[Theforum] Re: voting

[A. Erickson]

Are you guys even reading?

- amanda

> -----Original Message-----
> From: theforum-admin at lists.evolt.org
> [mailto:theforum-admin at lists.evolt.org] On Behalf Of Brian King
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:17 AM
> To: theforum at lists.evolt.org
> Subject: RE: [Theforum] Re: voting
>
>
> Whoa!  So I can vote as long as it conforms to someone's
> standards as to whether it is a 'dickhead' vote or not and as
> long as I don't miss at least three votes.  Is someone going
> to send out a set of limits on opinion expression during the
> votes so the we all don't chance breaking the rules here?
> Sorry if that sounds like an aggressive answer, but I am
> worried that the others, not only myself will look at rules
> like that as constituting an exclusive club.  Is that the
> goal or is it to have an open forum?
>
> I personally like Martin's thoughts on the quorum idea.
> Setting a firm voting period of 48 hrs on all votes may cause
> a decision to take a week or better just to get settled, (if
> a follow-up or revote is needed).  I think that creates an
> un-needed level of bureaucracy. Set the limit meeting quorum
> or 48hrs. which ever turns out to be less.  IMHO
>
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: isaac
> Subject: RE: [Theforum] Re: voting
>
> Consider a concept of theforum members (interested in seeing
> what happens here), and a subset of registered voting members
> (interested in what happens, and wanting to vote to steer the
> community).
>
> My original idea for all of this included just that.
> Admission to the ranks of registered voting members was by a
> vote from existing members. I wouldn't expect anyone to be
> voted down in this process -- I only suggest that it's in
> place so we're not overrun by dickheads who join solely to
> vote that MEO allows them to run all kinda warez crap.
>
> I'm happy to try a "registered voting member" thing, but
> without the admission check. We do have careful and
> responsible members. We're not /., with ranks of dickheads
> doing nothing but try to destroy threads with trolls (well,
> not many of them), and offensive material, so it's a
> comparably minor risk.
>
> Could try a rough policy of "missing three votes with no
> reason results in removal of voting rights", but I'm not sure
> that that is necessary. Instead if we spot people ignoring
> polls, but being registered to vote, we can email them
> privately to coax them into voicing their opinion (even by
> registering an abstention from that particular vote).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theforum
> just hit the letters really hard.. at
> some point you'll start making sense
>