Voting to ban members

ren wrote: The result of a vote (to ban) literally is 'popular opinion'. Discussing opinion is on-topic.

Which is exactly why I don't personally support banning people based on popular vote. Mob rule makes terrible government.

What would you have instead? The issues discussed here, those being voted on, are matters of record. Matters of record in a legally-recognized non-profit organization that has to be able to produce documentation every time it collectively wipes its ass.

Why should banning not be based on popular vote at that point? Especially in cases of repeat offenders? And especially when most bans around this place aren't permanent enough to really make a difference?

steamboat28 wrote: What would you have instead? The issues discussed here, those being voted on, are matters of record. Matters of record in a legally-recognized non-profit organization that has to be able to produce documentation every time it collectively wipes its ass.

Why should banning not be based on popular vote at that point? Especially in cases of repeat offenders? And especially when most bans around this place aren't permanent enough to really make a difference?

When I ran places, I had a council. They decided everything by vote. The members had no say, other than the one making the appeal.

We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

steamboat28 wrote: We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

Sounds like typical politics to me.

steamboat28 wrote: We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

Can u - and feel free to use ME for that purpose any time. I am almost 100 percent avalible anytime.

steamboat28 wrote: We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

There is an entire forum, a council secretary, other councillors to whom members can make requests. I don't receive many, and neither did the previous secretary.

And all three of you have amazingly missed the point. With at least two of you, it's habitual. Might want to gander at that.

Well - at any time - if anyone feels they need an advocate or a shoulder or some one to listen - by all means feel free to contact me ANYTIME for any reason. It is my joy and duty to serve the Temple. If you feel you need some on on your side or you need to voice a concern - or even you have suggestions - I - myself - am a click away. Offer stands from now until I log off for the last time. ( which will probably be for a long while- hopefully)

If ya need me I’m here. If ya don’t - well - I’m still here.
The truth no one says is this -
Banning sucks. Flat out. It hurts every one. There’s no ... easy way or magic words or even promise we -or I -or even any one can make to ease that fact. It should be a last result and after years and years (12) we still hurt after a banning or a threat of it. If there’s a better way - come out with it. I don’t use the word often but I HATE when people get banned. It shouldn’t be. We as humans should be aware and available mentally enough to know our limits and those around us.
Jedi teaching 3
Jedi are aware of the future impacts of action and inaction and of the influence of the past, but live in and focus on the Now. We let ourselves flow like water through the events around us. We embrace the ever changing and fluid world, adapting and changing as it does.
Jedi teaching 7.
Jedi understand their limitations. We recognise, and take responsibility, for our failures and develop a level of modesty about them. We respect the right for others to disagree and understand that they themselves are not perfect.


... and neither are we.

Tempest Nox wrote:

ren wrote: The result of a vote (to ban) literally is 'popular opinion'. Discussing opinion is on-topic.

Which is exactly why I don't personally support banning people based on popular vote. Mob rule makes terrible government.

Can you point me to a successful government system that is not based off popular vote?