|
Grex > Oldcoop > #114: Proposal: delay before re-voting on a topic already submitted to vote | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
boltwitz
|
|
response 25 of 79:
| 
Feb 9 22:59 UTC 2004 |
As demonstrated by 20, krj's proposal is the only one intended as harrassment.
|
jep
|
|
response 26 of 79:
|
Feb 9 23:00 UTC 2004 |
re resp:23: On-line voting can be done. Or the president can collect
votes by phone call, subject to confirmation by the Board members at
the next meeting.
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 79:
|
Feb 9 23:07 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 28 of 79:
|
Feb 9 23:38 UTC 2004 |
Without use of his right hand!
|
tod
|
|
response 29 of 79:
|
Feb 9 23:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 30 of 79:
|
Feb 9 23:46 UTC 2004 |
What about the parts where remmers and krj conspire to force the thing through
at all costs?! DIDN"T ANYOEN READ THEM!?
|
tod
|
|
response 31 of 79:
|
Feb 10 00:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 32 of 79:
|
Feb 10 01:54 UTC 2004 |
So is constipation, per response #30.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 33 of 79:
|
Feb 10 02:10 UTC 2004 |
I like the vote admin discretion, with supermajority board override.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 34 of 79:
|
Feb 10 02:58 UTC 2004 |
Has anyone made a proposal yet that if a psychotic person with root
access, but no specific authority, destroys any posts and/or items those
posts/items must be automatically restored while discussion is pending?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 35 of 79:
|
Feb 10 02:59 UTC 2004 |
No, because we don't think it necessary.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 36 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:01 UTC 2004 |
There is a fundamental principle here: If you don't trust the system's
administrators, don't use the system.
Rules can be broken. No amount of rules will prevent the rules being broken.
|
naftee
|
|
response 37 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:18 UTC 2004 |
Wait; what if a psychotic system administrator goes on a rampage deleting
files and crashing the system, then subsequently resigns from staff. Are we
still bound by what she...I mean, 'the person' did when they were still 'on
staff' ?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 38 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:20 UTC 2004 |
Yes, that has been made *QUITE* clear, thank you. And let me also add that
if for any reason I choose to continue to vist and/or post here, I *WILL*
be making copious copies for parody or whatever other reasons I may
decide. Feel free to spread that around. I mean, it wouldn't do to have
the val-types coming back a *second* time whining about how no one warned
them about us mnet meanies. Ooops; if you did that wouldn't you "chill"
the speech of your social misfits? Wow, tough choice. Oh well, sucks to be
you.
Ya'll may think you won a battle, but you lost a much larger war.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 39 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:20 UTC 2004 |
<naftee snuck>
|
gelinas
|
|
response 40 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:25 UTC 2004 |
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You should spend less time
screaming and more time thinking, cyklone. Take the time to READ what
_I've_ said here, in all of the items on the subject, and think about the
totality of its meaning, and see if you don't agree with me: You really
should spend less time screaming and more time thinking.
|
naftee
|
|
response 41 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:27 UTC 2004 |
Right, he should think about the community! The users! The totalitarianists!
The vandals!
|
cyklone
|
|
response 42 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:36 UTC 2004 |
Re #40: And if you think #38 was a "scream" you need to take the time to try
to understand what you are reading. Here's a hint: even though you and I do
agree on some things, when you see "ya'll" in something I've written that
means it's directed at grex as a whole, not at you. Capiche?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 43 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:38 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, I understand the plural nature of "y'all" (e'en if Lewis Grizzard
disagreed. :) However, #38 was a direct response to me, as you noted when
pointing out that naftee slipped in.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 44 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:40 UTC 2004 |
SHEEESH. Do you know the difference between commenting on the *thoughts* in
a post as compared to the *poster*? Trust me, I know who I directed #39
toward, and if it only "reaches" you then I will be sorely disappointed.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 45 of 79:
|
Feb 10 03:46 UTC 2004 |
I tend to identify with my thoughts.
I'd really rather that item authors be allowed to remove their items,
including any responses that others might have made. But I don't think that
is going to happen. I've made a proposal to prevent it, even. Why not
work to have the proposal I've made pass? Why continue the histrionics?
Or do you really think it's helping?
|
krj
|
|
response 46 of 79:
|
Feb 10 07:26 UTC 2004 |
I'm leaning towards aruba's wording in resp:12 for the implementation of
my proposal.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 47 of 79:
|
Feb 10 09:25 UTC 2004 |
re38: dude, people DID make copies.
|
jp2
|
|
response 48 of 79:
|
Feb 10 11:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 49 of 79:
|
Feb 10 12:48 UTC 2004 |
You're interested in little boys?!
|