Buffistas

Excuse me? Who gave you permission to exist?

Cordelia ,'Beneath You'

Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!

We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!

First Previous Next Last Recent

-t - Oct 16, 2016 8:54:04 am PDT #9913 of 10289

I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration

My only concern, but it's actually a big concern, with consensing to ban is that we are not following our established procedure and I think voting in this exceptional case is suitable. I volunteer to count votes.

This is not about punishing Polter-Cow or teaching him or anything to do with him, really, except his effect on the board. We need to protect our community, which has been damaged. I kinda feel like I just got told that that twinge in my knee that I thought was just a thing that happened when a storm was coming is actually a tumor. How could I not have noticed?

Except I know many habits and characteristics I have that would let me not notice. I'm so sorry.

Dana - Oct 16, 2016 9:02:34 am PDT #9914 of 10289

"I'm useless alone." // "We're all useless alone. It's a good thing you're not alone."

Okay, if we're going to follow the voting timeline, how long do we consider the proposal? 3 days? Are all of these details only in the cheesebutt document?

msbelle - Oct 16, 2016 9:02:51 am PDT #9915 of 10289

I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb

I thought it was said that banning is not listed as a voting issue. Is the issue that there was not other steps first.

Really either way (voting/consensus) I am fine. I am also good with this staying open through end of day Monday and if voting is the decision, I volunteer as tribute to take the votes.

Dana - Oct 16, 2016 9:04:40 am PDT #9916 of 10289

"I'm useless alone." // "We're all useless alone. It's a good thing you're not alone."

Yeah, we'd basically be voting to skip the three-strikes process and ban immediately.

Vortex - Oct 16, 2016 9:05:22 am PDT #9917 of 10289

"Cry havoc and let slip the boobs of war!" -- Miracleman

Let me be clear, I do not think that there is not an issue.

I am extremely ambivalent about these actions because, while I believe that P-C does not deserve to be part of our community, we are not following our own rules. I don't like the fact that it has been decided that a BS Consensus is sufficient to ban someone from the board. We have not banned anyone in a long time, and the last time I can recall (I believe it was StuntHusband), we were able to point to specific, recent examples of behaviour in-thread to support the decision, and he was given an opportunity to rehabilitate (which he didn't take well, but that's not the point).

I also think that an announcement needs to be made in Press about this discussion and proposal. I stumbled upon this because I'm subscribe to Voting. People should be given a chance to have their say.

Dana - Oct 16, 2016 9:06:29 am PDT #9918 of 10289

"I'm useless alone." // "We're all useless alone. It's a good thing you're not alone."

I'm sorry, I thought there had been a post in Press.

I'll post a revised proposal in a minute.

msbelle - Oct 16, 2016 9:08:45 am PDT #9919 of 10289

I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb

If there is not a link to the documents for procedures off the site, can we finally get that done. get the docs done up and made part of this site?

Dana - Oct 16, 2016 9:09:08 am PDT #9920 of 10289

"I'm useless alone." // "We're all useless alone. It's a good thing you're not alone."

Proposal: Ban Polter-Cow from the board immediately, without going through the usual three-strikes process, for a long-term pattern of harassment of board members.

Matt the Bruins fan - Oct 16, 2016 9:12:47 am PDT #9921 of 10289

"I remember when they eventually introduced that drug kingpin who murdered people and smuggled drugs inside snakes and I was like 'Finally. A normal person.'” —RahvinDragand

Given the unprecedented nature of the situation, and the fact that banning is normally a stompy issue rather than a board-wide vote, I'm okay with the collective stompies deciding to skip past steps in the usual procedure as long as consensus on the ultimate need for banning appears to be unanimous. But I do think that we need to allow for enough time for disagreeing opinions to make themselves known, and if there is dissent it should probably be dealt with by a more formal vote so those as yet hypothetical dissenting opinions aren't steamrolled over. Ultimately the community itself is the most important thing, and I want us to do whatever is best for it in the long term.

-t - Oct 16, 2016 9:13:46 am PDT #9922 of 10289

I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration

Right, banning is not a voting issue, but I feel like bypassing our stated procedure should be. In part so that lurkers or others who don't want to post right now but would vote could be included.

But if I am the only one that think so, I would support a consensus to ban.

First Previous Next Last Recent