| Fish Tank Clan :: Forums :: Fish Tank Clan :: FT Community Clan |
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » |
| [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution | ||
| Author | Post | ||
| gLiTch |
|
||
Anal Assassin
Registered Member #455
Joined: Mon Oct 09 2006, 04:58AMPosts: 3848 |
II. A simple "yes" or "no" vote should suffice. If you feel you need to give a reason explaining your vote or have any relative comments to add, PLEASE TRY TO USE ONE (1) POST and please keep it short and simple. Any additional posts that lead to a massive discussion and cluttered proposal thread will be deleted by a moderator. You can always go back and edit. Knight has brought up a good point...and he has brought this up before we passed this Constitution. I had changed it to be more lenient before we voted it in. Previously any posts that were not a "yes" or "no" vote were going to be deleted. This was not too good and i understand that. I changed it so that any "long" useless discussions would be deleted by a moderator (leaving it up to moderator discretion). It is not a perfect system and it will take some trial and error and real-time testing to see the small flaws in it. Fishermans Cove's proposal is a good example. Some peoples posts were deleted...ones they personally felt should have been left in. Personally i would love to keep proposals to a yes or no vote...because it makes it simple and organized. However, where do we draw the line? The line was left up to any particular moderator. This poses problems as everyone sees things differently. I suggest we amend Article II so that the line is drawn at trash talking. Any input or opinions pertaining to the proposal itself shall stay no matter how long the discussion as long as it stays relevant to the thread. Any personal attacks or trash talking shall be deleted. This is just a discussion. According to the amendment process, a discussion is first needed to gain everyone's input. Then the thread starter shall create a second " Amendment Proposal" thread where people vote. I repeat, this isnt a vote. Discuss the change to this: II. A simple "yes" or "no" vote should suffice. If you feel you need to give a reason explaining your vote or have any relative comments to add, PLEASE DO SO IN A RESPECTFUL MANNER and please try keep it short and simple. Any additional posts that are considered trash talk and/or anything NOT relevant to the proposal will be deleted by a moderator. What ya think? |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| nostie |
|
||
Registered Member #185
Joined: Thu Mar 30 2006, 10:42PMPosts: 3167 |
In the end it comes down to what admins deem unnecessary. In this case I think it's clear a lot of us think that dito went too far and deleted too many posts that could have been considered constructive. I agree with the switch, though. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Glas4d |
|
||
Registered Member #756
Joined: Sat Jun 23 2007, 10:49PMPosts: 1717 |
Yes. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| nostie |
|
||
|
Registered Member #185
Joined: Thu Mar 30 2006, 10:42PM Posts: 3167 |
Glas4d wrote ... not sure if troll
Yes. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| b4ndito |
|
||
b4ndito
Registered Member #958
Joined: Fri Jan 04 2008, 06:59AMPosts: 3385 |
It's a nomination. You say yes or no, and you give a reason why. It's not a fucking argument. We're not voting for a fucking president. If you want to throw your dick out and trollfish someone into a debate, do it in a different thread. Also, if you have problems with a guy getting nominated, THEN DISCUSS A CHANGE OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. Enough of this esoteric bullshit. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| V3cT0rMan |
|
||
v3ct0rman
Registered Member #1160
Joined: Tue Jun 30 2009, 09:42PMPosts: 608 |
I think its a good amendment b4ndito wrote ... how is this esoteric?
Enough of this esoteric bullshit. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| doctorphate |
|
||
doctorphate
Registered Member #724
Joined: Wed May 30 2007, 03:50AMPosts: 699 |
Dont mind Bandito, hes just trying to use white people words. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| b4ndito |
|
||
|
b4ndito
Registered Member #958
Joined: Fri Jan 04 2008, 06:59AM Posts: 3385 |
V3cT0rMan wrote ... how is this esoteric? I'm talking about this whole mindset of being over selective to our group. I admit I probably used the term wrong since I was in a rush to write it before work and I was kinda mad. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| b4ndito |
|
||
|
b4ndito
Registered Member #958
Joined: Fri Jan 04 2008, 06:59AM Posts: 3385 |
And let me clarify: The reason that article II exists and why I deleted those posts is historically based. In the past, nomination threads have been the cause of drama and clan rifts. Kever's comes to mind if I recall correctly. People get into debates and someone says something about a "big dick contest" and then suddenly we have people ripping and fighting each other and the integrity and community of the clan becomes suspect. We will not give that opportunity anymore. Not only did that whole discussion start by Rusty and Aks getting into an argument that was less than civil, more people got involved and the thread became a pissing contest, even if it was a polite one towards the end. Also, it is unfair to the nominee to have to watch his joyful moment become a source of dissent. How do you think Fisherman feels right now? You think he feels happy and joyful that he is going to get into the clan? Probably not. He's probably ashamed that he started an argument by no fault of his own. How do you think Kever felt when she was the middle of a clan controversy? I bet she felt shitty. And she shouldn't have had to. This is not only to help keep a clean nomination thread, but it is to protect the clan's and the nominee's integrity. If it were up to me, it would be even stricter. You're allowed to say "Yes" or "No" or you can flex the option to withhold your vote. Instead of getting into destructive and drama-laden arguments, we could let the actual VOTES mean something. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Rusty |
|
||
FTS Server Op
Registered Member #159
Joined: Wed Mar 01 2006, 06:33PMPosts: 2682 |
b4ndito wrote ... Not only did that whole discussion start by Rusty and Aks getting into an argument that was less than civil, more people got involved and the thread became a pissing contest, even if it was a polite one towards the end. Let me be clear on this. Not once did I think my argument with AKs was ever more than just that. It didn't effect how I feel towards him, he's a great guy and a lot of fun to play with. And I hope it didn't make him hate me (he says it didn't!). So to call it less than civil is just to ignorant bystanders who don't know the relationship of the two people in the argument. And it was a "big dick contest" at that point, but I don't think that's a bad term. b4ndito wrote ... Also, it is unfair to the nominee to have to watch his joyful moment become a source of dissent. How do you think Fisherman feels right now? You think he feels happy and joyful that he is going to get into the clan? Probably not. He's probably ashamed that he started an argument by no fault of his own. How do you think Kever felt when she was the middle of a clan controversy? I bet she felt shitty. And she shouldn't have had to. This is not only to help keep a clean nomination thread, but it is to protect the clan's and the nominee's integrity. If it were up to me, it would be even stricter. You're allowed to say "Yes" or "No" or you can flex the option to withhold your vote. Instead of getting into destructive and drama-laden arguments, we could let the actual VOTES mean something. How about this, as I know a lot of people feel this way, instead of being a fucking vote/thread nazi, why don't we make proposals/voting private so the nominee cannot see them? He doesn't have to know who is voting yes or no, and the person putting up the proposal can let them know it's being voted on. This way we don't hurt their feelings. I know for a fact a lot of people do not vote no in case the person ends up getting in and they feel like a dick because the nominee would know they said no. It's happened for years and it's been a flawed system since then. Make it so the nominee cannot see the posts, and bam! No more hurt feelings. Even though I make it a point try and not attack the person while I'm voting no. Fisherman, if you read this, my no vote had nothing to do with you! It was more about the voting system and how I feel I will be voting on proposals. I hope you're not mad about it or upset! |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System
|
|