board77

I nominate Ethel for Queen.

The veto is an interesting idea, but we wouldn't need to use it once a year because we'll be open to the public before then. You could say that a veto basically blocks a person until we're open to the public. AFter that the whole system disappears anyway.

Jn

Good point, Jny!

So if I vote yes at the top of this thread, am I saying "Yes, a simple yes-no system" or am I saying "Yes, a simple majority, with an Ethel-veto-thingy"?

laureanna, if you want the veto option, you should vote "no" in this poll.

If there's a large number of posters voting 'no' - that's the point at which we will consider modifications to simple majority, with Ethel's idea probably attracting a lot of support.

Jn

Of course! It means that while we're working out the teething problems, everyone can still feel 'safe'.

We can call it 'the Ethel'.

"Yeah, sorry, *I* wanted you on Board 77, most of us did in fact, but you got Etheled."

I kinda like that. Ethel will hate it, which is why I love it even more.

Oh, bite me, Steve.

I just wanted to make a short, pointless post about how majority rules work until your minorities get upset enough about it. Sure they have to deal with it, but don't forget - we're the TORC minorities who had to deal with "it" until we got fed up and left. I don't want to do that to anyone here! Especially if it's me! lol

But yeah, there are very few occassions where I won't deal with whatever things I got going on if I'm the only one having to deal with them. There's some folks I'd be uncomfortable posting with here, and others who I'd be extremely uncomfortable around, but perhaps only one, or none, who I'd refuse to post with. Thing is, I believe most people here only have a few people they'd rather not post with, in a way that it is okay to just ask them to deal if that person gets invited in. And for the few of us who may have someone they'd reeeeeeeally not like here, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe they're the only ones who feel that way? Sure, there are some people who we'd generally not like to see here, but I bet they are small potatoes compared to someone else, and that someone else is usually someone who has issues with just you.

Know what I'm saying?

So this is why I was thinking something along the lines of what Ethel said, only my suggestion is a bit grosser - maybe there should be a thread where people can speak about any folks they'd have a real tough time being around here on board77. And I don't mean, "they were snotty to me in a thread" or anything, but severe personal issues. Then at least there is one central area for people to see issues that may come up, rather than checking out every invite thread to see who has any resistence.

I understand why people wouldn't want to do that, though. I'm not saying you should like give an entire history of your relationship with this person and why they shouldn't be here, but at least it would cut down on the amount of people you'd be nay-saying. Honestly, I would just deal with any probs I had with some folks if it meant I could save my negative energy for that one BIG problem. Might work for a lot of you as well. You'd realize how little a problem some people being here really are if you can think of just one person (or maybe two.... I dunno how many enemies you guys have) that'd be your biggest problem. If there's no one you have that big an issue with, then you can likely say that you're alright with any noobs who join, which makes things good for everyone. If there is that one thorn in your back, well, let's all deal with it together and see if we can't help you, or work through it.

Personally, sometimes I accept things only after I become too tired to be upset/angry about it. Not saying that's the best way to do things, but if you're truly too tired to be hung up on it anymore, then at least you're starting over. I mean, when you go to sleep at night, you're not giving up on the day, you're just too tired to keep up and so you rest, then wake up in the morning with fresh ideas and a new outlook.




*E*

I like the veto idea (and mentionned something similar a few days ago ). But one would be enough. And I don't think it should let the person outside until we open doors. A month could be enough - if it's still the same person, a veto can be repeated, at least as I see it, as it is a veto against a person, not in a specific poll.

I already voted yes - but what is written here is more important, isn't it?

The veto idea appeals to me. It seems so much simpler and more workable than juggling percentages. And if we had that option, then I could live with the concept of a majority decision otherwise in invite cases.

Of course, it may well lead to vote-buying of a sort: "I'll use my veto to stop x, if you hold on to yours in case y comes up".

Slightly off topic, though related to the number of vetos available (I could live with one): I guess we still don't know how long before we want to go more public. Personally I think those people who are crying "do it now" are jumping the gun big time. I really really would like to give it six more months minimum (preferably until we hit our anniversary), before people some of us have major issues with do get the opportunity to freely poke at us here.


I haven't voted yet - but I am right in thinking that a 'no' vote here, is in favour of the veto option? Because I'm seeing people vote for that both ways.

Also, is this poll about whether a majority rules in decision-making threads too? Because my opinions on that are a confirmed 'yes', so I cannot vote the same way in this poll on what are effectively two questions.

I like the veto idea, mainly for the same reasons quoted about Rho. But, I do wonder how this would be administered?

I would sugest that if we go with this, we have a list held in the admin forum someplace where all those who use their veto are listed with dates veto uses so that they can't use it again in the year.

Of course, the obvious problem with this is that the poll's on B77 do not recognise this system and list who votes for what so I would sugest that if anybody does want to veto, rather than set it up as part of the vote, they have to post headed VETO on X and explain why.

We would also need to list them as Vetoed against in the 'votes we have had' thread.

I am also a bit worried about limiting the number of veto's though. when three were mentioned, I knew immidiatley who I would veto. When it became one, I realised that potentially if the other two joined here I would not be able to veto them. Potentially, if the vote went aginst me, and nobody else vetoed them (unlikly in these cases) they could join and I would have no say on that. I am fairly certain I would leave B77 in that case.

Also, I would be forced to save my veto against the time when one of the three were invited. It would be wasted, and never used because I may need it.

In short, I like the idea of a veto, but not the limitation. I think that id a veto is used it should be discussed and agreed that it is liable (you know, like we used to do it before the statistics took over).

Also, just because I don't like hurting folks, would we tell anybody vetoed against that they have been turned down because someobdy here would rather eat there own intestines than have them on this board and to please not try again.

Considering some of the fragile ego's out there, many who are already 'hurting' because we have not seen fit to open the board to them, how will that be dealt with?

And Din, you even forget those whose friends get vetoed out... it's hard to stay and believe in a place where someone has been rejected.

I like the idea of a limitation. It's severe decision to keep someone out for a very long time. Now, I am also rather someone who easily lives with people being on the boards and does not easily rush into conflicts. Personally, there is only one person who would make me leave here, and I doubt her potential admission would only be discussed.

If someone can give an unlimited number of vetos, and you happen to open a poll on a bad day for someone else, it becomes too easy. In case someone is rejected for a real long while, what a veto would imply, it should also be thought of those who proposed that potential member and how they feel and live with the rejection. So, I think it should be a maturely taken decision. You can still object strongly and express your hope someone else would veto the person in question. And nothing tells you that all three persons you're thinking of now will actually be suggested for board 77 - maybe you could trust the good sense of other members not to propose known arch-ennemies. And maybe for some other a majority might think like you and not want that poster, so that you won't need a veto - which would only be necessary if the majority says yes.

Maybe this can help you to live with limitation - for me more than two would be critical and potentially paralyse the system. You can always try to buy mine....

I just want to say that if we do use vetos I'm against them being private. So far everyone has had to say how they feel in public, to express how strongly they're against someone joining here. I'm sorry, it sounds harsh, but if one vote is to overrule a majority, it's only fair that it should be explained why.

I accept exceptions. Sometimes the reasons are too private. But no secret veto as a rule please.

And I agree that unlimited vetos make it too easy...they'd just bring us back to where we are now. I hope we rarely have to use them.

edit: what the! the board ate half of one of my sentences.

I second Impenitent.

Impenitent wrote:

An invitation thread should NOT INCLUDE a poll when it is first put up. Should simply be a testament for the person to be invited. Then discussion can ensue for a period of time (say, 7 days?) and the poll can then be put up on the top of the thread at the end of that week to run for 3 days (total: 10 days, as decided in that other thread). That way, no one votes until the discussion has occurred and all concerns and pleas have been aired.

Sorry, I do disagree here. What if the discussion is up 7 days and I have made up my mind already and then I can't go online for just these three days to vote? - because of holidays or something else?

If we agree that one veto is enough to hold the invitation back then we don't need this poll here at all. For other decisions, simple majority of all yes/no voters would be enough - abstain votes are just for information (seen the thread, don't want to decide)

I wanted to make some other points, but *E*, Din and Iny were there before me.

Oh and another thing:

Impenitent wrote:

Come to think...I've been convinced that the ABSTAIN option is unnecessary.

YES
NO
VETO

...will do the job.

No and Veto are the same, aren't they????

No, they're not.

For 'no' votes to sway the result, they would need to be the majority.

A veto would call a halt to it all on its own.

But if I don't want somebody here, I would say Veto, not no?

We would have to trust people to use the veto option when they have really strong objections to someone joining this board. As I read it, a "no" vote would simply postpone the invitation.

So does a veto, until the board is open to all.

Until this board is open, let's use a simple majority, with discussions going on between the yes and the nos. No "screw you", but "Really? What makes you think that about X". I've only seen the latter here.

But if one person feels *that* strongly, then the invitee isn't invited.

Seems like good consensus, accomodating politics to me.

Shame it doesn't work for Presidential elections. Yes, no one would end up as President, but that would be better than the current situation!

But a veto postpones it until the board is open; a "no" postpones it only a number of days/weeks. At least, the way I see it...