board77

If we're opening up the boards in x months anyway, I see little or no point in a revote on a candidate.

I think it depends on how far in the future that opening is. Some people here are saying six months, others one year... And in some cases, people may want to bring up inviting their friend(s) before then.

If my little world were ideal, we would just fuhgeddabout the whole voting-members-in thing, work on the other stuff we need to work on (how to deal with trolls and er, negative people on the boards, etc.), get our agenda sorted out, and then open this puppy up ASAP.

But meanwhile, simple majority system with nifty veto thing is fine with me. Although the ex-student of political theory in me cringes at the mixing of legislative and executive functions, but hey, sticking to rules not always the best solution, right? :mrgreen:

Farawen,

It's a bit like one of those world-building games like Age Of Empires, where you have to divide your resources between growth of population and growth of a town's infrastructure (and growth of defences - not so applicable here).

Unless all borders are pushed simultaneously, overall growth is limited.

I loved Age of Empires!!!

Er... not sure if revealing that was such a smart move.

Combining the legislative and executive powers is pretty much how the British Parliamentary system runs. In the person of the Lord Chancellor, there's the judiciary added to that as well.

Don't mind me, I'm just being random...

Seriously though. When it comes to voting - don't we need people to post in the thread as well as tick the voting box.

As far as I know there is no way for Admins to monitor who has voted what or how many times, so we're operating entirely on trust. I'm not suggesting for a minute that anyone here would want to fix the vote, but pointing out that in the interests of utter transparency and fairness, we shouldn't be making voting anonymous.

Ummmm... that's checks and balances, Leoba. Another term for the same thing is separation of powers, which is kind of misleading though, since it's not really a separation of powers, but a working together of powers, and thus controlling each other.

What I meant was that the veto thing is pretty much an executive thing, as in, the President's veto to a bill of law (for example), and rather uncommon in legislature. A single member of parliament couldn't stop a bill from becoming law, for example, since legislature usually works on a majority principle.

*sw00nz for Age of Empires*

Stop it, Fara.
*freaks out - yet again*

What did I do? Oh, wait... oh Gawd, don't tell me you... and I... and...

Yes.

That's... scary.

Yes.

Leoba wrote:

As far as I know there is no way for Admins to monitor who has voted what or how many times, so we're operating entirely on trust.

hmmm, every time I voted, afterwards I only saw the results of the vote, and not a voting option anymore? I don't think it's possible to vote more than once. Well, for the non-Admins that is, dunno about the Admins.

You're right.

I don't know why they let me out today.

So I can have a good laugh?

I see a veto as something different:

If 20 people vote yes and five no - the person would be in.

But if 20 people vote yes and one person puts in a veto, the person would have to wait.

Veto outrules the majority.

As a few people seem to be pointing out, why have a yes/no voting system at all with the veto system? It's begging for abuse...but more importantly, as you can see over in the thread concerning them, the people that haven't gotten in were the ones with serious issues.

[reality_check]How many of you would just say "no" to a person, but not try to veto them? I just don't see it...I can't think of anyone who'd vote "no" without a significant reason. That reason, more than likely, would be enough for a veto.[/reality_check]

Connected with this...I'm curious, how many "no" votes have been done on people who've gotten in? Could an admin check this out?

If people like the veto system, why don't we just go with what I suggested...a thread, opened for veto. If there aren't any after 10 days, they're in. If someone works a veto, it's delayed a couple months/till the board opens. I Really, REALLY, REALLY don't see why we need "yes" votes...so we can see who's the most liked person? That's all that registers...how many people know a person.

Personally, I prefer "veto", but don't mix it with the majority system...that just doesn't make sense, and just makes for bad feelings...when 20 people voted yes and got overruled by one person.

Guru, I might be wrong, but I don't recall that anyone who's in got any "no" votes. But don't quote me on that.

I quite like your "speak up only if you want to veto this person" method. I see only one problem with it: we could be confusing abstentions (from people who are on vacation, busy elsewhere, or who haven't seen the thread) with acceptance.

I personally have no problem with that, because I would like to accept virtually anyone into B77, but judging from the opinions being expressed lately I can see how some might object to that.

Guru - I see a difference. I have voted no only once so far - and that meant for me: I'd prefer not to have this poster on the board.

But: A veto has the meaning: If this person comes I might leave. This is stronger than just discomfort with someone.