Profiles - Gender

JamesSand wrote: I have not been here long enough to know - Are many things "put to a vote"?

The Council and Synod hold votes on things. Knights and Clergy often get input on decisions and the Knights have held votes on a couple of changes. As far as possible the views of all members are taken on board, but I can't remember a Temple-wide vote.

x57z12 wrote:

JamesSand wrote: Who qualifies to vote? who cares enough to vote?

Members. (Or 'Temple Members' and upwards if you'd like) As to who cares: That's a basic problem of any democratic election, is it not? Last time I heard of people being forced to vote was a history lesson on east germany. They had rather predictable elections.

We are not a democratic website... :blink:

I am sorry to say it like that, and we do LISTEN to the membership when things need to be listened to, but, we have also not agreed, and held firm, thinking our logic still sound...

An opinion poll, perhaps, on some topics, would show opinions of those voting... At least the opinion of those who voted...

No one should think 'their way' is the 'only' way... This does include Council, despite how we may seem to act to some, we do know this... To use someone not easily offended, OB1 has been a member for less than a year, and he has seen what he has seen in his time... I have been a member much longer (doesnt make me better, only more experienced) and seen much more of the discussions that go on... And, while that doesnt mean things shouldnt be reviewed, just because someone who joined today thinks something is a good idea, and time for review, doesnt mean they are 'right'... Its why the senior membership seldom posts on the 'physical temple' threads... We get tired of pooping on the ideas and spirit of others, lol... But, Ive seen more than a dozen of those conversations, lol...

We do weigh it all... But, ultimate decision rests with Council...

Members come and go... Some guests have been here longer than some members, and are more active... But, as they dont want to join, I wouldnt be worried if they were excluded, to be honest... If they were THAT worried, theyd join to help steer our direction, ... I say this as myself, not a Councillor, but, then, where is the invisible line? haha

Of the membership, most Knights have proven they have the resolve to stick it out through all of the 'ugliness' of the squabbles, and, even then, we lose some of them...

JamesSand wrote: What's stopping me from creating a hundred new log ins and rigging the vote?

7 days restriction on becoming a Temple Member.

I do like this logic though, excellent...

JamesSand wrote: Better to have a straight decision by the clergy after considering what they feel fits the Temple than a facade of a democracy run by a belligerent few.

We are not a theocracy. If this decision is to be made, it ought to be by the Council, which is not clergy as evident by the fact that some of the Council are not part of the Synod. They are seperate entities.

Some Council are Clergy, some are not... The clergy is more a 'committee' of TOTJO, as opposed to an actual separate entity...

Some Council are Clergy, some are not... The clergy is more a 'committee' of TOTJO, as opposed to an actual separate entity...

Use of the word Clergy instead of Council was a terminology faux pas on my part.

I know what I meant. :silly:


I say we just install Jestor Fiat as a ruling principle, and if the world burns, we can make s'mores. :dry: