Grex Oldcoop Conference

Item 112: Member Resolution

Well, with the outcome of the vote in hand, I want to say that some of you
did a fantastic job.  But some of you apparently didn't understand. 
Fortunately, we can do this again.  I expect a better job from everyone,
this time. 

The following is a member initative.

                                An Initiative

To restore items killed during the first week of 2004.

  Be it initiated by the Members of Cyberspace Communications,

Section 1.  Restoration of Killed Items.

  (a)  (1)  The items previously numbered 81, 106, 142, 145, 117, and 113
            of the femme conference and items previously numbered 87, 102,
            105, 108, 110, and 112 of the smalls conference shall be
            restored from back up tape and returned to their previous
            places within the conferencing system. 
       (2)  All posts within items referred to in this subsection authored
            by the users known as "popcorn" or "valerie" shall be scribbled
            prior to restoration.

  (b)  (1)  The item previously numbered 63 in the agora40 conference and
            the item previously numbered 11 in the agora41 conference
            shall be restored from back up tape and returned to their
            previous places within the conferencing system. 
       (2)  All posts within items referred to in this subsection authored
            by the users known as "jep," "popcorn," or "valerie" shall be
            scribbled prior to restoration.

Section 2.  Allowances for Linked Items.

  Where applicable, items linked across multiple conferences shall be
  relinked as nearly as possible in their original configuration.

I really hope you will reconsider and not bring this to a vote, jp2.
It should be obvious that it will fail, and probably by an even larger
margin.  For example, I voted in favour of the motion the first time.
I will vote against it the next time, and on any subsequent occassions.

We lost.  Get over it.  Move on.

This response has been erased.

But it is NOT going to be undone.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

Apparently we do need a bylaw revision calling for a period before revoting, 
to stop Jamie from introducing this proposal a third time around the end of 
February.

This response has been erased.

So, how about those Grammy awards, eh?    I heard the White Stripes had a
pretty good appearance, did anyone else catch them?

This response has been erased.

I'd strongly oppose a bylaw amendment which specified a period of time 
between repeat propositions or propositions which are effectively 
repeats.  I would, however, support one which gave the voteadm 
discretion, subject to review by the board in the event of complaint, 
to not bring to vote any proposal the voteadm considers to have been 
proposed spuriously or with intent to annoy rather than to reasonably 
effect change.

I too would rather that jp2 hadn't re-created this proposal verbatim.
However, s/he is within his/her rights to do so, certainly more than the
item killer.  But I recommend a NO vote to this, should it ever come to 
a vote.  The membership has spoken, and it's time to move on, get over it.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

Suggested modification:

This response has been erased.

I'm willing to vote "no" on this proposal at least as many times as
jp2 is willing to propose it.  (I can actually envision it becoming
a ritual, continued long after everyone has forgotten what the items
were about...  Hey, this could be the start of a new religion!)

It is much easier to read, though.

Thanks!  Readability was a chief concern, and I worked long and hard 
into^H^H^H^H on it.

Re. 0:  !!!

I have nothing to suggest as to rewording.  This is a clone of the proposal
which failed, which did not do so due to lack of clarity.  It failed because
enough members looked but didn't buy.  There will be no binge buying on the
same merchandize.

This response has been erased.

jp2, let's practice getting a grip, shall we?

This response has been erased.

I'm willing to become a member to vote yes on this proposal.


($$$$$$$$$$)

This response has been erased.

think of the money -- $$$$$

resp:25 I'm almost willing.  (I'm just cheap, and poor.)

This response has been erased.

Right; no votes are required to bring the matter to a vote.

Jamie, sooner or later you're gonna have to face the fact that your 
resolution got voted down because you're the one who proposed it.  
Silly and irrational but no different than US political elections, 
which always end up being popularity contests.  I think it's healthy 
for you to learn this lesson again (and again, and again), so I hope 
the Grexers That Be will allow your new resolution to stand.  

This response has been erased.

The sad thing is, all they did was show SPAM works.  Now THAT'S a punishment!

would anyone like a gourmet jellybean?

THE PINA COLADA ONES ARE GOOD.

I predict that the proposal-barrage by jp2 will result in
many people (including some board members) forgetting his
items and only taking notice if something comes to a vote,
so they can vote it down.

Kind of like chronic abusers in party getting the :forget treatment.

I voted for the proposal the first time too.  So it lost.  Far from the
first time I've been on the losing side.  When I lose, I try to be a
good sport about it and move on.

If jp2 insists on bringing this misguided rerun to a vote, I think that
the result will be a mechanism that prevents misguided reruns.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

I remember this same argument coming up when the question of closing the
censor log was brought up for the second time.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

Actually, there are two different classes:   GreXers who know they are right
and do something about it, and GreXers who know they are right but sit around
and take the shit from the first category.

Seems to me ONE vote should suffice. This effort is of the 'keep bringing it
up until it passes' category.

That's what people said about the censor log, too.  And that did pass 
after a couple of iterations.

jp2's right.

#34:  HOW CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?

resp:34 I'll have a pina colada jellybean.

i think they're the pink ones, here.

Rosemary and burgundy

"what are you doing?"

"merchandising."

is she a NERD?

VEgan!

This response has been erased.

I think it would be outrageous to put a time limitation on the other users'
decision (assuming they're available for notification) to scribble their own
responses.  Therefore I'd want a scribble/restore decision from all
contributors before this could be implemented - no time limit.

This response has been erased.

And scott is (best I can tell) saying that before the items could be 
restored, all the users who posted in it should post their choice of 
whether their responses should be delted or restored, with no time 
limit on doing so.  No items would be restored until all authors 
have given instructions relating to their own responses.

Yep.  In fact, that's actually demanded by the principles jp2 claims to hold.
If people's words should not be posted without their prior, explicit consent,
then reposting responses without that consent may not be done.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

THe context and the situation into which I put my words has been irrevocably
changed.  To not ask permission before reposting my words is unacceptimle.

This response has been erased.

Everybody must be given the option yes/no, and as much time as needed must
be used to contact everybody and to wait for an answer from each.  

As you'll agree, it's important not to play favorites.  Therefore everybody
must be contacted, not just those still active on Grex.

This response has been erased.

So, you're playing favorites for those who are currently active.  Gee, and
all this talk about your principles...

scott, puh-leeze.

What?  I'm just trying to communicate with Jamie in his own language.  ;)

I recommmend the repeal be put in a separate proposal.  Else, even if you can
convince folks on the first part, it will fail because the second part.

This response has been erased.

You mean, when this attempt fails, you'll let it go?  Good.

this is just so stupod.

heh..."stupod"

yeah, stink-0!

Bappy, is this you?

http://www.doesitsuck.net/grex/bappy.jpg

doesitsuck.net?!  haha!  twinkie brings out the big guns!  Hahaha!  It's that
picture!  Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


Take a ribbon!

This response has been erased.

SUPPORT THE CAUSE

This response has been erased.

(What is the final text, jp2?)

This response has been erased.

234

This response has been erased.

Yep.

Was away for a few days; back now.

Just to be clear - you want this voted on, and #55 contains
the final wording?

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

Has anyone expressed an interest in endorsing this proposal?
(I know that's not relevant [yet], but it would be interesting to 
see if 10% of the membership would endorse it.)

that ten eper cent endoursement thing will ruin grex's culture.  just watch
it.

This response has been erased.

I'm not a member, but I endorse the proposal.

Re #88:  Send me mail when you've got a final wording and are ready
to proceed.

If endorsement were required, I wouldn't gime mine to this "try #2".
If this comes to a vote, I would recommend a "NO" vote.

Jamie requested that this move to a vote with #55 as the wording,
so voting will start at midnight tonight.

Okeydoke

I recommend a NO vote on this proposal, even though I recommended a yes vote
to the same thing the first time.  The members spoke, pretty convincingly so,
and there is nothing new to decide about this.

It's too bad that this group doesn't operate under Roberts Rules of Order.
It would be out of order to call for the same vote twice in a row in
the same session (which would have to be defined). However a member of the
assembly (members) could move to reconsider the vote. This takes a majority
to pass. In addition, the person that moves to reconsider *must have voted
on the prevailing side* in the original vote. All this would, I think, have
stopped this second vote on the same motion. 

It's not the same motion.

Rane, Roberts Rules would not have stopped the voting.  It would have required
1) a public vote on the issue so we could know who was on the prevailing side,
2) another vote to decide whether or not to reconsider the original motion,
and then, having done all that (and assuming the vote to reconsider failed),
(3) a pubic vote on the new motion.

I, for one, am not willing to give up the secret ballot and impose more
procedures.  If a member enjoys gaming the rules, having fewer rules rahter
than more rules makes more sense.  

I voted "no".  I don't think grex needs to restore swiss cheese.
Additionally, although I think this is nitpicking, the procedure above
describing how the board & staff are supposed to implement this is
overly detailed.  The board would almost certainly apoint a "volunteer",
and might want to have the ability to pick 2 or more people for
different parts of this.  However, fixing this doesn't make this
particular resolution any more palatable to me so it's just a nit.

No vote from me too.

AHAHAH YEAH< YOU REFUSE TO VOTE

I was wavering, voted yes, then changed my vote to NO on this one.  I don't
think it actually solves any problem.

#5 of 10: by James Howard (jp2) on Sun, Mar  7, 2004 (19:29):
 I would assist if you voted for and supported my proposal.

The members decided, nothing new has been offered in support.  Hence
an immediate revote is simply bad parliamentary procedure, regardless
of whether the rules allow it or not.  Thus my "no".

This response has been erased.

And it wouldn't have made any difference in the voting outcome, and it still
won't.

Retract entry 4:  I change my vote on the new policy, not on the 2nd vote on
the same old issue.  I"ve never wavered about -not- restoring the items.

Voting on this ended at midnight (EST) last night.  When I get an
up-to-date voter list from the treasurer, I'll count the ballots and
post the results.

I would have asked the treasurer earlier, but I forgot that the vote
was ending -- a side effect of my recently training the vote program
to shut off a vote automatically at the scheduled time, rather than
me having to do it manually.

Results are as follows:  44 out of 77 eligible members voted.

    Yes:  4
    No:   40

The proposal is defeated.

Let's vote RIGHT this time, Grex.

C'mon guys, do it RIGHT

Even had all the other 33 eligible voters voted Yes, the proposal would still
have failed.  Time to put this to rest, once an for all.

TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE

You have several choices:

• Go to the menu of items for the Oldcoop conference
• Go to the list of conferences
• Go to the opening screen