't, we can't force it on our culture (though you Savage Dictators can certainly try ). Either way, a vote is a silly and futile idea, in my view.

That's an interesting viewpoint, dahling.

Quote:

[seriously] If this is merely a cultural thing amongst b77ers, there shouldn't be a vote like this on it. Culture should evolve naturally amongst its members, not be voted upon by commissions.[/seriously]

This is most definitely not "merely a cultural thing amongst b77ers." When we move to our own site, we should be able to adjust the software to accommodate the different name. Plus, if the member-ownership plan that I have proposed goes through, it will be part the by-laws that get filed with the state.

When does this vote take place again?

Which vote?

If you are referring to the the changing the admin's names vote, it will start at midnight GMT next Friday.

If you are referring to the ownership plan that I referenced, I am about to go start the discussion thread on it in the convention.

This vote about changing the admins name.

I think we should have a by-law stating that inane votes like this should skip the discussion period, and go right to a few days of voting (for time zone difference). This is something that doesn't affect the admins job, but makes a slight cosmetic change, which is why I think it's inane.

Thanks for answering, V.

You're already starting up ownership?

Voronwe, you rock.

Quote:

Why of course Admins can be called darlings, specially if they are. Just imagine, "truehobbit darling, can you split this post off into a new thread, it has osgiliated too far"

Ah, but if Darling were the official name for admins, I couldn't reply: My dahling Mummpizz, how could anything you say ever be an osgiliation?


(Feel free to call me darling anytime, though! )

We could work yov's idea in: Darling dictators. For short: double d's!

And w00t for V getting started on board ownership!

The thing about by-laws is that they can be changed, even after they've been filed with the State.

If our culture evolves in a different direction, we'll amend the by-laws when that happens.

AND - you can vote AGAINST the name change if you want to. That's what a membership vote is for.

In fact, our rule of ratification discussion say that if there is a big outcry against holding this vote at all, we should pull the change from consideration and leave it for discussion sometime later. (Voronwe will shoot me when he hears that but technically it is so.)

The conversation has been fairly light-hearted so far, but if people have serious objections to holding this vote you should say so in an unambiguous manner.

Jn

Jn, I don't have any problem with you saying that. But I think there would have to be a pretty big outcry to scuttle the vote altogether, as oppose to the mild annoyance that has been expressed, which is mostly directed at having to have such a long discussion period for such a minor point (which you will remember I anticipated would be the case).

truehobbit wrote:

We could work yov's idea in: Darling dictators. For short: double d's!

Holby will love that one! It's even better than Ranger Babez.

Jn, it isn't a case of me wanting to vote for or against, it's just that, as V said, I am one who thinks this is an awful long period of discussion for such an inane change to the board's documentation. I have no problem changing admins to rangers, or keeping them as admins, because it doesn't affect their job, just what particular word we use in the texts.

TED, it's the rules. We all came from a board where the rules weren't followed and sometimes weren't even known. We all decided that on this board, the rules will be agreed on by everyone, will be out there for everyone to see, and will be followed.

This is the price.

No one thinks this is ideal. But the alternative, bending the rules whenever it seems convenient, is a whole lot worse.

They're either bendable or they're not. If they are, then who's to say what some group of admins a year down the road might decide to do "because after all it makes sense"?

Let's just suck it up and do this. It's not the end of the world.