CW Union Committee Vote

[pasag]

Everyone has two votes from the options given. Anyone who votes more than twice will have all his votes discarded.

The top 3 vote getters will for the committee and they must run the union, create a set of rules and protocols to run the union on a short and long term basis. They may also elect a president if they wish.

 

[pasag]

Voting open for 7 days to allow those banned a chance to vote upon return.

 

[Burpey]

Gelman, are you going to do anything if the people are all from the same hemisphere or something similar?

 

[Slow Love™]

This must surely be CW's most spazz moment.

 

[pasag]

Gelman, are you going to do anything if the people are all from the same hemisphere or something similar?

Can only deal with the nominations given tbh.

 

[Adamc]

Yeah. Don't think it's going to achieve much, but whatever, Fuller and Steds get my vote.

 

[pasag]

Love the way people wait till the voting starts to begin with the snipes, its pretty typical actually. If you had any qualms, they should have been bought up in the other thread before the voting, if not stfu.

 

[Adamc]

Gelman - sensitive to criticism.

 

[pasag]

Gelman - sensitive to criticism.

It's all anti-semitism really.

 

[Burpey]

Gelman, my post wasn't criticism. Just a thought that popped into my head at that time when I saw it. Fair idea IMO, though we'll only see its effectiveness when it's in practice.

 

[Slow Love™]

Love the way people wait till the voting starts to begin with the snipes, its pretty typical actually. If you had any qualms, they should have been bought up in the other thread before the voting, if not stfu.

To be honest, when I read the thread about this earlier, I assumed it was a joke (it probably still is). Seriously, mate, what is this other than a relatively small social group of posters nominating and voting for each other, in a vain grab for some kind of power or influence as to how the forum's run?

I suspect the admin will completely ignore it, but any member is likely to fare better negotiating with James directly, 'cause considering recent events, you guys would likely stuff it up anyway.

Of course, if this is a pointless joke, disregard this.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's decended into a joke since Pasag took over, there's no question about that.

Seriously though, I think the purpose is precisely what you suggest - to speak to James directly, but to have someone do it on behalf of posters who don't know him personally. It came up because of a series of thread closures a couple of months back that eventually got reversed because people spoke to James about it, then the issue died away again. Obviously it's come back because of the recent bannings.

I also doubt it will achieve anything much, but quite a number of people did seem interested the last time it was suggested.

 

[Slow Love™]

It's decended into a joke since Pasag took over, there's no question about that.

Seriously though, I think the purpose is precisely what you suggest - to speak to James directly, but to have someone do it on behalf of posters who don't know him personally. It came up because of a series of thread closures a couple of months back that eventually got reversed because people spoke to James about it, then the issue died away again. Obviously it's come back because of the recent bannings.

I also doubt it will achieve anything much, but quite a number of people did seem interested the last time it was suggested.

Look, there's a possibility something like that could work - I just have extreme doubts (and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone on this) as to the motivations of those who are so keen to do it.

But ultimately, many of these guys have an antagonistic relationship to James at best - and the whole "bannings were unjust" sentiment only emphasises this, because anybody in their right mind would see that the guys that copped a 7 day ban (which is hardly the most extreme thing in the world) were literally begging for it to happen (Nath being a bit of an anomaly, I think he just snapped), and benchmark in particular has been working on being Shounak Mark II for some time.

IMO, anyone would be better off emailing James themselves, He's generally a more than reasonable guy who in my experience is very willing to listen if the other person is willing to make the same effort. And he puts up with a lot of stupid ** here, much of it coming from some of the guys in this list.

As individuals, most of them are actually decent posters. Usually it becomes an issue when they act in lockstep, which seems to happen now and then.

 

[Slow Love™]

Gah, The letters B and S together are now censored. Another one to look at, moderators.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think the idea was suggested by the people you seem to have in mind. If you read the other thread in this same forum you can see the suggestions made there.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Chaulk didn't deserve a ban, IMO. Said some words that are hardly considered cursing for his 4000th post, and got banned for it.

The rest I can understand, though I may not agree.

 

[Slow Love™]

I don't think the idea was suggested by the people you seem to have in mind. If you read the other thread in this same forum you can see the suggestions made there.

I'm not talking about people that think it might be a good idea (like I said, it could work, though I really don't see it as necessary).

When I say "those who are so keen to do it" I mean running and organizing it.

 

[pasag]

I'm not talking about people that think it might be a good idea (like I said, it could work, though I really don't see it as necessary).

When I say "those who are so keen to do it" I mean running and organizing it.

Reservations noted.

 

[Slow Love™]

Reservations noted.

Haha, fair enough. Look, you guys can go ahead and do what you want, I certainly can't stop you. I do think it's a bit of a joke, though, and if there really is a wider, serious interest in such a concept, I'm sure the process could be handled a lot more openly, than the farming out of votes within a group we're seeing here.

 

[Slow Love™]

Reservations noted.

Oh, I just realised, you probably took that comment about running and organizing to be about you specifically. Actually you are somebody I regard fairly highly in general (in spite of the comments this invariably invites), so you shouldn't take it that way. I'm talking more about the group's reinforcement of each other in general.