I propose that:

Pseudos be allowed all membership privileges, if they meet the
other criteria for membership.

--
let the debate begin.
We have 10 days.

49 responses total.

(This is now linked as item 10 in the pseudo conference.)

   I cast my vote in favour of letting psuedos vote.

In favor.

In favor, if they promise to only vote once.
 :)

I, of course, am in favour of the proposal.

  I'm not a member, so I don't get a formal vote, but I agree that 
pseudos should be able to vote.

I'm opposed.

I don't wan't to stay in the way of grex getting more money, but I don't
agree that pseudos can't obtain real accounts for voting, and be pseudos
the rest of the time. I don't see the point why someone has to be totaly
anonymous. What if someday other boardmembers say that 99 votes say that the
system be closed and hardware sold for $1 to person xyz. There is no way
of verifying anything any vote for ever if totaly anonymous pseudos vote.

Let them vote.

As the person who entered the item, I'd like to point out that:

1) You can't vote yet. We are in the official 10 day discussion
period, on the proposal as it is worded.

2) Anyone on the system can enter the discussion, it's not
restricted to members.

 re #8:  Of course the flaw in such a paranoid scenario is that it would
take far more money to buy enough votes to pass a motion like that than
it would to buy a hardware setup quite as good as, or better than, the one
grex runs on now.

I am in favor of letting pseudos vote.  Marcella, would you be willing to
abstain from this vote to satisfy the dissenters?  :-)

Re #12:  If it comes to that, I will quite happily abstain.

As stated on #0, I'd have to vote no.  I'd like any proposal addressing
pseudos holding membership and voting privileges to incorporate the following:

Users are encouraged to enjoy the system anonymously, should they wish to
do so, and even to support the system by contributing to Grex under a
pseudo account.  But in the event a person has multiple accounts they
are asked to only use one account (with one vote) on each issue.

I'm votin no...
I think there should be a file with the pseudo's real name, classified
so that only staff have access.  I would trust that only the staff
that really *needs* to know, would look at the file.  I know that's 
trusting the staff pretty strongly, but I would hope that if we vote 
in new staff, they would be trustworthy.  As for the present staff, 
I have full confidence in them...they're running the system very well.

I'd like to see a definite legal opinion on this regarding
"non-profit" status.

   Marcus is right, there may be legal repercussions about allowing
assumed or fictitious names only.  We do really need a legal
opinion, or at least someone should look up the relevant stuff
in the law library.

  I think that anyone voting No should explain how they are going
to enforce there rule.  

  How about explaining now, before they actually vote?

   I wandered over to the library, and looked up the relevant
laws as well as I was able, not having proper legal training
and all that.  What I found was:

  1) Corporations and other kinds of non-human 'persons' are
legally allowed to become members of non-profit corporations
unless expressly disallowed by the organization's bylaws.

  2) We are required to keep a formal list of members' names
and _addresses_.

  3) On-line 'meetings' are permitted (via 'teleconferencing'
and similar technology).  But 10 days notice must be given before
every such meeting.  Lucky us, we have a 10-day discussion
period.  However, such meetings have a requirement that all the
participants be identified to each other.  I don't know
whether that rules out pseudos or not.

   4) There didn't seem to be anything applicable under
'assumed names', or 'impersonation'.

   5) It is _illegal_ to wander around Michigan wearing a mask
or partial mask, unless you are:
 -- a child out trick-or-treating on Halloween
 -- on your way to a masquerade party
 -- part of a theatrical production
 -- part of a parade
 -- part of an historic re-enactment or something similar
 -- some other obscure loophole(s), which I forget.  Maybe something
about fraternal orders?

   Are pseudos out in public?  Is this a public place?


   

That last provision (re masked in public) is aimed at the Ku Klux Klan.

I don't see any reason we need to be members.

If you allow pseudos to vote, based on buying a membership and virtually
no other criteria, you open yourself up to the possibility of some rich
dude making all the decisions..   Sure, you say it can't happen.

   Yes, you're right, it could happen.

   But so could a "real" person buy memberships for people, and influence
them in voting decisions.  I saw that happen right here in Ann Arbor about
10 years ago--someone spent about $600 on $20 memberships to a club for
his friends and they were able to turn the club upside down and oust long
time members from it.

   So everything has risks--which I hope we all realize--but what is the
best thing to do on a BBS?  This isn't a business, its a hobby.  I'm
hoping that it will always be run in the spirit of something *neat*,
something willing to take on new things, and at least try them, before
saying no.

  If we decided later on that psuedos voting was a bad idea, it would
be possible to change things at a later date.

  I again being up the can of worms about insisting on "real" people
only--how do we do that?  Insist on drivers licenses?  What about the
younger folks?  Is a system that is insistent about verification of
people the type of system we want?

What he said so well!

So... I can buy just a couple hundred bucks work of memberships and
basically vote to have closed conferences, no guest lines, etc?

Sure, but I guess if that's the most interesting thing you had to do
with your time or money, everybody would know you weren't very creative,
and that you needed a REAL life.

If you don't do that, it should be a while before most Grexians figure
that out, so why don't you be a NICE boy and stall for time?

Oh no, my previous comments are really starting to bother you eh?
 
Don;t worry, I'm sure you'll find something else boring to do.

More boring than you?

Yeah, you.

Well, then you've got a monopoly. You're obsessed with the two most boring
topics in the world, you and me. Only problem is, only one of us really
exists (marginally). 

re #27 - and YOU didn't even have to buy a single membership to convince us!
 :)

RE #31... Ok then.

   Legally, 'pseudos' (corporations) are allowed to have a vote,
unless we specifically forbid it in the bylaws.  True, the
pseudos are registered legally with the state, and have to
be represented by an offical representative, but... they're still
pseudos.

not really, since the identity of owners and officials for the pseudos are
registered in the process.  Not so for pseudos here.

   Officials, yes. Owners, not on your life.  If you sell some of your
stock in a corporation, you don't have to tell the government anything,
except for income tax purposes, and that stuff is not a matter of public
record.  Lots of individuals hide the true extent of their wealth behind
dummy corporations and similar veils.

Not so for incs I believe, incs don't have stock selling option, I might be
wrong on that, please correct if so.  I thought only corporations might have
the stock thing.  Grex is an Inc.

Inc's *are* corpoirations.  "Inc" stands for "Incorporated", one of the
very small number of business organizations people use in this country.
The others are 'partnerships' and 'sole proprietorship's, which are
uncommon except for small organizations.  The reason why corporations
are so popular is because of the limited liability angle - unique to it.
The investors in the other two forms of business can lose everything
except the shirts off their backs if the business goes belly up.  The
suffix ', limited' seems to be popular in the remains of the british
empire, I presume for the purpose emphasizing this very feature.  Here
in this country, however, it's "inc", and generally speaking, you aren't
even obligated to use it.

And I thought it was the other way, Incs had limited liability, and corps
did not.  Incs could not go public stock, and corps could.
Thanks for the info.  I guess I am confused since overseas, owners of shares
have to be recorded by the county of headquarters in case of limiteds.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss