NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is for Local 8976 Members. Please do not post unless you are a member.

Welcome Sisters and Brothers! We have come a long was since the idea was first hatched. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members for their hard work over the last week or so.

First a few rules.

1. We shall select a chairperson for this meeting. All posters shall address the chair. The chair shall recognize the member if they are in good standing and are on topic as per the agenda.

2. All decisions are subject to a vote. A majority of members present passes the motion. Members vote by posting when the vote is called by the chair. (All in favour..) post post post (all opposed? ) post Motion carried 3 to 1

3. Members shall work off the agenda. Keep the posts on topic each topic on the agenda will be discussed and when that is complete the item is written as a motion to be voted on. Discuss topic.. discussion over.. Be it resolved that we the members of NS local 8976 feel that ... All in favour...

4. The agenda follows.

Agenda

1: Nominations for Chair (Chair will rotate as required) Done.. Note stipulations
2: Chairs comments ... Done
3: Approval of agenda: (chance to place items on agenda)
4: Motion on spam lite: Discussion..word the motion..vote on it..
5: Motion on mOds selection:
6: Motion on this Originally posted by Chinkopodia

The NS Local 8976, considering that it has been summoned to establish the constitution of the forum, to effect the regeneration of the public order, and to maintain the true principles of modship; that nothing can prevent it from continuing its deliberations in whatever place it may be forced to establish itself; and, finally, that wheresoever its members are assembled, there is the NS Local 8976;

Decrees that all members of the NS Local 8976 shall immediately take a solemn oath not to stop posting, and to start new topics wherever circumstances require, until the constitution of the forum is established and consolidated upon firm foundations; and that, the said oath taken, all members and each one of them individually shall ratify this steadfast resolution by a message in their signature.

7: Motion more poll options:

8: Motion on search times:

9: Other Motions?:

10: Motion on tactics:

11: Motion on negotiating team: (Suggest we have a meeting just for these nominations)

12: Other Business:

13: Next meeting:

14: Motion to close meeting:

Am I too early to nominate Chicken Pi for the chair?

I'm sorry to bother, but what is the purpose of having an NS union?

No I second the motion.

Brother Chicken, do you accept the nomination?

And are there any other nominations?

No I second the motion.

Brother Chicken, do you accept the nomination?

And are there any other nominations?
Do we all get to be called brother? Even those among us who are female? Random, but OK.

I nominate The Burnsian Desert.

Do we all get to be called brother? Even those among us who are female? Random, but OK.

No Sister Tribes, If we know your gender we will gladly recognize that fact.

I nominate The Burnsian Desert.

I'll second that.

We have three nominations for chair. Chicken, Burnsian and Longston

Will the named members stand and are there furthur nominations?

If we are agreed we can vote...

No I second the motion.

Brother Chicken, do you accept the nomination?

And are there any other nominations?

I do accept the nomination. I would also like to nominate Longton for the post, however. I think he is able to devote more time to the forum then me, so he is better suited for the position.

No Sister Tribes, If we know your gender we will gladly recognize that fact.
Just to confuse you a little more, I'm a brother too. My use of phrasing is non-specific to myself or the general populace.

Wow. Coke really DOES make me talk shite. Just so this doesn't comprise entirely of spam, I'll mention that Chicken Pi has the chair 2-1 at the minute.

I'll also ask what's in the debate tonight.

EDIT: Hey, Word Games is seconding everyone. I'm not a major debater (deftly skipping around using 'mass' in that phrase), but are you allowed to do that?

EDIT2: My god. I have no life. CP thinks I can devote more time to being the chair than he. Not that CP has no life. Quite the opposite I imagine. I'll just shut up now

We have three nominations for chair. Chicken, Burnsian and Longton

Will the named members stand and are there furthur nominations?

If we are agreed we can vote..

In an effort to move this along please vote on chair now.

Chicken, Burnsian and Longton are nominated.

And each have a vote

I hope I do not have to break the tie..

Well I vote Burnsian, of course because I nominated her. Woot. :D

In an effort to move this along please vote on chair now.

Chicken, Burnsian and Longton are nominated.
I vote Chicken. But we appear to be the only ones here. Maybe the time-zone difference is going to be a major problem, considering it's 11:10p.m. here and I'm bloody shattered

I think we should leave nominations open a little longer. An hour or so would do, just to make sure the nominations for chairperson aren't quickly snuck through before most of the members can have a say.

If we have to vote now, I would vote for Longton.

I vote Chicken. But we appear to be the only ones here. Maybe the time-zone difference is going to be a major problem, considering it's 11:10p.m. here and I'm bloody shattered

The meeting can move along in our absence if a new chair is appointed by the members present..

I am torn, I like Sister Burnsian for Chair but Brother Chicken is on..

I will give it a few more minutes..

I am here.
I vote Burnsian.

is it too late to join local 8976?

i vote burnsian because she already has 2 votes and the faster someone is elected the faster we can get this thing going

is it too late to join local 8976?

Nope, you just put "member of NS local 8976" in your sig. It might also be a good idea for all the members to include a link to this thread, so everyone knows we're having the meeting.

Ok since Lonson raised quite a good point, how about we rotate the Chairs job depending on who is online?

I suggest Brother Chicken start off and when he wishes to sign off he selects another to act in his absence?

There should be several members on line at any set time and this thread can move along. The agenda can be copy/pasted into the chairs aceptance post and he/she can highlight BOLD or Colour the point in which the meeting is currently at. The minutes can also be kept in this manner.

cool. I nominate WG since he seems to be the one that got this ball rolling. Well done!!

I really must have missed this, but what are we actually debating?

the legalization of pornography?

the legalization of pornography?
It is legal. Next.

I really must have missed this, but what are we actually debating?

See the first post we are currently selecting a Chair..

Brother Chicken, Do you accept the job?

See the first post we are currently selecting a Chair..

Brother Chicken, Do you accept the job?

But Burnsian Desert appears to have received more nominations than I, so she should receive the post when she is online. I cannot stand in for her at the moment, for reasons that I have stated below.


Ok since Lonson raised quite a good point, how about we rotate the Chairs job depending on who is online?

I suggest Brother Chicken start off and when he wishes to sign off he selects another to act in his absence?


I apologise for signing off so soon, but it is getting quite late where I am. If it's okay, I would like to nominate you to carry on the meeting.

It is legal. Next.
woohoo! goatse time on general

alright lets have WG be the chair. let us start the rest of the meeting

woohoo! goatse time on general
Can I add a motion to disallow all mention of goatse, tubgirl or bestiality. I have seen some of this and people, I was sick.

EDIT: Yeah, go WG

Ok all in favour of Word Games (me) Chairing the meeting post Aye.

Aye

aye

*dons eye-patch*

argh.

*removes eye-patch, dons bell-bottom trousers*

aye

Just covering all points

Ok that's four in favour.

all opposed post Nay

um i want to post

aye

looks like you've been roped into this WG, lets get thee show on the road

mr chairmen

mr chairmen
ditto with an a

Alright then. I accept the job (for now)

Please note that I have edited the first post in this thread to indicate that We are currently at item 2 on the agenda (Chairs comments)

My comments are as follows.

We have agreed that the chair will rotate as members sign off so the meeting may move along. The only two stipulstions are that the chair select a willing member to take over if they wish to sign off and that several other members be present for voting.

Lets have a good meeting.

Ok Item 3:

I place a motion on the table to accept the agenda does anyone have anything to add?

mr. chairman

Agenda...agenda....spam? Where it's cool and where it just becomes tubgirl?

mr. chairman


The Chair recognizes Brother White.

thankyou mr chairman

in the intrest of speeding up the meating i would like to put forth a propasition to move the meeting to #ns_local_8976

and i yeald(sp) back the remainder of my time to the chair

*drops dead*

The Chair recognizes Brother White.

LOL I'm sorry but that sounded like something said at a KKK meeting....right back to my normalness.

And I don't use mIRC.

thankyou mr chairman

in the intrest of speeding up the meating i would like to put forth a propasition to move the meeting to #ns_local_8976

and i yeald back the remainder of my time to the chair

Brother White, what is that? An offsite IRQ channel?

it is an irc channle like #ns or #themodcave, mr chairman

thankyou mr chairman

in the intrest of speeding up the meating i would like to put forth a propasition to move the meeting to #ns_local_8976

and i yeald(sp) back the remainder of my time to the chair

Personally I prefer to post here but I shall place it to a vote:

All in favour of moving to #ns_local_8976 please post Aye:

Those oposed post Nay

1 in favour

And I don't use mIRC.
I don't have an IRC program either, although if it were necessary I could probably obtain one.

aye

also i will post any logs if asked to do so

I don't have an IRC program either, although if it were necessary I could probably obtain one.

I had it, but...um....back to the "illegal" stuff I own. Enough said.

Personally I prefer to post here but I shall place it to a vote:

All in favour of moving to #ns_local_8976 please post Aye:





2 in favour

2 opposed..



Those oposed post Nay

Nay.

Nay

aye, if a notice is put up reffering all 8976 members that may join the meeting to the new location

Nay

And my horse says no

Aye.

I assume that if it does not work... we can vote to take the meeting elsewhere.

2 in favour

2 opposed..





I have to go anyway please continue there but follow the agenda post the results and select another chair there, keep us informed by posting hare.

I vote Aye and leave the meeting.

The Ayes have it.

Moved that the meeting carry on at that place in MIIRC Brother White said

Meeting closed. for now..

also i will post any logs if asked to do so
If the IRC chanel is Voted into existence

I propose RTW to be appointed the first official log keeper.

the channle is open

the channle is opena couple of members do no know how it works...

I propose RTW to be appointed the first official log keeper.

need someone to second and then we can vote.

note: on the irc i am known as JNE or some variation of that

note: on the irc i am known as JNE or some variation of that
Assume I'm computer illiterate. OK. Now realise that I am computer illiterate. Good. Now then. What the fuck is an irc?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378125

Im at the IRC channel only KML is there

signing off

it looks like oceandrive and I are the only ones to have arrived at the new location. This meeting seems defunct. WG we need you!!

are you on espernet?
cause i'm the only person there

http://www.mirc.com/irc.html

here longton, it takes five minutes to downloead and install, I just did it

are you on espernet?
cause i'm the only person there

what the heck is espernet? I, like longton, am computer illiterate

irc.esper.net

hmm, I think I'm on EF net, whatever that means

irc://irc.esper.net/ns_local_8976
direct link

irc.esper.net
Hmm, I got VIRC set up, but I can't seem to find our channel.

EDIT:
It works now.

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

Click the Refresh button, or try again later

hmmmm, dunno, I downloaded mIRC, oceandrive was there too, but he's gone now too

do you have an irc client
irc://irc.esper.net/ns_local_8976

no idea...I don't have time for this right now, I have to read the information section. is mIRC a client?

EDIT: that link doesn't work for me

no idea...I don't have time for this right now, I have to read the information section. is mIRC a client?

EDIT: that link doesn't work for me
yes

I have to go...this meeting of NS local 8976 should continue when WG gets back. And maybe we should keep it to this forum

EDIT: whoa, I think it worked

woohoo! goatse time on general

That will earn a DEAT so fast it will make your head spin.

I'm back but you are all gone.. :(

I'm back but you are all gone.. :(

I'm still here, but I'm The Man. :(

I'm still here, but I'm The Man. :(

If you are a man I am a mOd.. :)

Present and accounted for, brotha! Let's get this toast buttered, jammed, and on the road, baby!

-Slagdor the Mixedmetaphorinator

How many members are on line?

That will earn a DEAT so fast it will make your head spin.
The Man is a genius.

Lets try again. Anyone want to carry on this meeting?

Erm, I'm here. Hi!

Erm, I'm here. Hi!

Hello. Do we have a quorum?

Uh... yeah, sure.

~Slagdor the Indecisive.

OK we are here.. on Item three

Agenda

1: Nominations for Chair (Chair will rotate as required) Done.. Note stipulations
2: Chairs comments ... Done
3: Approval of agenda: (chance to place items on agenda) ..Done
4: Motion on spam lite: Discussion..word the motion..vote on it..
5: Motion on mOds selection:
6: Motion on this Originally posted by Chinkopodia

The NS Local 8976, considering that it has been summoned to establish the constitution of the forum, to effect the regeneration of the public order, and to maintain the true principles of modship; that nothing can prevent it from continuing its deliberations in whatever place it may be forced to establish itself; and, finally, that wheresoever its members are assembled, there is the NS Local 8976;

Decrees that all members of the NS Local 8976 shall immediately take a solemn oath not to stop posting, and to start new topics wherever circumstances require, until the constitution of the forum is established and consolidated upon firm foundations; and that, the said oath taken, all members and each one of them individually shall ratify this steadfast resolution by a message in their signature.

7: Motion more poll options:

8: Motion on search times:

9: Other Motions?:

10: Motion on tactics:

11: Motion on negotiating team: (Suggest we have a meeting just for these nominations)

12: Other Business:

13: Next meeting:

14: Motion to close meeting:

I'm here
EDIT: why arn't anyone's sigs visible? and didn't we already approve the agenda last itme?

Brother Kreitzmoorland we had not got quite that far.


Does anyone have anything to add to the agenda? If not my next post will call for a vote on approving the agenda as presented. I'll give it about five minutes.

I'm here

Ok then since no one had anything to add to the agenda I move that we adopt the agenda as presented.

All in favour post Aye.. Two for

All opposed post Nay..

Aye

Aye

Ok the Ayes have it The agenda is approved.

Moving on to Item 4 Motion on Spam lite

Discussion? Post freely to discuss this motion

OK what IS spam lite?

Porn, real nasty spam, multiple posts or threads with just a dirty word or two.

All this is pretty clear. That stuff is anoying and is deleted on sight. NO PROBLEM.

I move for a declaration of Spam Lite as "decent, but not as good as regular Spam, even though it all fries up the same."

Also, "it gives me worse gas."

~Slagdor the Poverty-Stricken

are we talking about the addition of a forum appart from general devoted to spam lite? because that might take the fun out of the general forum :(

like one of the mods pointed out in the other thread, (I think it was cogitation) spam is already sorta allowed around here.

are we talking about the addition of a forum appart from general devoted to spam lite? because that might take the fun out of the general forum :(

I don't see a different forum for this as I rather enjoy the folks here, but it's not just up to me. Would you rather post a bit of spam here? I've been to the spam forum, It's scarey there. "Beyond this point there be DRAGONS" kind of scarey..

Brother Slaglands: I think you are on the right track but we need to work the wording a bit. :) It is catchy.

My name's Harun. Harun al-Rashid.

like one of the mods pointed out in the other thread, (I think it was cogitation) spam is already sorta allowed around here.

Sort of, yes. I have to check Coger's post, give me a second.. Keep talking about just what the heck is spam lite..

Ok I found his post, since it was not in one of our offical threads I missed it.

I will respond to him soon.

My name's Harun. Harun al-Rashid.

Brother Harun. I was quoting you but then I talked to Brother Slaglands, sorry for the confusion.

*wonders what fried spam tastes like, and if dragons are tastier*

According to numerous postings on dictionary.com, spam by definition negative and punishable. But it seems like that's not the idea here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spam

I admit, I'm not sure how allowing "spam" would in any way change the material posted on general. does anyone have some examples, or a hard definition of spam-lite?

I move for a declaration of Spam Lite as "decent, but not as good as regular Spam, even though it all fries up the same."

Also, "it gives me worse gas."

~Slagdor the Poverty-Stricken


This seems close, but lets work on the wording..

I know what REAL spam is.. I think some spam lite is allowed. What we differ with is where the line is...

I think the NS interpretation of spam stretches it by quite a bit.

God, I saw one mOd give a poster a hard time over a SIGNATURE he found too big a font!. He admitted that there was no rule, but persisted in changing it and then warned the poster. If you want to, change the selection of fonts AVAILABLE to the posters. This is what pisses me off.





6 entries found for spam.
spam ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spm)
n.
Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.

tr.v. spammed, spam·ming, spams
To send unsolicited e-mail to.
To send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From Spam(probably inspired by a comedy routine on the British television series Monty Python's Flying Circus, in which the word is repeated incessantly).]

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Spam ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spm)

A trademark used for a canned meat product consisting primarily of chopped pork pressed into a loaf.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


spam

n 1: a canned meat made largely from pork [syn: Spam] 2: unwanted e-mail (usually of a commercial nature sent out in bulk) [syn: junk e-mail] v : send unwanted or junk e-mail


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


spam



1. <messaging> (From Hormel's Spiced Ham, via the Monty Python
"Spam" song) To post irrelevant or inappropriate messages to
one or more Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists, or other
messaging system in deliberate or accidental violation of
netiquette.

It is possible to spam a newsgroup with one well- (or ill-)
planned message, e.g. asking "What do you think of abortion?"
on soc.women. This can be done by cross-posting, e.g. any
message which is crossposted to alt.rush-limbaugh and
alt.politics.homosexuality will almost inevitably spam both
groups. (Compare troll and flame bait).

Posting a message to a significant proportion of all
newsgroups is a sure way to spam Usenet and become an object
of almost universal hatred. Canter and Siegel spammed the net
with their Green card post.

If you see an article which you think is a deliberate spam, DO
NOT post a follow-up - doing so will only contribute to the
general annoyance. Send a polite message to the poster by
private e-mail and CC it to "postmaster" at the same address.
Bear in mind that the posting's origin might have been forged
or the apparent sender's account might have been used by
someone else without his permission.

The word was coined as the winning entry in a 1937 competition
to choose a name for Hormel Foods Corporation's "spiced meat"
(now officially known as "SPAM luncheon meat"). Correspondant
Bob White claims the modern use of the term predates Monty
Python by at least ten years. He cites an editor for the
Dallas Times Herald describing Public Relations as "throwing a
can of spam into an electric fan just to see if any of it
would stick to the unwary passersby."

Usenet newsgroup: news:news.admin.net-abuse.

See also netiquette.

2. (A narrowing of sense 1, above) To indiscriminately send
large amounts of unsolicited e-mail meant to promote a
product or service. Spam in this sense is sort of like the
electronic equivalent of junk mail sent to "Occupant".

In the 1990s, with the rise in commercial awareness of the
net, there are actually scumbags who offer spamming as a
"service" to companies wishing to advertise on the net. They
do this by mailing to collections of e-mail addresses,
Usenet news, or mailing lists. Such practises have caused
outrage and aggressive reaction by many net users against the
individuals concerned.

3. (Apparently a generalisation of sense 2, above) To abuse
any network service or tool by for promotional purposes.

"AltaVista is an index, not a promotional tool. Attempts to
fill it with promotional material lower the value of the index
for everyone. [...] We will disallow URL submissions from
those who spam the index. In extreme cases, we will exclude
all their pages from the index." -- Altavista.

4. <jargon, programming> To crash a program by overrunning a
fixed-size buffer with excessively large input data.

See also buffer overflow, overrun screw, smash the stack.

5. <chat, games> (A narrowing of sense 1, above) To flood any
chat forum or Internet game with purposefully annoying
text or macros. Compare Scrolling.

(2003-09-21)



Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2004 Denis Howe


spam

vt.,vi.,n. [from "Monty Python's Flying Circus"] 1. To
crash a program by overrunning a fixed-size buffer with excessively
large input data. See also buffer overflow, overrun screw,
smash the stack. 2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with
irrelevant or inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with
as little as one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g. asking "What
do you think of abortion?" on soc.women). This is often done with
cross-posting (e.g. any message which is crossposted to
alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost
inevitably spam both groups). This overlaps with troll behavior;
the latter more specific term has become more common. 3. To send many
identical or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number
of Usenet newsgroups. This is more specifically called `ECP',
Excessive Cross-Posting. This is one sure way to infuriate nearly
everyone on the Net. See also velveeta and jello. 4. To bombard
a newsgroup with multiple copies of a message. This is more
specifically called `EMP', Excessive Multi-Posting. 5. To
mass-mail unrequested identical or nearly-identical email messages,
particularly those containing advertising. Especially used when the
mail addresses have been culled from network traffic or databases
without the consent of the recipients. Synonyms include UCE,
UBE. 6. Any large, annoying, quantity of output. For instance,
someone on IRC who walks away from their screen and comes back to
find 200 lines of text might say "Oh no, spam".

The later definitions have become much more prevalent as the
Internet has opened up to non-techies, and to most people senses 3 4
and 5 are now primary. All three behaviors are considered abuse of
the net, and are almost universally grounds for termination of the
originator's email account or network connection. In these senses
the term `spam' has gone mainstream, though without its original
sense or folkloric freight - there is apparently a widespread myth
among lusers that "spamming" is what happens when you dump cans of
Spam into a revolving fan.

I define spam-lite as more of the word-games side of things, and threads of the "post when you log off" threads - for example, a ^<v thread was posted on here a while ago, and promptly deleted afterwards.

Also things such as what Brother Word Games ( ;) ) has cited above - the signature changing - are not even spam-lite, and so long as the signature does not muck up the page for a certain member, and is not offensive, it should be allowed.

Therefore I propose that the boundaries between spam and spam-lite be this:



Not Spam
Spam
Word Games and threads with a concievable point
(e.g - post when you are logging off)Topics such as "I have a big thing"
or "My clock is bigger than yours"

Ones which although perhaps big, don't cause much of a problemMassive sigs which muck up the page

Any more ideas to add to this?

[EDIT: AAAARGH! Crazy alignments!]

Can we allow a little spam into the forum? I mean, some of it is just pointless e.g. Reactionary pointless junk or immature thoughts spewed from the brain of a horny adolescent (like 'Huhh, boobs, or something). But some other stuff is fun!

I have no idea of my point. Or indeed the argument. I just haven't posted for a while and felt the need for a post.

Errrrmmm...on those fronts it's thin ice really, because you might end up with a whole load of people saying "I feel like some sex!!!11eleven!1!" or "w00t i'm horny yea". It's like endlessly repetitive topics about abortion, but on the subject of "'Huhh" or "Boobs". Even if it's a picture of a ram with big horns or a blue-footed booby bird. :rolleyes:

Hey! That could be our next big discussion on NS Local 8976 main topic!

I define spam-lite as more of the word-games side of things, and threads of the "post when you log off" threads - for example, a ^<v thread was posted on here a while ago, and promptly deleted afterwards.

Also things such as what Brother Word Games ( ;) ) has cited above - the signature changing - are not even spam-lite, and so long as the signature does not muck up the page for a certain member, and is not offensive, it should be allowed.

Therefore I propose that the boundaries between spam and spam-lite be this:



Not Spam
Spam
Word Games and threads with a concievable point
(e.g - post when you are logging off)Topics such as "I have a big thing"
or "My clock is bigger than yours"

Ones which although perhaps big, don't cause much of a problemMassive sigs which muck up the page

Any more ideas to add to this?

[EDIT: AAAARGH! Crazy alignments!]

This is good work. I think we all agree on what is REAL SPAM it is a bit harder to define what is spam-lite. Some random silliness is good for the soul.

What's wrong with massive sigs? ;)

What's wrong with massive sigs? ;)

There is no rule against them. One mOd was witnessed repeatedly changing the font size on one posters sig. He then warned the poster to stop changing it back. He used the word offensive. The FONT SIZE was offensive...

The player complied but he did not have to.

There is no rule against them. One mOd was witnessed repeatedly changing the font size on one posters sig. He then warned the poster to stop changing it back. He used the word offensive. The FONT SIZE was offensive...

The player complied but he did not have to.

Do not dictate NationStates policy or proclaim as policy any statements contrary to current NationStates policy. This borders on impersonating a Moderator.

We classify large signatures under the "spam" clause of the NationStates Terms and Conditions. We Moderators will enforce this as such.

Players are required to obey the requests of a moderator. If they have a question, they can use the Moderation forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231) or contact an administrator. To give players advice that would lead to their deletion is both irresponsible and highly unbecoming of someone who claims to have the players' best interests at heart.

God, I saw one mOd give a poster a hard time over a SIGNATURE he found too big a font!. He admitted that there was no rule, but persisted in changing it and then warned the poster.

1: False. It was over the length of the sig, not the font.

2: False. There is a rule, it's just a very obscure judgement from a long time back. There was certainly no 'admission there was no rule.' Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7891396&postcount=7)

3: False. The poster was given no formal warning.

There is no rule against them. One mOd was witnessed repeatedly changing the font size on one posters sig. He then warned the poster to stop changing it back. He used the word offensive. The FONT SIZE was offensive...

4: False. There is a rule that sigs should be kept around eight lines and may be edited without warning if longer.

5: False. As stated, it wasn't the text size [or the font], it was the total size of the sig. [Originally in the region of 400 characters]

6: False. The word used was excessive, not offensive. Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7891376&postcount=4)

There is no rule against them. One mOd was witnessed repeatedly changing the font size on one posters sig. He then warned the poster to stop changing it back. He used the word offensive. The FONT SIZE was offensive...

The player complied but he did not have to.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8068761&postcount=5

Obnoxious. If you're having to resort to deliberate misquoting, it obviously shows what a fruitless exercise in pointlessness this union is.

Wow, three in a row

"The Mods strike Back"


Have some things to say:
-I think this should be open to all NS members
-I think a seperate channel is too hard.

I don't want to make this an elite.

Da Broda' has spoken.

Union-bashing is not nice.
Mod-bashing is not wise.


btw, I don't like to read long text, but I shall do some effort to follow.

T3h modz0rz edit3dz0rz m3 s1ggy. But I promised an ubercookie, so ubercookies the mods shall have.

*gives whoever edited my sig an ubercookie*

I move that when we adjourn, we adjourn to 12:00 noon Eastern Daylight Time on July 1, 2005. Pursuant to Section 16 of Robert's Rules of Order Revised, this is a privileged question and must be voted on immediately if seconded.

May I enquire as to the motive of this motion?

Have some things to say:
-I think this should be open to all NS members
-I think a seperate channel is too hard.

I don't want to make this an elite.

Da Broda' has spoken.

Union-bashing is not nice.
Mod-bashing is not wise.


Indeed. My opinion is that we should make this open to everyone to encourage discussion. Just because someone isn't from the union, it doesn't mean they don't have a good idea or some information we should know.

Also, the discussion should be less controlled. The chairman should choose a topic to discuss and then let everyone talk about it for a couple of days before calling a vote to decide which stance the union will adopt.

Who's the chairman now?

Can I put a continuation of this line of discussion forwards?

Can we allow a little spam into the forum? I mean, some of it is just pointless e.g. Reactionary pointless junk or immature thoughts spewed from the brain of a horny adolescent (like 'Huhh, boobs, or something). But some other stuff is fun!

I have no idea of my point. Or indeed the argument. I just haven't posted for a while and felt the need for a post.

Errrrmmm...on those fronts it's thin ice really, because you might end up with a whole load of people saying "I feel like some sex!!!11eleven!1!" or "w00t i'm horny yea". It's like endlessly repetitive topics about abortion, but on the subject of "'Huhh" or "Boobs". Even if it's a picture of a ram with big horns or a blue-footed booby bird.

Also, the discussion should be less controlled. The chairman should choose a topic to discuss and then let everyone talk about it for a couple of days before calling a vote to decide which stance the union will adopt.

Vote being by poll or by show of...errr....posts?

Vote being by poll or by show of...errr....posts?

I would go for a show of posts, although polls have their good points.

Polls:
- easier to count up the results
- don't clutter up the thread
- can be less time consuming

Show of posts
- Less effort
- Don't need to start a new thread for it
- Can make sure that only union members can vote. Are we going to let non-members vote, by the way?

Who's the chairman now?

Can I put a continuation of this line of discussion forwards?

Feel free, I don't think anyone is officially acting as the chairman at the moment.

I would go for a show of posts, although polls have their good points.

Polls:
- easier to count up the results
- don't clutter up the thread
- can be less time consuming

Show of posts
- Less effort
- Don't need to start a new thread for it
- Can make sure that only union members can vote. Are we going to let non-members vote, by the way?

Hmmmmmmmm...........the vote's going to be on what stances the union should adopt, therefore it seems logical that the union should be the ones voting on it. Then the union presses for reform on that subject [and if the three-in-a-row mod-strike is anything to go by, probably in vain]. :p

As standing-in chairman, I put forwards a discussion on spam in general, covering the follwing opinions from various members and from these deciding on a stance to take, possibly a combination orcompromise of them:




-NS Local could arrange official Word Games, and any topics which aren't official count as spam/spam-lite/not allowed? It's a compromise, and it stops word-games from going out of control. Wild idea, but - hey?

-Can we allow a little spam into the forum? I mean, some of it is just pointless e.g. Reactionary pointless junk or immature thoughts spewed from the brain of a horny adolescent (like 'Huhh, boobs, or something). But some other stuff is fun! I have no idea of my point. Or indeed the argument. I just haven't posted for a while and felt the need for a post.

-Word Games and threads with a concievable point
(e.g - post when you are logging off) - NOT SPAM. Topics such as "I have a big thing" or "My clock is bigger than yours" - SPAM.

-Here's a thought. Allow one word game thread at a time, much like the Club thread...Funny pointless threads don't hurt any one either, as long as its not a flame war it's ok..

-One idea I had is for the mods to leave borderline spam threads for a page or so, in order to see if they develop into a decent conversation. If not, they get locked.

-I move for a declaration of Spam Lite as "decent, but not as good as regular Spam, even though it all fries up the same."

-NS Local could arrange official Word Games, and any topics which aren't official count as spam/spam-lite/not allowed? It's a compromise, and it stops word-games from going out of control. Wild idea, but - hey?


Okay, I think I'll go through this one point at a time. I think this would be a good idea. Maybe people would have to go to the union for permission when they start a spammy thread? Then a union member would post "union approved" on the first page of the thread. That would limit the amount of word games, as most people probably couldn't be bothered to go through all that just to start a thread.

Okay, I think I'll go through this one point at a time. I think this would be a good idea. Maybe people would have to go to the union for permission when they start a spammy thread? Then a union member would post "union approved" on the first page of the thread. That would limit the amount of word games, as most people probably couldn't be bothered to go through all that just to start a thread.
But then you'd have the union acting as mods for spam threads, which seems a little self-defeating. Also, have you a definition of spam that everyone can sign up to? Or does the union have to decide on that as well?

But then you'd have the union acting as mods for spam threads, which seems a little self-defeating. Also, have you a definition of spam that everyone can sign up to? Or does the union have to decide on that as well?

Oh dear, this needs a bit of consideration...

I just thought the union approval would be a triviality, most threads would be accepted. However, many people would not want to go through the union approval process, so that weeds out a lot. The idea is that word games are all allowed, the numbers are just limited by the approval process.


Not sure if that made sense...

Seems fine to me. Maybe we could strike a deal with the mods to install that as a rule, if that is the union's stance. Next point, please? (when we've finished going through each point, we could have various summaries, and the vote on which one you think is better by show of post)

Mr. Cahirman.. Good job keeping the meeting going, carry on. I have some things to respond to on the previous page...

Do not dictate NationStates policy or proclaim as policy any statements contrary to current NationStates policy. This borders on impersonating a Moderator.

We classify large signatures under the "spam" clause of the NationStates Terms and Conditions. We Moderators will enforce this as such.

Players are required to obey the requests of a moderator. If they have a question, they can use the Moderation forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231) or contact an administrator. To give players advice that would lead to their deletion is both irresponsible and highly unbecoming of someone who claims to have the players' best interests at heart.

Whoa! Hold your horses here!!!

I was not impersonating a mOd. This is a perfrct example of why this union got started and has been growing. You stretch and stretch until you make this kind of ruling. There is no suggestion of any mOd action going on in my post.

I witnessed the actions, I also posted a question as I was unable to find a rule against the signature. I was informed by the mOd in question that there was no rule YET. The poster was warned (told) to refrain from changing the sig back. The warning came from a mOd, perhaps it was not an "official" warning (I assume these are logged somewhere for other mOds to see) But the poster was made to feel obliged to leave the sig alone.

We mOds... You mOds are obligated to enforce the rules. I think this type of action steps over the line and you are behaving like an adMin shall I say impersonating one?

I do not see where it is written that players are REQUIRED to obey the requests of a mOd... If you asked me to jump off a bridge....

Show me the rule.

6: False. The word used was excessive, not offensive. Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7891376&postcount=4)


It read obnoxious for a while ... you keep changing it..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8068761&postcount=5

Obnoxious. If you're having to resort to deliberate misquoting, it obviously shows what a fruitless exercise in pointlessness this union is.


GMC says the word was excessive, now you say the word was obnoxious.. I know what I saw.. You mOds should at least keep your stories straight if you want to accuse me of misquoting.

Can a mOd change a post without leaving "Tracks"?

Wow, three in a row

"The Mods strike Back"


Have some things to say:
-I think this should be open to all NS members
-I think a seperate channel is too hard.

I don't want to make this an elite.

Da Broda' has spoken.

Union-bashing is not nice.
Mod-bashing is not wise.


btw, I don't like to read long text, but I shall do some effort to follow.


I disagree that the membership thread should be open. This is a thread where members vote on issues. The other thread is open to everyone.

Several reasons bring me to this conclusion.

1. Members drive this union and we need a place to meet.
2. It will help keep the thread on track. Members tend to keep on topic and will address the chair.
3. Having a members only place encourages posters to join. This will increase membership and our leverage.

What are you going to do when a non-member post here? What are you going to do when the mods post here?

Do not dictate NationStates policy or proclaim as policy any statements contrary to current NationStates policy. This borders on impersonating a Moderator.

We classify large signatures under the "spam" clause of the NationStates Terms and Conditions. We Moderators will enforce this as such.

Players are required to obey the requests of a moderator. If they have a question, they can use the Moderation forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231) or contact an administrator. To give players advice that would lead to their deletion is both irresponsible and highly unbecoming of someone who claims to have the players' best interests at heart.


Oh and I have not advised anyone to do anything illegal.

Whoa! Hold your horses here!!!

I was not impersonating a mOd. This is a perfrct example of why this union got started and has been growing. You stretch and stretch until you make this kind of ruling. There is no suggestion of any mOd action going on in my post.

I witnessed the actions, I also posted a question as I was unable to find a rule against the signature. I was informed by the mOd in question that there was no rule YET. The poster was warned (told) to refrain from changing the sig back. The warning came from a mOd, perhaps it was not an "official" warning (I assume these are logged somewhere for other mOds to see) But the poster was made to feel obliged to leave the sig alone.

We mOds... You mOds are obligated to enforce the rules. I think this type of action steps over the line and you are behaving like an adMin shall I say impersonating one?

I do not see where it is written that players are REQUIRED to obey the requests of a mOd... If you asked me to jump off a bridge....

Show me the rule.


He didn't say you were impersonating a mod, he said:

This borders on impersonating a Moderator.

And... well, yeah you kind of do have to obey our requests if they're made in an official capacity. At least insofar as obeying the rules goes. You don't have to give us your pass or anything.

Also, Sal is a Game Admin. Accusing him of impersonating one, then, is... well... pretty stupid. :headbang:

He didn't say you were impersonating a mod, he said:



And... well, yeah you kind of do have to obey our requests if they're made in an official capacity. At least insofar as obeying the rules goes. You don't have to give us your pass or anything.

Also, Sal is a Game Admin. Accusing him of impersonating one, then, is... well... pretty stupid. :headbang:

Where is it written?

One mOd says the poster got no warning the other says we have to listen to the mOds.. How can you make someone stop doing something that is NOT against the rules? That is overstepping your authority and borders on the creation of a police state..

BTW should a mOd demonstrate Flaming/Baiting behaviour in front of the kids?

I take offence to that comment, you have no idea how intelligent I am.

Please consider this post an official protest.

Here's a question.

Give us good reasons why Max should be forced to allow spam* on his site?

Oh, and please support these with rational thought, not just "IT WOLD BE OMG FUNZ0RZ!!!111"



*spam-lite is still spam.

spam-lite is still spam
no, it isn't, otherwise they shouldn't have gave it a new name. ;)

Where is it written?

One mOd says the poster got no warning the other says we have to listen to the mOds.. How can you make someone stop doing something that is NOT against the rules? That is overstepping your authority and borders on the creation of a police state..

BTW should a mOd demonstrate Flaming/Baiting behaviour in front of the kids?

I take offence to that comment, you have no idea how intelligent I am.

Please consider this post an official protest.
How is that flaming?
Accusing someone of impersonating themselves IS stupid. It resides within the very definition of stupid.
It's like accusing a police officer of impersonating a police officer, stupid and pointless.

Furthermore, he was declaing that the action (accusing one of impersonating themself) was stupid, not the poster.

Here's a question.

Give us good reasons why Max should be forced to allow spam* on his site?

Oh, and please support these with rational thought, not just "IT WOLD BE OMG FUNZ0RZ!!!111"


Nobody's talking about forcing Max to allow it. My personal view is that we should come up with proposals which we present to the mods. They can accept or decline these proposals at their disgression. We don't have any power over mod decisions, so that's really the only way we can do things.

I'll recognize discussion of spam lite in this thread.

Next post will have the adenda posted and where along the agenda we are..

why m0d and not mod

Nobody's talking about forcing Max to allow it. My personal view is that we should come up with proposals which we present to the mods. They can accept or decline these proposals at their disgression. We don't have any power over mod decisions, so that's really the only way we can do things.
Seems to me certain people, want more than that.
If you want to spam, use the spam forum.

I know, what some of you have said: "But the spam forum is full of SPAMMERS."
Well good, you won't be lonely.

Here is the agenda:

We are on Item 4 spam-lite discussion.


Agenda

1: Nominations for Chair (Chair will rotate as required) Done.. Note stipulations
2: Chairs comments ... Done
3: Approval of agenda: (chance to place items on agenda) ..Done
4: Motion on spam lite: Discussion..word the motion..vote on it..
5: Motion on mOds selection:
6: Motion on this Originally posted by Chinkopodia

The NS Local 8976, considering that it has been summoned to establish the constitution of the forum, to effect the regeneration of the public order, and to maintain the true principles of modship; that nothing can prevent it from continuing its deliberations in whatever place it may be forced to establish itself; and, finally, that wheresoever its members are assembled, there is the NS Local 8976;

Decrees that all members of the NS Local 8976 shall immediately take a solemn oath not to stop posting, and to start new topics wherever circumstances require, until the constitution of the forum is established and consolidated upon firm foundations; and that, the said oath taken, all members and each one of them individually shall ratify this steadfast resolution by a message in their signature.

7: Motion more poll options:

8: Motion on search times:

9: Other Motions?:
a)motion to discuss word games

10: Motion on tactics:

11: Motion on negotiating team: (Suggest we have a meeting just for these nominations)

12: Other Business:

13: Next meeting:

14: Motion to close meeting:

why m0d and not mod
Because m0d is sooooo much cooler than mod, and will get more people to pay attention. Like eXtreme.

The chair recognizes Brother Antebelllum

why m0d and not mod

Just a quirk of mine, I hear it is annoying.

I propose a separate motion to discuss word games. In the other NS local 8976, a lot of issues were brought up which really need to be decided separately from spam-lite.

I guess this goes under item 9 (other motions) but I thought it would be best to post it now.

The Chair recognizes Brother Chicken.

I propose a separate motion to discuss word games. In the other NS local 8976, a lot of issues were brought up which really need to be decided separately from spam-lite.

I guess this goes under item 9 (other motions) but I thought it would be best to post it now.

Excellent, I will place it under oher motions.

Hey! So this is where you guys all are!
Oh, Word Games, you're a much better organizer than I am.
Anyway, since the NS Local 8976 is so successful, I hereby propose two motions.
Hope I'm not doing anything wrong...

1) That NS Local 8976 and the NationStates Reform Party (NSRP) be allied under one entity, to be called the NationStates Reform Alliance (NSRA). The NSRP and NS Local 8976 will still exist as seperate entities. However a member of one will be automatically a member of another, and all members will add "Member, NationStates Reform Alliance" to their sig.

2) That this new entity move it's headquarters to PCRA Central (where the MDSC is). This is so that we would have a dedicated place to meet, and a place which is out of the jurisdiction of NS moderators.

GMC says the word was excessive, now you say the word was obnoxious.. I know what I saw.. You mOds should at least keep your stories straight if you want to accuse me of misquoting.

Can a mOd change a post without leaving "Tracks"?

Eh... two separate posts there, chief. If you're looking for some sort of mod inconsistency, you're really reaching with this one.

We mOds... You mOds are obligated to enforce the rules. I think this type of action steps over the line and you are behaving like an adMin shall I say impersonating one?

Gee! I'm behaving like an "adMin"? Wow! I guess that I'm just going to drag myself up and give myself a good talking to. After all, if I can impersonate myself, I can certainly discipline myself. You know, after doing something so horrible as impersonating myself, I should really be beside myself with shame, but somehow I'm not.

I do not see where it is written that players are REQUIRED to obey the requests of a mOd... If you asked me to jump off a bridge....

Show me the rule.

I'll make this one perfectly clear. The mods are the game officials, therefore, what they say, goes. As I said before, if you have a problem with it, bring it up on the Moderation Forum or email an admin.

Not every rule is written down, there are many implicit rules in any environment. One of them is that you obey and respect the people in charge of said environment, especially when said environment is a private one and you are guests there. I expect that next you'll be asking us to show you the rule that says that you need to obey the rules? If the host of a party doesn't like what your doing, he has full rights to kick you out. We have full rights to delete you. We haven't because, unlike you, we respect the rules, both written and unwritten.

GMC says the word was excessive, now you say the word was obnoxious.. I know what I saw.. You mOds should at least keep your stories straight if you want to accuse me of misquoting.

Can a mOd change a post without leaving "Tracks"?

All you've proven is you were too lazy to read the linked threads, ace. They were two seperate threads, and this was caused by you not bothering to name the moderator you were hurling baseless allegations at.

And no, the moderators can't edit a post without leaving an 'edited by' tag, so your allegation exists somewhat in defiance of, well, reality.

It read obnoxious for a while ... you keep changing it..

Without any form proof given by you, we'll call this what it is, an outright lie.

One mOd says the poster got no warning the other says we have to listen to the mOds..How can you make someone stop doing something that is NOT against the rules? That is overstepping your authority and borders on the creation of a police state..

1. False. Had you bothered to read the linked threads you would have noticed they were two seperate cases.

2. False. I would NEVER say a player didn't have to listen to the moderation staff; the reason Decisive Action didn't get a formal warning was because after it was pointed out his sig was too large he decreased the size of it rather than making a scene.

3. False. It IS against the rules.

And a 'police state?' ROFL!

Errrr.....c'mon WG, let's steer this away from the mods' attention, we don't want it - or you, for that matter - to end up deleted or anything. Back onto the meeting. You can argue with mods later.

As standing-in chairman, I put forwards a discussion on spam in general, covering the follwing opinions from various members and from these deciding on a stance to take, possibly a combination orcompromise of them:




-NS Local could arrange official Word Games, and any topics which aren't official count as spam/spam-lite/not allowed? It's a compromise, and it stops word-games from going out of control. Wild idea, but - hey?

-Can we allow a little spam into the forum? I mean, some of it is just pointless e.g. Reactionary pointless junk or immature thoughts spewed from the brain of a horny adolescent (like 'Huhh, boobs, or something). But some other stuff is fun! I have no idea of my point. Or indeed the argument. I just haven't posted for a while and felt the need for a post.

-Word Games and threads with a concievable point
(e.g - post when you are logging off) - NOT SPAM. Topics such as "I have a big thing" or "My clock is bigger than yours" - SPAM.

-Here's a thought. Allow one word game thread at a time, much like the Club thread...Funny pointless threads don't hurt any one either, as long as its not a flame war it's ok..

-One idea I had is for the mods to leave borderline spam threads for a page or so, in order to see if they develop into a decent conversation. If not, they get locked.

-I move for a declaration of Spam Lite as "decent, but not as good as regular Spam, even though it all fries up the same."

Okay, I think I'll go through this one point at a time. I think this would be a good idea. Maybe people would have to go to the union for permission when they start a spammy thread? Then a union member would post "union approved" on the first page of the thread. That would limit the amount of word games, as most people probably couldn't be bothered to go through all that just to start a thread.

But then you'd have the union acting as mods for spam threads, which seems a little self-defeating. Also, have you a definition of spam that everyone can sign up to? Or does the union have to decide on that as well?

Oh dear, this needs a bit of consideration...

I just thought the union approval would be a triviality, most threads would be accepted. However, many people would not want to go through the union approval process, so that weeds out a lot. The idea is that word games are all allowed, the numbers are just limited by the approval process.


Not sure if that made sense...

Seems fine to me. Maybe we could strike a deal with the mods to install that as a rule, if that is the union's stance. Next point, please? (when we've finished going through each point, we could have various summaries, and the vote on which one you think is better by show of post)

RETROSPECT: Striking any deal with the mods over NS Local isn't really very likely any more... :(

Please, just continue with this line of discussion......please?

Thank you Chinkopedia, I think that'll really help the conversation along and steer it back on topic.

You're velcome. Anyvay, ve are on to discussion ov point 2:

-Can we allow a little spam into the forum? I mean, some of it is just pointless e.g. Reactionary pointless junk or immature thoughts spewed from the brain of a horny adolescent (like 'Huhh, boobs, or something). But some other stuff is fun! I have no idea of my point. Or indeed the argument. I just haven't posted for a while and felt the need for a post.

Could Longton please explain what this 'other stuff' is, so we can have an accurate idea of the positive definition in his post?

Could Longton please explain what this 'other stuff' is, so we can have an accurate idea of the positive definition in his post?
Well, some time ago I...kinda hijacked a thread. But in a cool way. It started about someone wanting the 'hell' taken out of hello. Last I checked we were inventing non-rude but very stupid greetings. Nothing to do with the topic, ergo spam. But it was cool, and many people enjoyed it some (especially LG and LP, but they like lots of spam). Anyway, all I'm saying is, I don't understand why spam is wrong if it doesn't offend people massively. Especially the random stuff.

Again, I'm lost in my own thoughts here. Sorry, but my ears are still ringing from friday night. It's kinda distracting

So basically, we should define spam-lite as enjoyable threads with a conceivable point, such as "Silly Greetings", in comparison to "blah blah chicken blah".

Any comments? I think it basically works, but there'd have to be some sort of control over this. So perhaps, in the overall summaries, we should combine this with this:

Maybe people would have to go to the union for permission when they start a spammy thread? Then a union member would post "union approved" on the first page of the thread. That would limit the amount of word games, as most people probably couldn't be bothered to go through all that just to start a thread.

If there aren't any comments by tomorrow, I'll move on to the next comment.

Maybe people would have to go to the union for permission when they start a spammy thread? Then a union member would post "union approved" on the first page of the thread. That would limit the amount of word games, as most people probably couldn't be bothered to go through all that just to start a thread.

I think I was the person who made this comment, so I feel obliged to explain that it was not intended in reference to spam-lite as such. I had word games in mind when I said this. I do not think it would be a popular or viable idea to have union approval for all spam-lite threads, nor do I think that this would be accepted by the mods. Thus, I propose that this particular comment be discussed in the Word Games Motion (item 9a).

I agree with brother Chicken, I can't see going to the union for approval. I do like the conceivable point idea, As long as general humour is considered a conceivable point.

I agree with brother Chicken, I can't see going to the union for approval. I do like the conceivable point idea, As long as general humour is considered a conceivable point.

Well, I think that's pretty much the definition that the mods go with anyway. The real disagreement is about what exactly constitutes a "conceivable point" and this is what we need to define.

So spam lite is any thread, or post within a thread that does not offend and has a conceivable point. A conceivable point includes a funny comment, not a flame. Word games, although they come up later in the agenda have a conceivable point, in that they provide recreation and some thought to stay within the rules of the game.

So spam lite is any thread, or post within a thread that does not offend and has a conceivable point. A conceivable point includes a funny comment, not a flame. Word games, although they come up later in the agenda have a conceivable point, in that they provide recreation and some thought to stay within the rules of the game.

I agree with that. What about chatting? If somebody starts a thread in order to have a chat with another poster, would that have a conceivable point? For example, if two posters who know each other in real life start a thread to talk about how their kids are doing.

They might not really know each other either. Chat serves a purpose in that you get to know each other, share common thoughts, events. Its a pastime, much like roleplay without the make believe part of it. I think then that a friendly chat does have a conceivable point. Much of the club thread is chat.

They might not really know each other either. Chat serves a purpose in that you get to know each other, share common thoughts, events. Its a pastime, much like roleplay without the make believe part of it. I think then that a friendly chat does have a conceivable point. Much of the club thread is chat.

It would be a good idea to have another general social thread like Paradise Club, but without the aspects of make-believe, which always makes me feel awkward. I'm not sure if the mods would allow people to start a thread whenever they want a chat with someone, but if it was confined to a single thread, they would like the idea more.

OK, if this is taken a step forward, the thread could also serve to let people welcome each other when they sign on, they could chat a spell and sign off here. If it were limited to one such social thread it could serve many functions... :)

OK, if this is taken a step forward, the thread could also serve to let people welcome each other when they sign on, they could chat a spell and sign off here. If it were limited to one such social thread it could serve many functions... :)

Yeah, that would be pretty good. I was about to say that it would get quite incoherent, but I guess that nobody would try to have a particularly complex discussion on it, so it's no problem.

We could probably start the thread now, come to think of it. Can you think of a decent name for it? I don't think "General Social Thread" will do, it just doesn't sound right.

Yeah, that would be pretty good. I was about to say that it would get quite incoherent, but I guess that nobody would try to have a particularly complex discussion on it, so it's no problem.

We could probably start the thread now, come to think of it. Can you think of a decent name for it? I don't think "General Social Thread" will do, it just doesn't sound right.

This thread and it's partner are kind of incoherent as well, yet we are having quite a complex conversation on them. I can't come up with a name at the moment but having the word conversation in it someplace seems to make sence.

This thread and it's partner are kind of incoherent as well, yet we are having quite a complex conversation on them. I can't come up with a name at the moment but having the word conversation in it someplace seems to make sence.

It depends on what style we want to go for. Do we give it an official sounding name (after all, it will be the official NS social thread) or do we give it a more creative name like Paradise Club, to make it seem more genial to people posting on it.

It depends on what style we want to go for. Do we give it an official sounding name (after all, it will be the official NS social thread) or do we give it a more creative name like Paradise Club, to make it seem more genial to people posting on it.

Another "Club" thread will not be tolerated, so some sort of a link to real life conversation (or chat) should be implicit in the title. Alot can be stated in the initial post.

Another "Club" thread will not be tolerated, so some sort of a link to real life conversation (or chat) should be implicit in the title. Alot can be stated in the initial post.

Well, you know what I mean. Will the name be entirely official in style (for example "The Official Nationstates Social Thread") or do we make it less formal (for example "The Chat Thread" or something more along those lines)?

I didn't put my point across very well in my previous post, sorry.

We are brainstorming, there are no bad ideas.

What about something opposite of a masquerade (if there is such a thing)

Sorry, I have to leave for a few hours..

This post could have been made in that thread that we are talking about here :)

Just in case you guys didn't notice...I made two proposals

1) That NS Local 8976 and the NationStates Reform Party (NSRP) be allied under one entity, to be called the NationStates Reform Alliance (NSRA). The NSRP and NS Local 8976 will still exist as seperate entities. However a member of one will be automatically a member of another, and all members will add "Member, NationStates Reform Alliance" to their sig.

2) That this new entity move it's headquarters to PCRA Central (where the MDSC is). This is so that we would have a dedicated place to meet, and a place which is out of the jurisdiction of NS moderators.

The purpose of the NSRP (from the NSRP form)

The intent of the NSRP is that it is a lobbying group. It is a "draft committee" to create a well-written and polite email to Max, outlining all the changes that members of the NSRP want and petitioning him for change

The purpose of the NSRP is also to act as a "mouthpiece" for the pro-reform movement. If pro-reform players want to collectively express an opinion related to moderation affairs, it can be done so in the name of the NSRP, provided that NSRP members have reviewed this decision.

Just in case you guys didn't notice...I made two proposals



The purpose of the NSRP (from the NSRP form)



The purpose of the NSRP is also to act as a "mouthpiece" for the pro-reform movement. If pro-reform players want to collectively express an opinion related to moderation affairs, it can be done so in the name of the NSRP, provided that NSRP members have reviewed this decision.

Sorry Sandpit, I did see the post and fully intended replying, but then I had to go, and I did not.


I kind of like the idea of discussing this here. We made an attempt to conduct the meeting on IIRC but I don't know how that went.

I believe that the mOds are reading these posts, as evidenced by their jumping all over me from time to time. Even if the union does not get to be a powerhouse, it will make positive change in here.

I will, however place the item on the agenda for discussion and vote under items 9 (B) and 9 (C)

Agenda reposted



Agenda

1: Nominations for Chair (Chair will rotate as required) Done.. Note stipulations
2: Chairs comments ... Done
3: Approval of agenda: (chance to place items on agenda) ..Done
4. Motion on spam lite: Discussion..word the motion..vote on it Done
5: Motion on mOds selection:
6: Motion on this Originally posted by Chinkopodia

The NS Local 8976, considering that it has been summoned to establish the constitution of the forum, to effect the regeneration of the public order, and to maintain the true principles of modship; that nothing can prevent it from continuing its deliberations in whatever place it may be forced to establish itself; and, finally, that wheresoever its members are assembled, there is the NS Local 8976;

Decrees that all members of the NS Local 8976 shall immediately take a solemn oath not to stop posting, and to start new topics wherever circumstances require, until the constitution of the forum is established and consolidated upon firm foundations; and that, the said oath taken, all members and each one of them individually shall ratify this steadfast resolution by a message in their signature.

7: Motion more poll options:

8: Motion on search times:

9: Other Motions?:

a) motion to discuss word games

b) Motion by Sandpit
That NS Local 8976 and the NationStates Reform Party (NSRP) be allied under one entity, to be called the NationStates Reform Alliance (NSRA). The NSRP and NS Local 8976 will still exist as seperate entities. However a member of one will be automatically a member of another, and all members will add "Member, NationStates Reform Alliance" to their sig.

c) Motion by Sandpit
That this new entity move it's headquarters to PCRA Central (where the MDSC is). This is so that we would have a dedicated place to meet, and a place which is out of the jurisdiction of NS moderators.

10: Motion on tactics:

11: Motion on negotiating team: (Suggest we have a meeting just for these nominations)

12: Other Business:

13: Next meeting:

14: Motion to close meeting:

Can I join?

Can I join?

Yeah. you just put 'member of NS local 8976' in your sig to become a member.

Therefore I conclude that spam lite is any thread, or post within a thread that does not offend and has a conceivable point. A conceivable point includes a funny comment, not a flame. Word games, although they come up later in the agenda have a conceivable point, in that they provide recreation and some thought to stay within the rules of the game.

May Word Games push a discussion of what we know so far as "The Official Nationstates Social Thread" as a motion 9(b).



May I now usher the meeting on the Motion 5:
Motion on mOds selection

This will be tricky to find anything even remotely acceptable - it seems that the most we'll be able to get is, say, an infantesimal percentage of influence in mod selections, possibly by vote.

We may now discuss ideas as to how we can improve upon this [fairly vague] idea.

May I now usher the meeting on the Motion 5:
Motion on mOds selection

This will be tricky to find anything even remotely acceptable - it seems that the most we'll be able to get is, say, an infantesimal percentage of influence in mod selections, possibly by vote.

We may now discuss ideas as to how we can improve upon this [fairly vague] idea.

My opinion is that mod elections would not be beneficial to the smooth running of the forum and the mods would never agree to the idea anyway. However, it has been agreed that the mod team is short staffed, so I suggest that the union could act as a way of bringing potential mod candidates to the attention of the mods.

This is quite probably the best descision we're going to come to on this. If there are no objections, then tomorrow we shall move onto motion 6 (on my NS Local Oath - yaay!)

I think that a say in the selection of mOds is not out of the question. What about we prepare a list, for their consideration?

What if we had a veto?

How about we rate the mOds in some manner, kind of a peoples choice awards?

What if we had a veto?

How about we rate the mOds in some manner, kind of a peoples choice awards?

I think the mods would trash the idea of a veto. Remember, we really have no practical way of influencing their decisions. All we can do is suggest ideas, which the mods will hopefully agree with.

I think a people's choice mod award thread is a very good idea indeed, though. Perhaps we could start thinking up various award categories (best forum mod, best game mod, best newcomer, fairest mod, etc).

In any negotiation you don't offer all reasonable ideas, you have to have some proposals that you are willing to drop if required.

Some earlier posters were pretty adamant on this issue.

This requires some time to discuss.

Maybe we should have a represenative in m0d-ship. A delegate, if you will.

I like that! Someone on the inside! :)

I like that! Someone on the inside! :)

It's an interesting idea, certainly. Is there anyone in the union who would be willing to take up mod duties, who the mods would be willing to accept?

The mOds are quite sensitive about OPSEC, so perhaps the person would have some form of limited access...

All we could do would be to hold nominations and then put the winner forward..

Uh-huh. This is a great plan. We just need to figure out how we're going to get someone to be a mod first! What makes you think the mods will take any of us in anyway?

I nominate Word Games... and I write down all the fancy "motioning" stuff associated with it.

Uh-huh. This is a great plan. We just need to figure out how we're going to get someone to be a mod first! What makes you think the mods will take any of us in anyway?

They don't. We just rattle their cages until they do or delete us all. Knowin' the mods, they're too lazy. Unless there's a collective-deat button.

EDIT: There's a lot of influential and respected people in this organization, and I don't think the mods would deat one of their (former) own. Just corrupt the system and let you off with a warning. ;)

I nominate Word Games... and I write down all the fancy "motioning" stuff associated with it.

I doubt that the mods would think twice before rejecting WG's application to become a mod (even with limited access to protect OPSEC). I don't think they liked his talk of union busting.

Personally, I would nominate Haken Rider, he seems pretty suitable. I haven't looked back through any of his posts yet, but he seems to have his head screwed on straight.

They don't. We just rattle their cages until they do or delete us all. Knowin' the mods, they're too lazy. Unless there's a collective-deat button.

EDIT: There's a lot of influential and respected people in this organization, and I don't think the mods would deat one of their (former) own. Just corrupt the system and let you off with a warning. ;)

Paragraph #1: That's rich--really, it is. Do you know how easy deleting someone really is? And I seriously doubt any of you have the patience to "wait it out" for modhood--much less until the mods select someone for their position who was already deleted. And anyway, the mods typically won't delete someone for just being a pain in the ass--unless, like Sheol, that "being a pain in the ass" becomes chronic.

Paragraph #2: If you're thinking of having me stick my neck on the line for this thing, you can forget it. If you guys are thinking of doing something deletion-worthy, then I'd say you're probably worthy of deletion. Funny the way that works out, eh?

They don't. We just rattle their cages until they do or delete us all. Knowin' the mods, they're too lazy. Unless there's a collective-deat button.

EDIT: There's a lot of influential and respected people in this organization, and I don't think the mods would deat one of their (former) own. Just corrupt the system and let you off with a warning. ;)

Dudette, we're not here to rattle cages. We are here to come up with ideas that will make this forum a nicer place to be. If we are on good terms with the mods, they are more likely to accept our ideas.

Nobody is recommending doing anything deletion worthy.

This thread rattles the cage quite abit, we can discuss other options later in the agenda.

I think I am unacceptable to the mOds as I was once deleted. Someone else would be a better choice.

What if we gave the mOds a list of, oh, say , 10 people we would like to see as mOds.

Incidentally, aren't we jumping the gun a bit by saying that we're going to get somebody on the "inside" with the mods? Are we even convinced the problems are that bad yet? I mean, hell, look at the polls and such about us on the forums. We don't exactly have the best of reputations right now. Maybe we should establish a rapport with the people first, and then you guys can worry about getting your representative into the squad.

Dude, we're not here to rattle cages. We are here to come up with ideas that will make this forum a nicer place to be. If we are on good terms with the mods, they are more likely to accept our ideas.

CoughDudetteCough

I don't think a little cage rattling is a bad idea. Any union I have been a member of had a mix of moderates and some radical elements. All moderate ideas will get us about nothing. We might get some token crumbs. I say we shoot high, and settle for something less. If we shoot middle of the road we will get the ditch.

Incidentally, aren't we jumping the gun a bit by saying that we're going to get somebody on the "inside" with the mods? Are we even convinced the problems are that bad yet? I mean, hell, look at the polls and such about us on the forums. We don't exactly have the best of reputations right now. Maybe we should establish a rapport with the people first, and then you guys can worry about getting your representative into the squad.

Good idea. I think we should finish this membership meeting and implement a couple of the ideas from it (such as the social thread and People's Choice Mod awards) before we consider getting somebody "on the inside".

Incidentally, aren't we jumping the gun a bit by saying that we're going to get somebody on the "inside" with the mods? Are we even convinced the problems are that bad yet? I mean, hell, look at the polls and such about us on the forums. We don't exactly have the best of reputations right now. Maybe we should establish a rapport with the people first, and then you guys can worry about getting your representative into the squad.

The reputation we have might well be my fault. But I have no regrets. Having two ex mods is quite a coupe on its own... I really think this concept has shaken the tree.

The union will always be driven by the members. It will balance some radical ideas with some rational thought and come up with something we can all live with. I suggest it will be more than any of us would EVER accomplish alone.

The reputation we have might well be my fault.

In that case, I move for a vote of "no confidence" in the leadership of Word Games.

The agenda (for reference)

We are at item 5. Does any one have a motion on mOd selection we can vote on?




Agenda

1: Nominations for Chair (Chair will rotate as required) Done.. Note stipulations
2: Chairs comments ... Done
3: Approval of agenda: (chance to place items on agenda) ..Done
4. Motion on spam lite: Discussion..word the motion..vote on it Done
5: Motion on mOds selection:
6: Motion on this Originally posted by Chinkopodia

The NS Local 8976, considering that it has been summoned to establish the constitution of the forum, to effect the regeneration of the public order, and to maintain the true principles of modship; that nothing can prevent it from continuing its deliberations in whatever place it may be forced to establish itself; and, finally, that wheresoever its members are assembled, there is the NS Local 8976;

Decrees that all members of the NS Local 8976 shall immediately take a solemn oath not to stop posting, and to start new topics wherever circumstances require, until the constitution of the forum is established and consolidated upon firm foundations; and that, the said oath taken, all members and each one of them individually shall ratify this steadfast resolution by a message in their signature.

7: Motion more poll options:

8: Motion on search times:

9: Other Motions?:

a) motion to discuss word games

b) Motion by Sandpit
That NS Local 8976 and the NationStates Reform Party (NSRP) be allied under one entity, to be called the NationStates Reform Alliance (NSRA). The NSRP and NS Local 8976 will still exist as seperate entities. However a member of one will be automatically a member of another, and all members will add "Member, NationStates Reform Alliance" to their sig.

c) Motion by Sandpit
That this new entity move it's headquarters to PCRA Central (where the MDSC is). This is so that we would have a dedicated place to meet, and a place which is out of the jurisdiction of NS moderators.

10: Motion on tactics:

11: Motion on negotiating team: (Suggest we have a meeting just for these nominations)

12: Other Business:

13: Next meeting:

14: Motion to close meeting:

I second the motion offered by The SLAGLands.

In that case, I move for a vote of "no confidence" in the leadership of Word Games.

Word Games isn't really the leader of the union as such...he is given a certain level of authority over the other members, simply because he came up with the idea in the first place.

Also, I think that a vote of "no confidence" would undermine our credibility much more than WG's actions could. A power struggle on a forum union - it would lend weight to the commonly held view that this union is an exercise in futility.

In that case, I move for a vote of "no confidence" in the leadership of Word Games.

ok

Do we have a second for Brother Slaggies motion non confidence motion?

EDIT: I see one.

I also see that the posters are not members in good standing, however I will hold the vote nevertheless.

All in favour? Post Aye

Word Games isn't really the leader of the union as such...he is given a certain level of authority over the other members, simply because he came up with the idea in the first place.

Also, I think that a vote of "no confidence" would undermine our credibility much more than WG's actions could. A power struggle on a forum union - it would lend weight to the commonly held view that this union is an exercise in futility.

Are you implying that we should simply be complacent while another member is bastardizing our credibility? We aren't going to get action if we have an incapable leader responsible for the skewed perception of this union; only those fit to hold authority should actually hold it. Isn't that what this union is all about?

Brother Chicken: I'm going to step outside while you conduct the vote.

I will return in a few hours, you are chair, continue Brother Chicken..

I vote "aye."

Okay, as Word Games said, all in favour post "aye" and all against post "nay".


I vote "aye".

Aye.

-The Prophet- votes aye.

Okay, I'll give this vote another hour or so, although I very much doubt that the general trend of voting is going to change at all.

I think I will end the vote early. Realistically, we are not going to have five people vote for Word Games in the next half-hour. So, the vote of "no confidence" in WG has passed unanimously, four votes to none.

If anybody is unhappy with my decision to end the voting so soon, please say so and I will start the voting again.

If so many have such a negative perception of NS Local 8976, perhaps we need to look at a rebranding. Not to be self-promoting, but I now think that NS Local 8976 and the NationStates Reform Party should be merged into the NationStates Reform Alliance (NSRA), and we should operate under that name only. The "union" aspect of NS Local 8976 will continue, if all my brothers and sisters here choose to do so.

Indeed, I feel that the general perception on NS Local 8976 is "it's a legitimate excuse to spam- word games said so himself". Now with the internal power struggles, the credibility of NS Local 8976 is further damaged. I believe that the image of NS Local 8976 is currently a liability to the reform movement, and that a rebranding will benefit the movement, as it would allow us to start all over with at least a somewhat new image.

Motion 9b) needs to be amended, and I hope that everyone here will support this revised motion.

As for motion 9c) (stating that the headquarters of the NSRA shall be at PCRA Central), it is so that we can be "masters in our own house". We will then be able to do anything with our headquarters (we will have modship over our own threads and forums). We can let the people of NS see us in action right here by issuing "press releases" (here in the NS forums).

If so many have such a negative perception of NS Local 8976, perhaps we need to look at a rebranding. Not to be self-promoting, but I now think that NS Local 8976 and the NationStates Reform Party should be merged into the NationStates Reform Alliance (NSRA), and we should operate under that name only. The "union" aspect of NS Local 8976 will continue, if all my brothers and sisters here choose to do so.

Indeed, I feel that the general perception on NS Local 8976 is "it's a legitimate excuse to spam- word games said so himself". Now with the internal power struggles, the credibility of NS Local 8976 is further damaged. I believe that the image of NS Local 8976 is currently a liability to the reform movement, and that a rebranding will benefit the movement, as it would allow us to start all over with at least a somewhat new image.

Motion 9b) needs to be amended, and I hope that everyone here will support this revised motion.

Having seen the results of WG's vote of no confidence, I no longer think that it will severely damage NS local 8976's crediblity. In fact, I doubt that many people even noticed it's occurence.

And personally, I do not think that rebranding would improve our image. It is the forum union movement which has no credibility, not the name. People would still view us as the same organisation, even with a name change. They may also take note that our first two motions were to depose the union leader and change the name.

Seem to me I always miss the voting part. :(

Seem to me I always miss the voting part. :(

Sorry, I cut it short because it seemed obvious where it was heading and I was planning on going to bed soon. In an ideal world, we would leave all votes for 24 hours, so everyone has an opportunity to vote on them.

*crashes meeting*

Join the Union!

I should think we can now safely conclude that, given our outside opinion, the best we'll get is the People's Coice Mod htings - i.e we let the people nominate, put forwards recommendations based on that, and the mods can look at them, get ideas, and then virtually place our reccomendation posts in the shredder.

Now we move onto motion 6:
Motion on This

The NS Local 8976, considering that it has been summoned to establish the constitution of the forum, to effect the regeneration of the public order, and to maintain the true principles of modship; that nothing can prevent it from continuing its deliberations in whatever place it may be forced to establish itself; and, finally, that wheresoever its members are assembled, there is the NS Local 8976;

Decrees that all members of the NS Local 8976 shall immediately take a solemn oath not to stop posting, and to start new topics wherever circumstances require, until the constitution of the forum is established and consolidated upon firm foundations; and that, the said oath taken, all members and each one of them individually shall ratify this steadfast resolution by a message in their signature.

I like it. [well, I did make it. ;) ] Basically we won't stop posting and holding meetings until we get a bit more recognition from the Mods.

I call it the NS Board Oath (a take-off of the Tennis Court Oath. Ayone know what it is? :) ). All in favour of passing this oath, write aye. All opposed, write nay (and if so, please explain why).

Quite obviously, my vote is a firm AYE!

I posted. I feel special now.

Aye.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make another post, titled "The NS Board Oath" with nothing but that particular section of writing in it. Then people can link to the individual post in their sigs.

The NS Local 8976, considering that it has been summoned to establish the constitution of the forum, to effect the regeneration of the public order, and to maintain the true principles of modship; that nothing can prevent it from continuing its deliberations in whatever place it may be forced to establish itself; and, finally, that wheresoever its members are assembled, there is the NS Local 8976;

Decrees that all members of the NS Local 8976 shall immediately take a solemn oath not to stop posting, and to start new topics wherever circumstances require, until the constitution of the forum is established and consolidated upon firm foundations; and that, the said oath taken, all members and each one of them individually shall ratify this steadfast resolution by a message in their signature.

That good?

That good?

Yeah, that's good. I'll put the link in my sig.

I have too.

I don't understand it, so it must be good.

Basically we won't stop posting and holding meetings until we get a bit more recognition from the Mods.

There you go. :)

So it is written, so we shall write.

3 ayes, I take it?

[Me, Chicken Pi, Haken Rider]

And no nays. Voting closes at.....let's say......7 ayes or nays. Shouldn't be too long, but shouldn't be too short.....

People I have faith in said 'aye'. I've skim-read it (really tired after last night's beatiful mosh fest) so I'm gonna say aye. Boo yeah. Duffman!

People I have faith in said 'aye'. I've skim-read it (really tired after last night's beatiful mosh fest) so I'm gonna say aye. Boo yeah. Duffman!

The basic idea is that all union members pledge not to stop posting and holding meetings until the mods give us more recognition.

4 ayes.

I've got to get off now, so Chicken Pi can take over as Chairman for now.

Is it more recognition as in giving us a sticky, maybe some luvvin?

Is it more recognition as in giving us a sticky, maybe some luvvin?

I guess it just means agreeing with us. This motion is a bit of a formality, to be honest, we're not actually demanding anything. It's just kind of a pledge to show that we support the union and will stick with it.

Hi, just checking in. I just wanted to say I will not take any oath. I feel that in doing such would take away from the purpose. The union members need to feel free to express themselves openly without fear of some kind of loyalty oath.

On that note.. I would be fine with Chicken pi as the chair.. however I do believe it should rotate to give all members a chance to become fully involved in the decision making process. I also suggest that we establish a thread to talk about what we want in the agenda and what we don't.

These are my thoughts..

Peace,
Stephanie.

Hi, just checking in. I just wanted to say I will not take any oath. I feel that in doing such would take away from the purpose. The union members need to feel free to express themselves openly without fear of some kind of loyalty oath.

On that note.. I would be fine with Chicken pie as the chair.. however I do believe it should rotate to give all members a chance to become fully involved in the decision making process. I also suggest that we establish a thread to talk about what we want in the agenda and what we don't.

These are my thoughts..

Peace,
Stephanie.
Damnit. Why do people always make good points after I vote. Ah well. If it means that I get to be part of something rather than my usual outsider position, I'm gonna stick with my vote to be part of the system.

Hi, just checking in. I just wanted to say I will not take any oath. I feel that in doing such would take away from the purpose. The union members need to feel free to express themselves openly without fear of some kind of loyalty oath.
Yes, that makes much sense.
Peace,
Stephanie.
You have the same first name as me, so it must make even more sense!
:D

Hi, just checking in. I just wanted to say I will not take any oath. I feel that in doing such would take away from the purpose. The union members need to feel free to express themselves openly without fear of some kind of loyalty oath.

On that note.. I would be fine with Chicken pi as the chair.. however I do believe it should rotate to give all members a chance to become fully involved in the decision making process. I also suggest that we establish a thread to talk about what we want in the agenda and what we don't.

These are my thoughts..

Peace,
Stephanie.

The impression that I get is that it isn't really a loyalty oath that anyone will be held to, it's just there to sound impressive. Although you would have to ask Chinkopedia if you want to know how it was intended, as he came up with it.

And the chair is rotated, we found that it's the only real way to do it after the first couple of pages in this thread. Personally, I prefer an informal arrangement - if there's no chairperson online, anyone who wants to do so can take the chair.

Thankyou, CP, for being articulate where I just crumble under the forces of Stephistan. ph33r!, etc.

Thankyou, CP, for being articulate where I just crumble under the forces of Stephistan. ph33r!, etc.

Thanks Longton. It was a rare moment of coherence on my part. :)

The impression that I get is that it isn't really a loyalty oath that anyone will be held to, it's just there to sound impressive. Although you would have to ask Chinkopedia if you want to know how it was intended, as he came up with it.

And the chair is rotated, we found that it's the only real way to do it after the first couple of pages in this thread. Personally, I prefer an informal arrangement - if there's no chairperson online, anyone who wants to do so can take the chair.

Yeah okay, sounds all kewl to me. Rock on! :)

Thankyou, CP, for being articulate where I just crumble under the forces of Stephistan. ph33r!, etc.

Haha no need for any ph33r, note my "Ex-Moderator" status. I'm with you guys now. I am no longer a mod, by choice, I quit. :)