board77

You're both making it very difficult for a real conversation to take place in multiple threads.

I think there are several good conversations going, despite the efforts of some to derail them.

Yes, well, that's because people like me have been slicing threads apart while we should be doing day jobs that are interesting and pay money. And you've both spread your drama to multiple threads within the Symp and disrupted the Business Room as well. And we have to take the feelings of the rest of the board into account. Wish you and sf would do the same, but since you can't and won't, we're forced to step in.

you are forced to do nothing. you chose to split this thread. There is no drama in the symposium at the moment. That you would characterize it as such proves it is contrary opinions you don't want voiced, not drama.

for Alatar ... all I am doing so far is asking him what HE thinks the word bipartisan means..... I cannot take issue or agree with Halplm's view of it until we know what he things it means

You may not think it is drama because neither of you seem to take into account other people's opinions or feelings. Again and again you've been asked to stop and yet you both continue behaving like children. Since you don't seem capable of stopping on your own, we're going to have to do it.

I request a hearing for myself before a suspension takes place.

If that hearing is not granted, I request a hearing against the current rangers for abuse of power. TED has agreed this is appropriate. As it is against the rangers, two members opinions it is necessary should be sufficient to see action done.

Please remove the following personal attack of Ber's:

Quote:

I'm quite surprised that people are still trying to have a rational discussion with hal. Haven't you guys learnt that he likes to argue for argument's sake?

If I were you I'd just focus on the donuts. *chomp*

It's not a personal attack, but rather a statement of fact.

Deal

With

It

halplm wrote:

Please remove the following personal attack of Ber's:

Quote:

I'm quite surprised that people are still trying to have a rational discussion with hal. Haven't you guys learnt that he likes to argue for argument's sake?

If I were you I'd just focus on the donuts. *chomp*

I'm surprised people are still trying to have discussions with you, too. It does seem as if you like to argue for argument's sake.

No, it is a mischaracterization aimed at me personally, having nothing to do with the topic in discussion.

halplm wrote:

No, it is a mischaracterization aimed at me personally, having nothing to do with the topic in discussion.

Why do you think it's a mischaracterization? Because you diagree with it?

I have confined hal to the BikeRacks.

If we were to remove every osgilliation then there would be a billion different threads.
While the remark was off topic, I can certainly understand Ber's frustration. The whole board is frustrated by selfishness.

Thanks River.

I have a question.

Since we're a member moderated board.....

well, I was thinking about having Steve do the math for all the posters like he used to do, but only for the past 6 months - basically, to find out the number of posters who have actually been active recently.

Then I was thinking of starting a poll - One that asks,

Quote:

"Please answer A or B to the first question --- 1. In this current situation, the Rangers have done what was necessary, and there is no need for a committee to review their actions._____ Please Answer C or D to the second question --- 2. In the current situation, the Rangers may continue to use emergency powers to deal with the issue without need of a committee to review each action"

A. Agree
B. Disagree

C. Agree
D. Disagree

And if a simple majority of current posters on the board say Agree to both, then we leave the rangers to do what they need to do until a hearing against Hal can be called.

If the majority of current posters disagree with both, then we form a committee to review past actions and approve or deny future actions.


Would this idea be alright?


As for the charter, I suggest once this whole thing with Hal is done, one way or the other, we scrap it and start over. With Jny gone, we're all bumbling around, and it's not doing us one iota of good. Jny isn't going to be able to be a reference for us forever - we need something that we can all work with and understand without all this fuss.

When it comes to a situation like we've got now, we need to be able to actually act. I'm not even worried about acting quickly - I just want to be able to act at all here.

Estel, I agree with you 100%. The Charter is useless if so many of us don't quite know what to do with it. It meant well, but it's too unwieldy. I think we need to keep provisions in case Rangers do abuse their power, but we need to not be so scared to do anything.

And I like your questionnaire, too.

Just to add - is it possible, with this new board, to block PMs from specific people? I thought the ignore function would do that, but apparently not. I do not want to get spammed with general complaining type PMs that are going out to everybody.

I'm pretty sure people who haven't been here for a while are going to be pretty pissed about this as well.

I am a little fuzzy on that one but I don't think it is possible.

I don't know. I can block the ability to PM altogether, but that doesn't seem fair.

If more PMs continue to go out to unsolicited parties, then I guess we will have to get rid of the ability to PM all members. Or block people who abuse the system's rights to PM.