|
Grex > Coop13 > #145: Member Resolution: Undead the Kilt | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 24 new of 109 responses total. |
parcel
|
|
response 86 of 109:
| 
Apr 5 18:12 UTC 2004 |
DAMMIT! I don't have happy on Grex.
|
parcel
|
|
response 87 of 109:
|
Apr 6 12:49 UTC 2004 |
That personal comment about how hte resolution has supposedly been defeated
twice should NOT be there.
|
robh
|
|
response 88 of 109:
|
Apr 6 13:01 UTC 2004 |
Painful as it is for me to do so, I agree with #87. Commentary on
the proposal does not belong in the motd.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 89 of 109:
|
Apr 6 13:04 UTC 2004 |
Yup. Once again, Grex staff engages in unethical behavior. It seems like
only weeks ago Gelinas and others were claiming that Valerie's actions
were an aberration, and that staff was unlikely run amok any time soon.
|
unelect
|
|
response 90 of 109:
|
Apr 6 13:21 UTC 2004 |
Hi! I'm the elections overseer assigned to Grex by the UN Elections and
Democracy Comittee.
I believe the comment in 87 refers to the following note, which appears in
the MOTD:
(NOTE: This proposal has already been voted on and
defeated twice. Due to a recent change in the Grex bylaws, a recurrence of
this unusual situation is unlikely.) -jhr
This is, I think, a fairly clear example of the reigning party using the
state-sponsored maedia to promote its own politicised agenda. It's not armed
gunmen running away with ballot boxes, but it's close.
|
parcel
|
|
response 91 of 109:
|
Apr 6 13:24 UTC 2004 |
I agree with the UNELECT Committee's appraisal.
This vote is already permanently tainted, and jp2 should be apologised to.
|
jp2
|
|
response 92 of 109:
|
Apr 6 13:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 93 of 109:
|
Apr 6 16:34 UTC 2004 |
Now that we've heard from the twit committee...
|
remmers
|
|
response 94 of 109:
|
Apr 6 17:24 UTC 2004 |
No conspiracy or ruling-party stuff, just me acting on my own. Wasn't
intended to be prejudicial, just a heads-up explaining the circumstances
to people who don't follow Coop and suddenly found themselves voting on
something they thought they'd already voted on.
Hey, I voted for the first incarnation of the proposal and voted against
the followups because I felt that a revote on something just decided,
in the absence of new circumstances, was bad procedure.
Anyhow, I've taken the parenthetical remark out of the motd. Reference to
the disposition of the previous motions was probably inappropriate. I'm
curious if folks think that a simple reference to the fact that this is
a repeat vote, without mentioning the disposition of previous votes or
other related circumstances, would have been appropriate. And don't hold
back just to spare my feelings; if you think it'd be wrong, just say so.
Us amock-runners have nerves of steel!
|
jp2
|
|
response 95 of 109:
|
Apr 6 17:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 96 of 109:
|
Apr 6 17:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 97 of 109:
|
Apr 6 20:32 UTC 2004 |
It was mostly factual, but I think could have been better worded, so as to
stir up lesser controvery.
In other news, anyone spot anything interesting about this output from the
vote program? :-)
> The polls are open through the end of the day (EDT) on Thursday, March 15.
|
remmers
|
|
response 98 of 109:
|
Apr 6 20:57 UTC 2004 |
Controversy isn't always bad; hyperbole is another story.
Oops! Fixed the date. (The hazards of copy & paste.)
|
soup
|
|
response 99 of 109:
|
Apr 6 21:27 UTC 2004 |
I thank plongeur for bringing the motd matter to our attention.
|
parcel
|
|
response 100 of 109:
|
Apr 6 21:44 UTC 2004 |
Hey, no problem, soup.
|
tod
|
|
response 101 of 109:
|
Apr 7 19:38 UTC 2004 |
These votes are a moot point.
|
aruba
|
|
response 102 of 109:
|
Apr 8 06:07 UTC 2004 |
I think it was appropriate to point out that this was a new vote, so that
people who log in infrequently wouldn't confuse it with the old vote.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 103 of 109:
|
Apr 15 17:49 UTC 2004 |
FYI, about 9 days into the vote jp2 sent an e-mail (to members, I assume) with
Subject = "The Current Grex Vote". I will ask him via e-mail if it is OK to
post here. Naturally it seeks a Yes vote on the proposal.
|
keesan
|
|
response 104 of 109:
|
Apr 15 18:13 UTC 2004 |
My spam filter sent that mail to /dev/null - I wonder which string it caught.
Is mail from twits automatically filtered?
|
remmers
|
|
response 105 of 109:
|
Apr 15 19:25 UTC 2004 |
I received the mail, but only a day or two ago.
The vote ends at midnight tonight (EDT), April 15. I'll post results
when I've received a confirmed voter list from the treasurer.
|
remmers
|
|
response 106 of 109:
|
Apr 16 12:36 UTC 2004 |
Results: 35 members voted out of 76 who were eligible.
yes 4
no 31
The motion fails.
|
realugly
|
|
response 107 of 109:
|
Apr 16 13:01 UTC 2004 |
It doesn't.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 108 of 109:
|
Apr 16 16:51 UTC 2004 |
(jp2 said it was OK to post the e-mail here, but I won't bother now.)
|
jesuit
|
|
response 109 of 109:
|
May 17 02:14 UTC 2006 |
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
|