The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: squevil on December 09, 2013, 09:09:57 PM
-
Sean as my post said I chose those 4 guys because they talk to people about FET all the time. I had trouble thinking of 5 members tbh. I couldn't imagine trying to decide on more.
I'd of rather just said Tom and Thork but 5 names was the request.
-
I don't think you have to nominate 5. And hoppy is literally the worst. An even worse idea than Thork and you. Well, maybe not you.
-
You know what. I like the idea of a council. But I don't think we have enough of the right people yet. Take myself for instance, I'm far too opinionated to work as a group. I'd be honoured to do it and I'm a member too. But perhaps not the best suited.
But everyone has their faults, I could point out negative points about each candidate as to why they wouldn't be suitable.
But we will have a council and you have your vote to choose who you want to see on it. If it fails then so be it. But I'm backing it and it appears you are too. Lets see how it goes. If a member isn't working out then they should understand that they will be replaced with a more suitable candidate.
-
Ok dude
-
I just picked people who do things. wiki, art, write stuff. I'm only interested in having people who will get stuff done and make the site a success.
Someone nominated Markjo for instance. I have never seen him draw a single diagram. Never volunteered to help with anything. Just likes to criticise with repetitive one liners. I'm not interetested in an RE balance. just that those who get stuff done can go get stuff done. If its a good panel, I don't care if I'm on it or not.
-
I just picked people who do things. wiki, art, write stuff. I'm only interested in having people who will get stuff done and make the site a success.
Someone nominated Markjo for instance. I have never seen him draw a single diagram. Never volunteered to help with anything. Just likes to criticise with repetitive one liners. I'm not interetested in an RE balance. just that those who get stuff done can go get stuff done. If its a good panel, I don't care if I'm on it or not.
This is why I will not run for council. I don't want to get stuff done in the name of The Flat Earth. Too much damn work.
-
Thork is right. It should be for those who make that extra effort.
-
I am not too sure about Roundy at this point. I'm afraid he is not fully converted to the dark side...
-
His rant on .org convinced me.
-
Tom Bishop
Secret User
Thork
Roundy
pizaaplanet
Dude, have a day off.
-
Do they have to follow the zeitic philosophy and believe the world's flat?
-
Tom Bishop
Secret User
Thork
Roundy
pizaaplanet
Dude, have a day off.
Do you have any idea how much FE work and promotion she has done?
-
I thought the admins weren't going to be part of the council?
-
I thought the admins weren't going to be part of the council?
Parsifal expressed he has no desire to be a part of the council. Not sure about PP. Unless he doesn't want to, I don't see any reason to exclude admins. Unless there are concerns about conflict of interest.
-
Tom Bishop
Secret User
Thork
Roundy
pizaaplanet
Dude, have a day off.
Do you have any idea how much FE work and promotion she has done?
I support Secret User. She's another one who was seriously slighted on John Davis's list.
-
I just picked people who do things. wiki, art, write stuff. I'm only interested in having people who will get stuff done and make the site a success.
Someone nominated Markjo for instance. I have never seen him draw a single diagram. Never volunteered to help with anything. Just likes to criticise with repetitive one liners. I'm not interetested in an RE balance. just that those who get stuff done can go get stuff done. If its a good panel, I don't care if I'm on it or not.
This is why I will not run for council. I don't want to get stuff done in the name of The Flat Earth. Too much damn work.
Did the old Council achieve, or did they merely Judge? In my experience it was certainly the latter, except for that which happened in the times before my arrival or more aptly my participation, leaving out the select few. Thork has much better standards for the list than perhaps the site before us, but(eeww I ate a sticker) the standards do not reflect the majority of the council's membership.
-
I don't think the old council did anything other than determine who got into FEB, and I don't know how much of that they wound up actually doing.
-
I don't think the old council did anything other than determine who got into FEB, and I don't know how much of that they wound up actually doing.
There was an old council? I thought the "leaders" were basically Daniel, Whilmore, and John. All of which did whatever Daniel allowed them to do.
-
Can we have the poll this Saturday? Run it for a week if needs be. There's no need to drag this out for longer now.
-
Can we have the poll this Saturday? Run it for a week if needs be. There's no need to drag this out for longer now.
Why not kick it off now and let it run over the entire weekend?
-
A pm was sent strait after I posted that. I'm on it ;)
-
The only problem is that we have not really defined what the role of the council will be. I propose that somebody please write up a short statement, maybe just a paragraph, that defines the role and powers of the council, a length of term, and specify what the checks and balances are in order to make sure that their power is kept at a reasonable level. I propose that the Admins are allowed to veto anything the council decides if it has a 2/3 vote.
We have a list of nominees; however, we have yet to find out how many of these nominees are actually interested in the position. I think we need to consolidate the list, and allow the nominees to decline or agree to being on the ballot. This should only take a few days. Also, nobody really said how many nominations are required in order to get on the ballot. I will assume 1, unless people object.
In addition, I think we should allow the nominees to give at least one small speech, to allow people to understand their views. Maybe even a debate or two. Otherwise, we are voting for them based on their previous posts and it is nothing more than a popularity contest.
In short, I think that people are trying to rush this with out really thinking it through. At this point, we are basing our votes on the posts from the other site, and we really have nothing more to go on besides that.
-
I propose that the Admins are allowed to veto anything the council decides if it has a 2/3 vote.
Nope, the point of the council is that it redresses the balance so the society isn't run by the admins this time. The admins should stay out of council affairs. They have a website to run already.
-
We all know the characters we have nominated though. That shouldn't be an issue. The council will have little power at all anyway and details can be discussed with the new council and the forum admins. The first job of the council can be to set the guides for its purpose. I don't think we need to delay this and it will be good to have it for Xmas.
A thread was made for nomination discussions and nobody stated they did not want to be included.
-
We are also nominating spokes people for the FES who will support it. Not people to run a forum. Forum staff and the council will or should be 2 different entities and should not be so closely related.
-
Can I suggest that the first round of council members should be limited to a 6 month term while we work out the details, then?
-
Can I suggest that the first round of council members should be limited to a 6 month term while we work out the details, then?
You can suggest it. I don't think we should have a wholesale change of personnel every 6 months though. It should be a more balanced one in one out.
-
OK, how about this for the first round of votes. The one who gets the most votes gets a full 1 year term, the second person gets a 9 month term, the third person gets a 6 month term, and the fourth and fifth people get a 3 month term. That way, we constantly have new councilors, but also have an established base. Maybe do an election every 3 months for those positions that are leaving?
-
Something like that sounds fair. Need to simplify it though I'd think. I'd say that all members should have to re-elect. I can't see a large change each time tbh. There needs to be a fail safe in place though. With the current system there would be no stopping a load of people joining and electing each other and making a mockery if the FES.
-
How about the first election be for a provisional council with a 6 month term and then when the duties and responsibilities become better defined, you can have long term council elections.
-
I would say you need to define the duties and responsibilities now because it should filter down from what the council is for and what it's meant to achieve.
So far all I can see the council doing is to vote members in and out. If that's the case then all it would be is a niche club of the most popular posters. If you're outside the friend club you'll never be represented.
Members of the council shouldn't be allowed to vote who should be on it. The community of the forum should.
Why don't you just put up a complete list of nominations and then conduct a poll.
-
Members of the council shouldn't be allowed to vote who should be on it. The community of the forum should.
Whilst I like the sentiment, and right now its a great way to do it ... when the forum opens up to the world's trolls, our elections are likely to get 4-chaned.
-
How about the first election be for a provisional council with a 6 month term and then when the duties and responsibilities become better defined, you can have long term council elections.
Yes.
-
Members of the council shouldn't be allowed to vote who should be on it. The community of the forum should.
Whilst I like the sentiment, and right now its a great way to do it ... when the forum opens up to the world's trolls, our elections are likely to get 4-chaned.
What if you can only vote if you've been a member 6 months after the first election. People who don't know anyone or anything about the society shouldn't have a say
-
How can that be modified? I wonder if a forum section can be made so only people who have been a member for x amount of months can see it. The votes can take place there.
-
If there are no objections. I can take the voting to the next phase. Before I'd proceed though I will run things by you all. Tell me to slow down if you like but I prefer actions to words. I have an idea to keep things secret and fair too. Let me know what you think and I can run through the details.
-
If there are no objections. I can take the voting to the next phase. Before I'd proceed though I will run things by you all. Tell me to slow down if you like but I prefer actions to words. I have an idea to keep things secret and fair too. Let me know what you think and I can run through the details.
Please, proceed.
-
If there are no objections. I can take the voting to the next phase. Before I'd proceed though I will run things by you all. Tell me to slow down if you like but I prefer actions to words. I have an idea to keep things secret and fair too. Let me know what you think and I can run through the details.
Please, proceed.
Yeah, crack on. If we stop for every interjection, opinion and postulation, we're never going to hold elections.
-
Ok. When I get to my computer I will set this up.
-
I have added a 'poll' in flat earth general as the topic is more suited there.
I could not decide what format to put it in. You will see what I chose to do and I hope it suits everyone. I suggested 3 votes each to avoid ties. There shouldnt be a need to vote for all 5 members anyway, this way you can vote for the best people.
Another idea I was going to run by was to just add up the numbers from the nominations. That also was a reasonable option.
I also didnt submit my own name as votes are coming to me. bit of a shame because I would of liked to of taken part, maybe next time eh.
-
You are welcome Thork, I wont reply to pms as I will keep my messages as clean as possible.
-
I have opened the doors to potential trolls by advertising on our favorite youtube video and facebook. I will filter these. but the event/adverts may help raise the site profile.
Thank you google+ for allowing me to post links on youtube again xx
-
I'm confused. Are we not using Parsifal's method where we vote for each in order of who we most want to who we least want then use that to find out the winner?
-
No use my method. We are still voting and the outcome will be the same. People are sending me PMs so this is happening. I PMed Parsifal a couple of days ago and had no reply and as we want to get this going I just made the moves.
is this poll for real?
Yeah.
Well it should be as nobody is objecting. I have no bias and I will make this work for us.
-
Maybe the poll should be stickied over each thread so its taken seriously?
-
Maybe the poll should be stickied over each thread so its taken seriously?
Done.
-
I PMed Parsifal a couple of days ago and had no reply and as we want to get this going I just made the moves.
Thanks for handling this. I really have no interest in leading this; I was only making suggestions previously.
Sorry for not being too responsive lately; duty calls at work. I'd been giving this place a bit more than 100% of what I really should for the first week and a half to make sure it got off the ground smoothly, but now I think we've picked up enough momentum that that's no longer necessary.
-
No worries. I manage an online community myself and understand that it's not a 24/7 service.
-
Why would we pm votes? Shouldn't it be public to ensure its legit
-
It should be pubic later.
-
Why would we pm votes? Shouldn't it be public to ensure its legit
So the running votes don't influence other votes. You will be more inclined to vote for someone who has a chance of winning which could be an issue if you wanted to vote for someone else but may feel it is a waste if they don't have a chance.
Votes can be published afterward.
-
Should there be a vote to ask people if they want a council in the way that's proposed first? Do we want 6 members on the council, do we want one president and six members, do we want just a president etc...?
After that we should vote for who should be on the council etc...
At the moment I'm not sure what this council is meant to achieve and what it's meant to do. Should we not clarify that first.
-
I feel the same way as DDDDAts all folks. I feel that certain people are rushing this just to get it done. However, we don't even know what we are voting for.
-
I suggest we wait and hold the election on the New Year. There's no rush, and we should be sure we're voting for the right people. And we need job descriptions before we hire. Otherwise it's just silly.
-
Thats fine, we can just talk about it and it never happening if thats what you prefer.
Or we just vote and the people who we want in arrange the details with everyone. The votes wont be any different in a week or 6 months. We can vote for the people we want on it now and we can then get things like the details sorted. Or we can just talk about it for weeks because not everyone will ever agree and we cant exactly get together at the same time and sort it.
-
Should there be a vote to ask people if they want a council in the way that's proposed first? Do we want 6 members on the council, do we want one president and six members, do we want just a president etc...?
After that we should vote for who should be on the council etc...
At the moment I'm not sure what this council is meant to achieve and what it's meant to do. Should we not clarify that first.
There is a president already.
-
I think 3 options should be put forward for a vote from across a spectrum.
One where we vote in one president, one where we have one president and a council (dunno how many members) and one where we only have a council (again dunno how many members).
The options I've proposed might not be correct because they're highly dependent on the reasons for the council and what it's meant to do, and I haven't got a clue what that is.
-
Thats fine, we can just talk about it and it never happening if thats what you prefer.
Or we just vote and the people who we want in arrange the details with everyone. The votes wont be any different in a week or 6 months. We can vote for the people we want on it now and we can then get things like the details sorted. Or we can just talk about it for weeks because not everyone will ever agree and we cant exactly get together at the same time and sort it.
Like I said, there's no rush. If we'd rather we can set up a temporary governance, but that seems incredibly pointless to me.I think 3 options should be put forward for a vote from across a spectrum.
One where we vote in one president, one where we have one president and a council (dunno how many members) and one where we only have a council (again dunno how many members).
The options I've proposed might not be correct because they're highly dependent on the reasons for the council and what it's meant to do, and I haven't got a clue what that is.
Exactly. Let's make our constitution as equals, and then decide who should be running the show.
-
Thats fine, we can just talk about it and it never happening if thats what you prefer.
Or we just vote and the people who we want in arrange the details with everyone. The votes wont be any different in a week or 6 months. We can vote for the people we want on it now and we can then get things like the details sorted. Or we can just talk about it for weeks because not everyone will ever agree and we cant exactly get together at the same time and sort it.
Like I said, there's no rush. If we'd rather we can set up a temporary governance, but that seems incredibly pointless to me.I think 3 options should be put forward for a vote from across a spectrum.
One where we vote in one president, one where we have one president and a council (dunno how many members) and one where we only have a council (again dunno how many members).
The options I've proposed might not be correct because they're highly dependent on the reasons for the council and what it's meant to do, and I haven't got a clue what that is.
Exactly. Let's make our constitution as equals, and then decide who should be running the show.
That is what I have been trying to say. Why do we have to hurry up and make a decision, when we really do not know what the heck we are voting for? Let's work out the details, then figure out how we should vote. Thork wants to rush things, but we should do this in a more organised manor.
-
The votes do not have to be final. I was only wiling if there wasnt any objections. If you wish to talk about the finer details it can be put on hold. I will say though a fair few people have voted already.
-
Why do we have to hurry up and make a decision, when we really do not know what the heck we are voting for? Let's work out the details, then figure out how we should vote. Thork wants to rush things, but we should do this in a more organised manor.
I'm pushing to get the vote done, because I honestly don't think it matters what the council does in terms of who gets voted for. I'm sure the same people will get in no matter what rules and stipulations are put in.
As for all these extra things (should we have a president etc) let the council decide that. Then they can go back and give you a vote on who president should be if they decide they want one. The whole point of the council is that they can generally make most of the decisions between them, without 40 people all throwing opinions into every topic with the result being that nothing gets done. Like this.
Like I said, there's no rush.
We've been discussing this for two weeks. I know it seems like a rush to you, because you only came back today. People are voting. If we stop the vote, cancel the vote, change the rules for voting etc, people are just going to lose interest.
-
I agree that it needs to get done. What we are voting on is a group of people who have 6 months to get some things done. Forming this constitution, and all the regulations. Defining the powers of the council, etc. We have to have some belief that the community can trust these people they are voting for. It is temporary anyway, and if things work out the way we hope, we will have paved a great way for the future of this forum, and organization. If it fails, it was temporary anyway and can be blown up and started from scratch.
-
Well, but that's the thing. We don't know what we're voting for, and it really does matter. Are we voting for a constitutional committee? Because if so I'm inclined to vote based on who's cleverest, not who's most likely to actually get things done.
-
We do know what we are voting for, which is why squevil has received so many votes.
-
My idea at least was to get these guys in and then make some decisions on what they will do and the purpose. We have a rough idea on what the council will do. But I think its important that we do not delay too long because we all want this forum to become more active than the old one and I think council members will push that agenda.
Everything else I could add has already been said really. I think the main point though is no matter if we vote today or in a few months time the results would be just about the same. Can I be so bold to say you might be a bit annoyed because you didnt have a chance to be added to the list? If thats the case I dont see the harm in adding you now as there are still plenty of people who should vote. Admittedly I overlooked you Tausami in my nominations, because I think you should of been on that list.
-
I can't vote for anyone because I don't know what is they're meant to represent. At the moment people are being voted for because of popularity not what they're capable of.
I'm worried that this self defined council will just be an elite club of friends that don't actually do anything. This council could actually divide the forum.
One of the things the council could do is decide on a coherent voice of flat earth theories and update the F&Q. If they do that I would vote for a council member who knows something about flat earth theory. At the moment I can't nominate or vote based on anything but popularity.
I also don't see why you need to rush it. If you want to speed it up a bit put some milestones in place.
i.e.
Ask people what they think the council should do - 2 days
Summarise the answers and structure the purpose of the council- 1 day
Put together three options based on the summary of what the council should do and vote on them- 2 days
etc...
-
But we are voting for people who actively participate in flat earth talks and have a keen interest in the FES. But as for the structure idea. That won't work either. No discussion will end in 2 days. You have been saying that this voting isn't fair for 2 days alone.
Markjo has been arguing that the earth is round for years is an even better example.
All voting for anything will always include a popularity contest, that can't be avoided. But will these votes be any different after weeks of talks about what they should do? No. Not unless you fall out with somebody, in that case it's another popularity contest.
Yeah this is moving swiftly. But it's only because it would make no difference when the votes took place.
I dunno maybe it's just in my own head but I was under the impression that we had a rough idea about what the council would do.
-
I can't vote for anyone because I don't know what is they're meant to represent. At the moment people are being voted for because of popularity not what they're capable of.
I'm worried that this self defined council will just be an elite club of friends that don't actually do anything. This council could actually divide the forum.
One of the things the council could do is decide on a coherent voice of flat earth theories and update the F&Q. If they do that I would vote for a council member who knows something about flat earth theory. At the moment I can't nominate or vote based on anything but popularity.
I also don't see why you need to rush it. If you want to speed it up a bit put some milestones in place.
i.e.
Ask people what they think the council should do - 2 days
Summarise the answers and structure the purpose of the council- 1 day
Put together three options based on the summary of what the council should do and vote on them- 2 days
etc...
If that's what the council's going to be about, I'd like a nomination. I've put too much damn work into that FAQ to stop working on it now.
Here's a question: what can't the council do? Should they be allowed to be moderators? Should they be allowed to be admins?
-
Are we able to change our votes? Because new old regulars signing up is making a bit of a difference.
-
Are we able to change our votes? Because new old regulars signing up is making a bit of a difference.
I would think that this should be acceptable.
-
One of the things the council could do is decide on a coherent voice of flat earth theories and update the F&Q. If they do that I would vote for a council member who knows something about flat earth theory.
Then don't vote for me. I'm not going to railroad other FErs to follow my version of FET. Yes, I think its the best, that's why I think those things. But some flat earthers think earth is an infinite plain, some subscribe to gravity, some UA, some bendy-light, others a firmament.
I would
a) not expect anyone to defend a theory they don't believe in
b) worry that narrowing FET would stifle debate and reduce the number of possibilities for discussion on the forum.
I know some of you RErs come here hoping to deal FET a death-blow and get off on trying to shoot holes in it and that's fine. I'm also aware that shoe-horning FET into a little box (read corner) would make that infinitely more easy for you. But the point of the flat earth society is that its a place for free-thinkers. Not a bunch of belligerent automatons that defend whatever the council comes up with. New ideas and theories (good ones) are always welcome.
Ultimately, whoever you vote, you are going to have to trust they will make things better. Surely a group of 5 people will do a better job than a single president who is never here. Vote for whomever you think will do the best job a looking after the society.
If you want to change your vote, just do it. It was secret anyway. Just send Squevil an updated vote. He'll take the last one you submit when the votes are in.
-
But we are voting for people who actively participate in flat earth talks and have a keen interest in the FES. But as for the structure idea. That won't work either. No discussion will end in 2 days. You have been saying that this voting isn't fair for 2 days alone.
Markjo has been arguing that the earth is round for years is an even better example.
All voting for anything will always include a popularity contest, that can't be avoided. But will these votes be any different after weeks of talks about what they should do? No. Not unless you fall out with somebody, in that case it's another popularity contest.
Yeah this is moving swiftly. But it's only because it would make no difference when the votes took place.
I dunno maybe it's just in my own head but I was under the impression that we had a rough idea about what the council would do.
May I suggest this very quickly put together council structure (I have no problem if you want to make a better job of it).
A six member council with three different roles, Council Community Representative, Council Community Member and Council Flat Earth Theory Representative:
Council Community Representative
Two members of the council act as the community representative. They highlight issues to do with the forum that members may have a concern about (i.e. unjust bans, inappropriate mod behaviour or the request to ban a member etc...) they also promote the flat earth society and act as it's representative within the media.
Council Flat Earth Theory Representative
Two members of the council act as the conduit of knowledge for any flat earth theories that may develop from forum discusions or new evidence. They are responsible for bringing any new or revised flat earth theories to the council to be voted on and passed. They update the FAQ and revise the wikki.
Community Council Member
Two members of the council act as independant council members and are required to represent the community and vote on important issues. They ensure the proceedings of council meetings are made transparent and publish the issues that were raised and voted on in council meetings. They also collate the votes from the council meetings and publish each council members voting position.
Each member of the council irrespective of their title should:
Promote the views of the flat earth community that they represent.
To vote on issues that have been raised within the council that require a vote.
To bring any relevant issues to the council that the community wants to be discussed and possibly voted on.
All six council members must vote, however only four votes are required for a motion to pass. If a member chooses not to vote then a 2/3 majority is required from the remaining council members. If there are not enough council members to provide a 2/3 majority then a hung council is called and a new election for council members is required.
On issues that change the constitution of the council a 100% vote is required if this is not achievable a hung council is called and a new election of council members is required.
At any time 50% of the council can call for a new council election.
The council is required to sit every month. A new council election is called every 6 months.
Like I said I just did this 'on the pack of a fag packet' so please feel free to change it or not implement it at all. But you do need some kind of structure to the council and some rules that you can apply when your voting on or discussing issues.
-
We can have the top 6 in if you want, that shouldnt be an issue. I can see the 5th and 6th places going on a tie off though.
Tsuami has been added. Guys feel free to alter your votes. I can keep track of them, no worries ;)
-
Make it 5 as Parsifal first suggested.
6 is going to end up in lots of tied votes, and frankly the less squabbling the better.
-
It would be bad to change now. How about we keep as 5 and in 6 months time you guys can see whats working and what isnt?
-
in 6 months time
This is always a good idea
-
Those of you who voted for admins NEED to change your vote. Just tell me who you want to swap out and its done with.
-
Fine, I'll vote for you instead.
-
Sarcasm noted. But im not in it anyway, it would be a conflict of interest.
-
What? Other people were voting for you.
-
I had a couple of nominations but as the votes are being sent to me I said dont count me in. Dont get me wrong id of liked to have a go at it. I fully support the society and what it is. But the admins run the website and didnt want to host the voting for the council so I did it.
-
You are making this difficult. I'll vote for Secret User, then.
-
Hahaha you are. Go to flat earth general and read what it says there XD
-
It says admins are still nominated. Conflicting information, help?
-
It says admins are still nominated. Conflicting information, help?
Updated.
-
I still have about 4 votes that need to be changed too. Sorry I forgot to remove them.
-
Hmm. How about:
Council Chair: This would be whoever gets the most votes. If there's a tie, it will be chosen randomly by a coin flip or whatever. The position will last a year (apart from this first run), unlike the other positions which will last 6 months. The chair has veto power. They also have another of the three positions. For example, the Chair could also be one of the Flat Earth Theory representatives from DDDDAts's suggestion.
I agree about only having five positions.
-
Hmm. How about:
Council Chair: This would be whoever gets the most votes. If there's a tie, it will be chosen randomly by a coin flip or whatever. The position will last a year (apart from this first run), unlike the other positions which will last 6 months. The chair has veto power. They also have another of the three positions. For example, the Chair could also be one of the Flat Earth Theory representatives from DDDDAts's suggestion.
I agree about only having five positions.
That was only a starter for ten, any structure at all would be better than nothing, I don't think those elected should decide it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
People don't even know what they're voting for, it's ridiculous. They should vote on the purpose and structure of the council and then vote for who should be on it.
-
Know what's funny?
Those nominates haven't even confirmed that they'll accept the position of elected.
Or at least, last I saw.
-
Perhaps I should just delete all the threads then. If e wry person who wasn't nominated is just going to complain then we shouldn't do this. I was only willing if there was no objections but clearly there is.
-
Perhaps I should just delete all the threads then. If e wry person who wasn't nominated is just going to complain then we shouldn't do this. I was only willing if there was no objections but clearly there is.
I think it should continue. There won't be a system anywhere that no one has any objections to. I agree with Thork that the votes aren't going to change much if at all, regardless of how many discussions are held.
I am in favor of the idea, still. If the community as a whole doesn't want to, then so be it.
-
Perhaps I should just delete all the threads then. If e wry person who wasn't nominated is just going to complain then we shouldn't do this. I was only willing if there was no objections but clearly there is.
I think it should continue. There won't be a system anywhere that no one has any objections to. I agree with Thork that the votes aren't going to change much if at all, regardless of how many discussions are held.
I am in favor of the idea, still. If the community as a whole doesn't want to, then so be it.
We don't have a system to even disagree about, that's my problem. Personally I don't care what system you come up with.
An elected council seems like a good idea, however if you want to take this seriously I think the purpose of the council and what it's meant to achieve should be clarified into a council structure first.
At the moment people are just voting blindly for their forum buddy without real understanding of what they're voting for which is ridiculous and may cause problems further down the line.
-
I'm not gonna say who wants who but I don't think people are just voting for friends. We moved here to make a better society and I think those who have voted are doing so honestly.
Just relax I think we need to set a council up to aid the idea of what they should do. Are people worried they will have power over the forum? Because that's not the idea. Their work should be mostly external to spread the FES about and to talk with new posters and promote the FES.
-
If we're going to be doing everything all democraticy in the long term, maybe we should eventually have an election etc. board? Call it administration or something. This would be where people could be nominated, make cases for themselves, and where the election itself could happen. My main reason for suggesting this is that once we start getting a lot of angry noobs again, it'll be difficult to hold that kind of conversation in FEG.
-
Yeah it would be needed. Even if it was tempary during elections. I'd like it to be visable to people who have a so called right to vote too. I mentioned previously that there is no stopping a catearththeory joining with his army of noobs and getting votes. That would not be good. There def should be a good solid structure when this happens again. It's good to get this underway swiftly for now. But next time it should have more structure.
-
I'm not sure what the purpose of the council is.
-
It is a steering committee for the promotion of FET. It doesn't hold sway over the forum, but we will adopt the models the council decides on. The initial council's job is going to be to build a framework of rules and responsibilities, which is why it is only going to be temporary. We are voting for people with enough FE knowledge to help guide the society. I envision the council will engage non-council members and solicit feedback and opinions from our community to shape what its role is. There is nothing firmly defined yet, because we are voting for a group of people to define it.
-
The voting closes tonight. If you still want to have a vote there is plenty of time still. Even those who are not so keen, it would be better to have your input now rather than complaining about not voting at a later date.