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.
Mal: If anyone gets nosy, just, you know... shoot 'em. Zoe: Shoot 'em? Mal: Politely.
'Serenity'
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!
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."
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.
Vortex - Oct 16, 2016 9:22:32 am PDT #9923 of 10289
"Cry havoc and let slip the boobs of war!" -- Miracleman
You're not.
Beverly - Oct 16, 2016 9:33:26 am PDT #9924 of 10289
Days shrink and grow cold, sunlight through leaves is my song. Winter is long.
Jessica speaks for me.
I already gave my wholehearted consent (to the consensus) to ban. If others want to move at a more procedural pace, I guess I can understand that. I'm so angry I want it dusted and done, which is one reason I'll let calmer minds prevail.
Anne W. - Oct 16, 2016 9:43:28 am PDT #9925 of 10289
The lost sheep grow teeth, forsake their lambs, and lie with the lions.
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.
What Matt said. I think in this case, even though I would very much like to have consensus and be done, it's important to go about this per the letter of our laws. It's really the only way to give those who don't feel comfortable posting in this thread a voice.
Dana - Oct 16, 2016 9:48:46 am PDT #9926 of 10289
"I'm useless alone." // "We're all useless alone. It's a good thing you're not alone."
So I guess the other question is, what happens if we don't get a quorum? Which is 42 voters.
Laura - Oct 16, 2016 9:51:53 am PDT #9927 of 10289
Our wings are not tired.
I expect a quorum, because we do like to vote. If that doesn't happen I guess all that don't want to see his posts will Marcie? Honestly, I don't expect him to want to stay a member of the group at this point.
Amy - Oct 16, 2016 9:54:40 am PDT #9928 of 10289
Because books.
Okay, I'm confused now -- what are we voting for? To ban, or to inform him of strikes, etc.? I thought we didn't need to vote to ban.
Either way, I support excluding P-C from the community, but I'm not sure which thing we're actually doing now.
aurelia - Oct 16, 2016 10:01:11 am PDT #9929 of 10289
All sorrows can be borne if you put them into a story. Tell me a story.
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.
Agreed.
So I guess the other question is, what happens if we don't get a quorum? Which is 42 voters.
Are there stats available via the host? Is there a way to get an approximate number for active posters to see if our quorum number is still reasonable?