NationStates Jolt Archive

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. :)
*offers beer*

Okay, we currently have four "ayes" for motion 6 (NS Board Oath). Once we get seven, we'll move on to the next motion, more poll options.

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:

Is it just me or are the mods less strict on spam-lite lately? I see threads surviving who in past days would be deleted, I think.
Offcourse this is all thanks to the union. yay union!
But beware, they have just crowned a new mod, they are powering up, just waiting to strike swift and deadly...

w00t! The union is having some effect!

[in our opinions, which are probably misguided]

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but Longshoremen's and Asbestos Abatement Workers' Local 8976 is probably going to want their number back, and they probably ain't going to be too happy about all this.

Oh no! ph34r teh wr47h 0f teh L0ngsh0r3m3n'5 4nd 4sb35705 4b4t3m3n7 W0rk3r5' L0c4l 8976!!!!!! :sniper: :mp5:

;) :p

*pants for breath after 1337sp34k burstout*

OK.....back on topic.

4 ayes, 1 nay.

First to seven passes the oath.

I vote "nay." Passage of the oath will cause me to leave this union; I refuse to take any such oath when I'm not even convinced things are that bad yet.

Again, gotta start small.

I vote "nay." Passage of the oath will cause me to leave this union; I refuse to take any such oath when I'm not even convinced things are that bad yet.

Again, gotta start small.

In that case I vote Yay

In that case I vote Yay

Okay, we now have five "ayes" and one "nay". No offence, WG, but I don't think that post was particularly nice. It suggests that you want Slaglands out of the union.

And Slaglands, I don't think it's a serious oath which anybody will be held to. I didn't write it, so I am uncertain of the intent, but my interpretation is that it's just a short passage declaring the general aim of the union, to keep posting and having meetings until we get a few things changed. Acceptance of this "oath" would simply mean that members agree to that ideal.

At least, that's how I interpreted it. Could you clarify the meaning of it a bit, please, Chinkopedia?

Oh no! ph34r teh wr47h 0f teh L0ngsh0r3m3n'5 4nd 4sb35705 4b4t3m3n7 W0rk3r5' L0c4l 8976!!!!!! :sniper: :mp5:

;) :p

Man, oh man. If the Longshoremen and Asbestos Abatement Workers could understand that, they'd be pistzors.

It suggests that you want Slaglands out of the union.

If you've seen the way Slaglands left the MDSC, you'd have doubts too. Unfortunately I've purged the post before you made this post, but others have seen it.

Guys, please vote here:

http://s6.invisionfree.com/PCRA_Central/index.php?showtopic=77

It's like Bush vs. Kerry!

Ok lets get this union off the ground.

Interesting that Slaglands used our democratic process against us. Since I held no official office the "Non-Confidence motion" is of no consequence. How can one be kicked out of an office one does not hold?

Still it was fun. Revealing too.

Please note that we have enemies everywhere including within this thread.

This union has people worked up to the point they vote here with puppets.

For the record: I never said this union was an excuse to spam legally.

Also for the record: I'm told that Myrth cannot change a post without leaving behind an edited by tag.. Ok I guess I was wrong when I saw obnoxious and read offensive. Sorry about that. Now this reveals an even more disturbing thought in that a mOd can warn a player for doing ANYTHING they feel like warning them for. They don't even have to refer to a rule, written OR un-written. When I saw offensive I presumed he was refering to a rule. I figure that this is why I was confused and I saw the word offensive (in reference to a rule). I asked and found there was no rule. So this tells me that a mOd can go about as they want to. You are obnoxious, stop it. I don't like your sig, I will change it. This behaviour really bothers me. I feel that a mOd is there to enforce the rules, not make them up as he goes. This is a slippery slope.

Ok lets get this union off the ground.

Interesting that Slaglands used our democratic process against us. Since I held no official office the "Non-Confidence motion" is of no consequence. How can one be kicked out of an office one does not hold?

-snip-

They don't even have to refer to a rule, written OR un-written. When I saw offensive I presumed he was refering to a rule. I figure that this is why I was confused and I saw the word offensive (in reference to a rule). I asked and found there was no rule. So this tells me that a mOd can go about as they want to. You are obnoxious, stop it. I don't like your sig, I will change it. This behaviour really bothers me. I feel that a mOd is there to enforce the rules, not make them up as he goes. This is a slippery slope.

Not having to refer to rules is a good idea. If the mods are allowed a certain level of initiative, it stops people from exploiting the rules to their advantage (like doing something wrong, then getting away with it by pointing out that the existing rules don't quite cover what they did). Please don't blow this out of proportion, that particular ruling was a good idea. Oversized sigs mess with the continuity of a conversation.

And what's all this about Slaglands "using our democratic process against us"? His argument was that it was necessary for us to gain some credibility, I don't think he was trying to damage the union. And besides, you just said yourself that it's of no consequence, as you never actually held the position of union leader in the first place.

Not having to refer to rules is a good idea. If the mods are allowed a certain level of initiative, it stops people from exploiting the rules to their advantage (like doing something wrong, then getting away with it by pointing out that the existing rules don't quite cover what they did). Please don't blow this out of proportion, that particular ruling was a good idea. Oversized sigs mess with the continuity of a conversation.

And what's all this about Slaglands "using our democratic process against us"? His argument was that it was necessary for us to gain some credibility, I don't think he was trying to damage the union. And besides, you just said yourself that it's of no consequence, as you never actually held the position of union leader in the first place.

Refering to rules is very important. Ok, the speed limit is 60MPH you are driving 60MPH a policeman pulls you over and says you need to slow down, I don't like the colour of your car....
If oversized sigs are a roblem, themOds need to do one of two things. Change the program so oversixed sigs are not possible (Like Avatars...)

OR

Change the rules, announce them, and THEN enforce the new rule.

This willy nilly stuff is a slippery slope.

Credibility? The credibility will come when we have alot of members. Being reasonable all the time won't get us what we want. BTW I was disappointed with your handling of the issue. I would have thought you would support a brother, and the union, against an obvoius union busting tactic.

Okay, forget it. This is too petty. I'm gone.

And if any of you had half a mind to pay attention, you'll note that this was a long time coming.

Okay, forget it. This is too petty. I'm gone.

And if any of you had half a mind to pay attention, you'll note that this was a long time coming.

You indicated you were gone when you dropped the sig.

You indicated you were gone when you dropped the sig.

I didn't like the way it looked. I don't like sigs much anyway.

And by the way, I consider this the most telling statement of all about your feelings on this union:

Being reasonable all the time won't get us what we want.

You indicated you were gone when you dropped the sig.

At least she didn't insult the movement like she did last time.

At least she didn't insult the movement like she did last time.

He. Thanks.

I didn't like the way it looked. I don't like sigs much anyway.

And by the way, I consider this the most telling statement of all about your feelings on this union:

You don't understand negotiations.

You don't understand negotiations.

Qualify.

Okay, forget it. This is too petty. I'm gone.

And if any of you had half a mind to pay attention, you'll note that this was a long time coming.
I am sorry, but I feel the same way as SLAGLands here.
I must leave.

Qualify.

Ok, when you buy a car do you offer a reasonable price the first time out?

If you do you will always pay too much.

Ok, when you buy a car do you offer a reasonable price the first time out?

If you do you will always pay too much.

So your idea is to use extreme tactics first, lose all credibility, and then later be reasonable? That's so brilliant!

So your idea is to use extreme tactics first, lose all credibility, and then later be reasonable? That's so brilliant!

Clearly, you don't understand.


EDIT:
Have you ever bought a car?

Clearly, you don't understand.


EDIT:
Have you ever bought a car?

I've bought two. And I know that when you're buying a car, you're not trying to convince an entire board that your price is reasonable. And if your price isn't reasonable, you're not going on a gigantic campaign to make the dealer say that your price is reasonable.

I'm calling apples and oranges, but if you wouldn't mind helping me understand, that'll help your credibility.

I am sorry, but I feel the same way as SLAGLands here.
I must leave.


Slag didn't believe in the union from the start.

I've bought two. And I know that when you're buying a car, you're not trying to convince an entire board that your price is reasonable. And if your price isn't reasonable, you're not going on a gigantic campaign to make the dealer say that your price is reasonable.

I'm calling apples and oranges, but if you wouldn't mind helping me understand, that'll help your credibility.

Negotiating is about

offer, counter offer...

meet someplace in the middle...

If you begin in the middle you end up at the bottom..

Example:

UNION wants $26.00 per hour, Paid maternity leave for 9 months, 3 20 minute coffee breaks

COMPANY offers $10.00, a nice card when you are in the hospital and 1 5 minute break



The UNION counters with $20.00, Paid Maternity leave for 3 months and 2 15 minute breaks

Company offers $15.00, a nice card, a daycare center and a voucher for 25 diapers and 2 15 minute breaks



Union Offers $18.50 the card, daycare, a paid week off after the hospital and the voucher and 2 15 minute breaks.

The company agrees..

*palm to forehead*

You admitted you had given the union a bad name! You admitted it! That's not negotiation; that's just bad tactics. I didn't want someone tactically inept running this union. What's so wrong with that?

*palm to forehead*

You admitted you had given the union a bad name! You admitted it! That's not negotiation; that's just bad tactics. I didn't want someone tactically inept running this union. What's so wrong with that?

WHEN did I say that? (You have a pink spot on your forehead...)

EDIT:

I remember the post now, what I said was MY reputation was not the best...

The statement had NOTHING to do with tactics.

You are using mixed up logic.

WHEN did I say that? (You have a pink spot on your forehead...)

Gold Star to you Word Games. I think you're doing a great job, and you are clearly the motor behind this. I would take the oath anyday...its not THAt big a deal. I think this union can be a good force on the forum, even if we don't move moutains.

The reputation we have might well be my fault. But I have no regrets.

There. Pink spot, nothing.

And what's a "motoe?"

EDIT: And no. The previous post states that I was talking about our reputation, not yours.

Gold Star to you Word Games. I think you're doing a great job, and you are clearly the motoe behind this. I would take the oath anyday...its not THAt big a deal. I think this union can be a good force on the forum, even if we don't move moutains.

Exactly! If we try to move a mountain, but fail, we will succeed in doing some good. If we cower in the shadow of the mountain, nothing will happen.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I vote "nay." Passage of the oath will cause me to leave this union; I refuse to take any such oath when I'm not even convinced things are that bad yet.

Again, gotta start small.


Okay, forget it. This is too petty. I'm gone.

And if any of you had half a mind to pay attention, you'll note that this was a long time coming.

So, evidently, is your leaving (and your word) get on it already.

...
EDIT: And no. The previous post states that I was talking about our reputation, not yours.

Since you dropped the sig AND stated you were gone, it is no longer OUR. To say OUR you have to carry the sig...

And what's a "motoe?"."motor"
I told her that once...WG is the motor.

Enough frivolity lets carry on with the meeting..

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: Done
6: Motion on this Originally posted by Chinkopodia Accepted

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:

We are on Item 7. More poll options

Can there be more options in a poll? Currently there are 10. I suppose that the host site Jolt would have to answer if this is feasable and if they are willing... Anyway, any discussion?

this Power strugle is going nowhere...get your act toghether or the Union is history.

1) SLAGS should be allowed to stay in the Union.

2) the non confidence vote was uncalled for.

3) the Oath should be optional.

Since you dropped the sig AND stated you were gone, it is no longer OUR. To say OUR you have to carry the sig...

If this is really about this stupid signature thing, then I'm gone anyway.

You know, it's really funny the way you welcomed me with open arms when I was clearly (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8080362&postcount=25) making (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8080318&postcount=23) fun (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8072344&postcount=702) of (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8018067&postcount=492) this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8017003&postcount=444) union (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8017025&postcount=448), and all was well and jolly because I had the signature of a union member. I mean, hell, how patently obvious do I have to be before you realize that my membership is a parody altogether?

In truth, later in the union's life, I did care to see you guys do well. I felt bad and thought that you could do something right. But now, Word Games has revealed what this is all about. His motivations are clearly selfish, and he will dismiss any attempt to go against his will as "union-busting." He's calling for unity for unity's sake--when he's given no reason to unite the union and has, in fact, even openly admitted to tarnishing the union's reputation early in its life, a time when it is crucial to foster trust and intelligent discourse among NationStates' posters.

Had you all recognized what you had, you wouldn't be the laughing stock you are now. And if you don't believe me, look at the polls about you. Look at the other threads. People don't like what you're doing. People don't agree with what you're doing. And yet you still profess to represent the needs of the people? Ridiculous.

This is an ego trip--nothing more. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who realizes it now.

this Power strugle is going nowhere...get your act toghether or the Union is history.

1) SLAGS should be allowed to stay in the Union.

2) the non confidence vote was uncalled for.

3) the Oath should be optional.

You are quite correct. I'm prepared to revisit the Oath. How do you suggest we recognise members in good standing from rabble rousers who post here just to railroad the union?

If this is really about this stupid signature thing, then I'm gone anyway.

You know, it's really funny the way you welcomed me with open arms when I was clearly (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8080362&postcount=25) making (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8080318&postcount=23) fun (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8072344&postcount=702) of (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8018067&postcount=492) this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8017003&postcount=444) union (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8017025&postcount=448), all was well and jolly because I had the signature of a union member. I mean, hell, how patently obvious do I have to be before you realize that my membership is a parody altogether?

SLag, I'm terribly sorry that we wern't clever enough to cathch on to this elaborate parody of yours, but maybe its because this union and its members are essentially good-willed and earnest, not conniving-ex-moderating-power-tripping-spoilers.
Listen you have a good point when you imply that all the members may not take this endeavor equally seriously. But its a good idea, and supporting the union shouldn't be an gut-wrenching moral dilema. W G is doing good work, though he may get a bit worked up on occasion; but after all, this is his brainchild, so he deserves credit.

You are quite correct. I'm prepared to revisit the Oath. How do you suggest we recognise members in good standing from rabble rousers who post here just to railroad the union?
sometimes good standing members will turn "bad"...maybe they were bad all along...


maybe for now the Union need to be open...Dont slam the door on Slags or any future braves...sooner or later the Union will come back to you...

WG, You have acomplished a lot of things...against all odds...i was not giving you enough credit.(so maybe you know what is best...you been taking the good desitions...May the force be with you)

BTW I do understand the need for a Sig...

Hey Ocean!

Hey Ocean!
wasup :fluffle:

I don't know if hijacking this thread is a great idea (we can move) but since it seems that 'wasup' is the extent of your conversation, maybe we'll leave it there

I like how quickly this has become a little band of the elite.

"No, we don't want you, or you, or you. All of you go away. Those who dissent are unwelcome because otherwise our little project won't get anywhere. The logical step is to exclude everyone who doesn't agree. That will surely get unbiased results that reflect What The Generalites Want (tm)"

This from people who, amongst other things, accuse the mod squad of being too closed and distanced from the rest of NS. Heh.

I don't suppose the phrase "Four legs good, two legs bad" stir up any recollections from anyone? Or "All animals are equal"? We all remember what happened to that in the end, now, don't we?

sometimes good standing members will turn "bad"...maybe they were bad all along...


maybe for now the Union need to be open...Dont Close the door on Slags or any future braves...sooner or later the Union will come back to you...

WG, You have acomplished a lot of things...against all odds...i was not giving you enough credit.(so maybe you know what is best...you have the final word...May the force be with you)

BTW I do understand the need for a Sig...

Ok, the sig stands, the oath is cool, but really how do you tell if the oath was taken in good faith anyway, (crossed fingers, etc) Mind you typing with crossed fingers would be tough... :D

The oath could just, be there, in the minutes, it was passed after all... but we can leave it to the individual member as to the importance it has in their life...

The people have the final word. Members drive the direction of the union. Some of these decisions can be made fairly quickly, others will need alot of debate and a final vote. Whomever chairs the meeting will decide how long an item gets discussed, but the final say is with the people.

I don't know if hijacking this thread is a great idea (we can move) but since it seems that 'wasup' is the extent of your conversation, maybe we'll leave it there
email me ;)

We are on Item 7. More poll options

Can there be more options in a poll? Currently there are 10. I suppose that the host site Jolt would have to answer if this is feasable and if they are willing... Anyway, any discussion?

Only Jolt can change that I think, so it's a bit of a null point.

AAAAAAARGH! THE OATH WAS A JOKE! A JOKE! Anyway, all it means is "We'll stay together", when you strip it to the basics!

[and, NOM WG, but in the last few pages you really haven't made this any easier]

Wow. This is oooone bitchy union. I just read the last few pages. You know, I htought this was just supposed to be some easy going group of people who wanted some light debate, not a psychotic bitch-fest over who hates whom. Get a grip, people, come on. Please?

The union of today are the mods of tomorrow. :rolleyes:

@Word Games: I don't think the mods can do much about that, not that I mind, I think 10 is enough. Sometimes choosing is dificuilt enough as it is.

Credibility? The credibility will come when we have alot of members. Being reasonable all the time won't get us what we want. BTW I was disappointed with your handling of the issue. I would have thought you would support a brother, and the union, against an obvoius union busting tactic.

Being reasonable all the time WILL get us what we want. You just can't drive a hard bargain if you have no bargaining tools. The mods aren't going to want to haggle with us, but if we politely suggest good ideas which will benefit everyone involved (or at least, not give the mods more work) we might just get something done.

"Not supporting a brother and the union"? Excuse me, but Slagland was a member of the union of the time, until you acted so unreasonably that both him and neo-anarchists left. He was an ex-mod, he could have made some valuable contributions to the debate.
And if you remember rightly, I was strongly opposed to the vote of "no confidence" until you accepted it.

Being reasonable all the time WILL get us what we want. You just can't drive a hard bargain if you have no bargaining tools. The mods aren't going to want to haggle with us, but if we politely suggest good ideas which will benefit everyone involved (or at least, not give the mods more work) we might just get something done.

"Not supporting a brother and the union"? Excuse me, but Slagland was a member of the union of the time, until you acted so unreasonably that both him and neo-anarchists left. He was an ex-mod, he could have made some valuable contributions to the debate.
And if you remember rightly, I was strongly opposed to the vote of "no confidence" until you accepted it.

We will see about tools soon enough.

Slag was never here to move the union forward. I didn't behave unreasonably, Slag had no sig at the time and thus was not a member in good standing. Posting a vote with a puppet was not cool either.

Motion to ask if more poll options is possible.

All in favour post Aye Opposed post Nay

We will see about tools soon enough.

Slag was never here to move the union forward. I didn't behave unreasonably, Slag had no sig at the time and thus was not a member in good standing. Posting a vote with a puppet was not cool either.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You can accuse me of a lot of things, but you can not accuse me of voting with a puppet. What proof do you even have of that?

If you're thinking of using -The Prophet- as proof, that's really cute. -The Prophet- is not me.

Take a peek at -The Prophet-'s posting history. Do a word search for "-The Prophet-". Heck, get on IRC and ask the nearest #nationstates resident who owns -The Prophet-.

It's not like it's a hyper-secret megaclassified nation. It's a public puppet.

I wonder if there's a technical forum on jolt where jolt moderators (are there such people?) can give us an answer about more poll options. Does anyone know about this?

Motion to ask if more poll options is possible.

All in favour post Aye Opposed post Nay

Hey, don't you think we need to discuss this a little first? Everyone will vote "aye", because more poll options is a nice idea. However, I would quite like to know the reason why we don't have more poll options.

That, my friend, is why I am pissed off that you caused Slaglands to leave. He's an ex-mod, so he probably has a decent idea about why we are limited to ten poll options. At least Stephistan's still a member.


EDIT: I just had a read through earlier posts. As a few people have already said, it's in Jolt's hands. And they are probably less bothered about what we think than the mods are.

Is Word Games deleted? :eek:

Is Word Games deleted? :eek:

I doubt it. Has he done anything to push the mods over the edge recently?

Weird. He's still alive, but I can't see his 'homepage'.

Weird. He's still alive, but I can't see his 'homepage'.

Oh, that's normal. I often find I can't view a member's homepage. The most reliable way to check is to search for his nation on NS. I'll do that now, then edit this post when I find out one way or the other.


EDIT: yep, he's still around.

I already checked him, thanks.

WG, you are going totally over the edge here. Think about this properly. We are not some big pushing power that can afford to haggle with the mods. We're a small union presenting ideas. The union was actually just the finest term we could put it too, it's not even that! You're taking it as if it's 'your destiny' to 'bring the union to salvation' or something. And we need members, if you go crazy, nothing's going to happen. LOOK at people's reactions! I'm sorry, but you've wrecked our reputation almost to the point of no return.

Our best option now is to take Sandpit's advice and combine with the NationStates Reform Party to create the NationStates Reform Alliance. Then we can meet at PCRA central and discuss this in a better manner. If we don't, then we'll just continue to be a small group of quirky posters, viewed wrongly by people as pro-reform 'zealots', until this whole thing dwindles out of existence. There is little point in remaining if this is so. Sorry to say so, but if we do not combine soon, I will leave.

I got a plan! Oooh, ooh! Lets have a party!

This is the adopted agenda...If you want to change the motion priority order...you must call for a vote.

____________________________________________________________
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: Done
6: Motion on this Originally posted by Chinkopodia Accepted

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 suggest that it would be a good idea to skip motions 7 and 8 for the time being. We can't make an informed decision without some input from somebody at Jolt who knows about the workings of the forum.

I suggest that it would be a good idea to skip motions 7 and 8 for the time being. We can't make an informed decision without some input from somebody at Jolt who knows about the workings of the forum.I second that motion

I second that motion
*brain hurts*

What are we doing?? Arrgh!

*brain hurts*

What are we doing?? Arrgh!
he proposed something..(skip 7 and 8) and i seconded him.

now the Chair must call for the vote.
who is the Chair today?

he proposed something..(skip 7 and 8) and i seconded him.

noy the chair must call for the vote.
who is the Chair today?

Er, I think Chinkopedia's been acting as chair for a while. Generally if there's no chair around, somebody steps in to the position.

he proposed something..(skip 7 and 8) and i seconded him.

now the Chair must call for the vote.
who is the Chair today?
Still CP, as far as I know. I'd volunteer, but I have no idea what the chair does (limited debating experience)

Still CP, as far as I know. I'd volunteer, but I have no idea what the chair does (limited debating experience)the Chair coordinates the Votes and can break a tied Vote.

ChikenPi will you please call for the vote on the proposition?

Still CP, as far as I know. I'd volunteer, but I have no idea what the chair does (limited debating experience)

The chair calls for votes on motions, moderates the discussion a little and posts the agenda occasionally to review what stage we're at. I can't remember any other duties, but there probably are some.

Me and CP at the moment.

As so, I decree, for our own good, that we stop WG from interrupting on the line of topic to argue with mods.

Onto 9(a)

Discussion of word Games.

Did we not cover this in spam-lite (that it counts as spam-lite, and we should lobby for spam-lite's allowance)? I'll continue to 9(b), if anyone says otherwise to the previous, we will return to 9(a), so.....

9(b)

Motion by Sandpit 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.

For this, due to member losses, five ayes cliches it.

I say aye - it's to only way to mend our damaged repuation, albeit with flimsy tape.

(WG, you are going totally over the edge here. Think about this properly. We are not some big pushing power that can afford to haggle with the mods. We're a small union presenting ideas. The union was actually just the finest term we could put it too, it's not even that! You're taking it as if it's 'your destiny' to 'bring the union to salvation' or something. And we need members, if you go crazy, nothing's going to happen. LOOK at people's reactions! I'm sorry, but you've wrecked our reputation almost to the point of no return.

Our best option now is to take Sandpit's advice and combine with the NationStates Reform Party to create the NationStates Reform Alliance. Then we can meet at PCRA central and discuss this in a better manner. If we don't, then we'll just continue to be a small group of quirky posters, viewed wrongly by people as pro-reform 'zealots', until this whole thing dwindles out of existence. There is little point in remaining if this is so. Sorry to say so, but if we do not combine soon, I will leave. )

[Logging off, CP can take over]

Me and CP at the moment.

As so, I decree that...
you canot "decree"...you cannot decide for the rest of us...this is a democracy

If you are the Chair today...will you please Call for a Vote on the ChikenPi proposition

[Logging off, CP can take over]will you please vote before logging off...a Aye or a Nay will do.

Did we not cover this in spam-lite (that it counts as spam-lite, and we should lobby for spam-lite's allowance)? I'll continue to 9(b), if anyone says otherwise to the previous, we will return to 9(a), so.....


No, there was an agreement earlier on that word games have a degree of complexity which should be discussed separately from spam-lite.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391522&page=51&pp=15&highlight=local+8976
Here's the link to a short discussion about word games, which raised some interesting points, such as only allowing a single official word game thread. I think this may be discussed on more detail earlier on in this thread, which I'll check now.

you canot "decree"...you cannot decide for the rest of us...this is a democracy

If you are the Chair today...will you please Call for a Vote on the ChikenPi proposition

Oh yes, that's a good point, OceanDrive.

Okay, I call a vote on my own suggestion to skip motion 7 (more poll options) and motion 8 (search times). If you are in favour post "aye", if you are against post "nay". We need five ayes or nays to decide on it.

I vote AYE

I vote AYE
ditto

I vote "aye".

Chinkopodia?

I think Chinkopodia is gone...

at this point ChikenPi...you count the votes...aprove or reject the motion and...

go on to Motion 9.

Okay, as nobody's complained, we'll move on to motion 9a) - word games.

A few ideas have already put forward on how to implement them:
- having a single official thread for word games.
- making people get union approval for word game threads, or the mods delete them.
- not allowing word games at all

So, does anybody have any new ideas to suggest or anything to add to these ones?

Okay, as nobody's complained, we'll move on to motion 9a) - word games.

A few ideas have already put forward on how to implement them:
- having a single official thread for word games.
- making people get union approval for word game threads, or the mods delete them.
- not allowing word games at all

So, does anybody have any new ideas to suggest or anything to add to these ones?

I believe that one word game at a time would be allowed. The game should have some complexity

Getting union approval is a moot point if one is allowed at a time.

*takes empty Chair*
3Ayes-0Nays
the Ayes have it
ChikenPi motion is adopted.

next item

motion number 9a

9a) motion to discuss word games

this one is a key motion...the Vote is open for the next 24 hours....and the Quorum is 66% of Union membership...
If we dont have a Quorum the time limit is extended for another 24 hours.

Please post your opinions on the subject for the next 24 hours....so we have an informed Vote.

*takes empty Chair*
3Ayes-0Nays
the Ayes have it
ChikenPi motion is adopted.

next item

motion number 9a

9a) motion to discuss word games

this one is a key motion...the Vote is open for the next 24 hours....and the Quorum is 66% of Union membership...
If we dont have a Quorum the time limit is extended for another 24 hours.

Please post your opinions on the subject for the next 24 hours....so we have an informed Vote.

It took me so long to post that...you guys had the time to post twice...
leaves the Chair...*relief*

please disregard my post.

It took me so long to post that...you guys had the time to post twice...
leaves the Chair...*relief*

please disregard my post.

No, carry on, Its good to have a few experienced chairs about.

I really have to go,

I am neutral on 9a

I vote Nay on 9b (nothing personal, I just dont know much about the NSRP)

I really have to go,

I am neutral on 9a

I vote Nay on 9b (nothing personal, I just dont know much about the NSRP)

See you.. I'll log your votes, but you might want to wait for the discussion before you vote on 9b.. just a thought

aye on all points

aye on all points

Are you voting yess to the ENTIRE agenda? :D

Are you voting yess to the ENTIRE agenda? :D
Ah.. uhm, well no. I vote for 9a and I'm also in favour of that thingie which already was accepted.

ok, I got it.

Any discussion?

I vote AYE for 9a. I believe one word game at a time should be allowed, given that its interesting. will someone please clarify what the heck the NSRA is, and where the new meeting place they propose is?

I vote AYE for 9a. I believe one word game at a time should be allowed, given that its interesting. will someone please clarify what the heck the NSRA is, and where the new meeting place they propose is?

NSRA = NationStates Reform Party

Disclaimer: I am NOT advertizing I am answering a question

Link (http://s6.invisionfree.com/PCRA_Central/index.php?act=idx)

For 9(a), I vote aye - so that one, possibly two word games would be allowed at a time, perhaps having to be mod/NSL[NSRA if 9b is passed]-approved.

So 3 ayes for 9a at present....2 more and it's passed.

9a Aye (you knew that was comming) :)

one more vote and we can move on..

Okay, I vote aye, just to pass the item. We can probably discuss the implementation of it in further detail in other meetings.

9 a) is passed with some discussion to follow

on to

9(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.

For this, due to member losses, five ayes cliches it.

I say aye - it's to only way to mend our damaged repuation, albeit with flimsy tape.

reposting the agenda

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: Done
6: Motion on this Originally posted by Chinkopodia Accepted

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 Passed (suggest one to be allowed at a time..)

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 say aye, as long as they remain separate entities, allied under The Nationstates Reform Alliance. A couple of people have suggested a complete merger, which I do not think would be beneficial. The name "NS local 8976" is well known, which is valuable however bad our reputation is.

The bad reputation is a myth created by the mOds. ;) Some advertising types say that ANY advertising, even bad press, is good. We have what is refered to as brand recognition. and I feel it should stand.

However an alliance could be useful.

Perhaps we could just agree to using 8976 here and NSRA in that forum..

I vote Nay on 9b (nothing personal, I just dont know much about the NSRP)I trust WG and CP have studied the alliance implications...and I trust their judgement...

so I Change my vote to Aye.

Perhaps we could just agree to using 8976 here and NSRA in that forum..I dont mind using both.
the alliance should benefit both groups.

I trust WG and CP have studied the alliance implications...and I trust their judgement...

so I Change my vote to Aye.

Hmm, you've just given me a thought for later meetings. Perhaps it would be a good idea for somebody to copy key posts about certain issues onto their computer, so they can repost it when it comes to the vote. I'll probably start doing that in future.

Good idea. You want the recording secretary's job?

Two Ayes so far. I'll notify Sandpit at the right time.

I second the nomination for ChickenPi

9b
3 Ayes so far.

After some discussion the motion is changed to read:

Please discuss

b) Motion
That NS Local 8976 and the NationStates Reform Party (NSRP) be allied 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.

I second the above motion.

I vote Aye for the reformed 9b

2 for

To make it perfectly clear Please revote as the discussed changes are in the motion

I vote Aye for 9b.

aya on 9b

I vote aye for 9b.

I also vote aye for 9b.

That's 6 ayes, a firm YES to the motion.

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.

I think we should either have, for this:

Aye
Nay
Comp (compromise)*

*Being that we should continue here AND there.

Due to more choices, 4 ayes does it.

I vote Comp.

Currently 9 C looks like this:

9 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.

I'm not so sure about this one. Meeting in secret kinda puts me in mind of what the mOds do... Meet privately, announce the ruling.. I don't think this will achieve the desired result.

With the mOds watching democracy in action, we might achieve better results..

I will hold off voting for now, I want to hear your views.

Currently 9 C looks like this:



I'm not so sure about this one. Meeting in secret kinda puts me in mind of what the mOds do... Meet privately, announce the ruling.. I don't think this will achieve the desired result.

With the mOds watching democracy in action, we might achieve better results..

I will hold off voting for now, I want to hear your views.

We can't tell the mods everything we're doing. It would be like the La Resistance telling Hitler which telegram lines were going to be cut on D-Day.

We can't tell the mods everything we're doing. It would be like the La Resistance telling Hitler which telegram lines were going to be cut on D-Day.

Except they didn't have to ask Hitler for permission if they wanted to cut some telegram lines. If we want to actually implement an idea, we need to put it past the mods first.

I think we should either have, for this:

Aye
Nay
Comp (compromise)*

*Being that we should continue here AND there.

Due to more choices, 4 ayes does it.

I vote Comp.

I think a compromise would be a good idea. It certainly wouldn't be a good idea to vote entirely in secret, as it would give people the impression that we aren't active. So, is this PCRA Central an entirely separate forum? That would be very handy for discussion, as we could have new threads for each topic of discussion, before voting on it here. That could stop threads from getting cluttered up.

Thus, I vote comp.

I think a compromise would be a good idea. It certainly wouldn't be a good idea to vote entirely in secret, as it would give people the impression that we aren't active. So, is this PCRA Central an entirely separate forum? That would be very handy for discussion, as we could have new threads for each topic of discussion, before voting on it here. That could stop threads from getting cluttered up.

Thus, I vote comp.


It is a seperate forum. It's full of mOds and their cronies..

By the way, are we planning to start a "press release" thread when this meetings over? Really, our reputation is in the toilet.

I've been reading through this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398092&page=1&pp=15) thread and the general consensus seems to be that we are completely futile (which I'm semi-inclined to agree with at the moment).

...
I've been reading through this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398092&page=1&pp=15) thread and the general consensus seems to be that ...."general consensus" ???

"general consensus" ???

A lot of people agree that we're pointless, basically.

No. This union is going places. Meetings get a little dry at times. Once this is done and we have a few guidelines and protocols in place we should hold a rally! People like loud rallies.. Drums and stuff!...

Well, if we form the NSRA and do some publicity things and convince people what our intentions are and that things went a little bit haywire (most people seem to belive we want a workers' rebellion :rolleyes: ), then possibly things might get up again....

Current votes for Headquarters are as such:

Aye: 0
Nay: 0
Compromise: 2

And so going to 4 ayes....WG, what's your opinion?

aye

I think thatwe should stay here but have an understanding with PCRA. That plae seems to be dying at the moment. There has not been 6 posts in as many days.

WG has voted to the effect of comp, that's four, and FINALLY the vote is passed.

So, onto 10: Motion on tactics:

What here? We've pretty much sorted this one, right?

ehm... sure.

What here? We've pretty much sorted this one, right?

I'm not sure it is completely sorted. There is still some disagreement over whether or not the union should take a moderate or hardline approach.

This threads needs more little yellow stars. :(

I suggest we pick one tactic and talk about the pros, cons and effectivess..
Then we can narrow the list and pick some tactics we can agree on..

OK: First tactic: Going crazy

Pros: Nothing
Cons: Everything
Effectiveness: Negative

So no more of THAT. ;)

2nd tactic: Putting forwards ideas to the Mods explaining pros, taking public polls over it, presenting all of the evidence for it, and seeing what they think.

Pros: Viewing in a better light, a possibility the mods will actually read it.
Cons: The mods won't necessarily agree with our ideas, but then they never will regardless, unless we hold Myrth hostage, which is never a good idea. :p
Effectiveness: Probably the best we [i]can have.

Third Tactic: Use the PCRA under the NSRA to dicuss stuff.

Pros: It will allow us to discuss things in secrecy and without mod intervention, thus stopping any meetings etc. being sidetracked.
Cons: It doesn't spread AS MANY of our ideas to the normal NSers in the 'production stage'. (AS MANY being because we're still using here due to the last vote's results)
Effectiveness: Very Good, and regardless, how many NSers are reading this at the moment? 0. :p

Ok, first post in here, but whatever.

I like the third tactic. If we use a seperate forum, I think it would be easier to organize rather than having one thread or many in a rather large forum, thus making them rather difficult to find. But, I do think we should put things out here as well. I also agree with the second tactic, in that we can form a united front maybe to get back to the "old" NS (up to early 2004).

.... unless we hold Myrth hostage....
I like Myrth...so I vote a big fat NO on that one.

...the mods will actually read it.....so far the mods come to read only when WordGames is postiong...

a lot of mods (it makes me jealous) :D

.... It will allow us to discuss things in secrecy and without mod intervention, thus stopping any meetings etc. being sidetracked....the other forum is good for that...other options are:

Best way to hold an important secret vote is ...Email...and all members can vote...no Quorum legitimacy problem.

best way to hold a secret meeting is tru MSN.

OK: First tactic: Going crazy [i.e - "WG and the m0ds"]

Pros: Nothing
Cons: Everything
Effectiveness: Negative


so far...I think all tactic are good.

and "WG vs The m0ds" it is not a tactic...
it was more about WG standing his ground.

Chinkopodia if you have issues against WG I think you should E-mail him...

your public Criticism of the Founder of the Union...is only going to Weaken the Union.

the other forum is good for that...other options are:

Best way to hold an important secret vote is ...Email...and all members can vote...no Quorum legitimacy problem.

best way to hold a secret meeting is tru MSN.

What about those of us who lack MSN (and it slows down my computer so I'm not getting it)?

your public Criticism of the Founder of the Union...is only going to Weaken the Union.

I don't have issues against him and I know it's not a real tactic, it's just the example of that is in the event which I dob "WG and the m0ds". Basically, that was saying, in a slightly funnier manner, that we really don't want to wind up the mods. :rolleyes:

I lack MSN too...and e-mail's a bit too private.

so far...I think all tactic are good.

and "WG vs The m0ds" it is not a tactic...
it was more about WG standing his ground.
Chinkopodia if you have issues against WG I think you should E-mail him...

your public Criticism of the Founder of the Union...is only going to Weaken the Union.


Thank you Brother Ocean.

I don't have issues against him and I know it's not a real tactic, it's just the example of that is in the event which I dob "WG and the m0ds". Basically, that was saying, in a slightly funnier manner, that we really don't want to wind up the mods. :rolleyes:

I lack MSN too...and e-mail's a bit too private.

Speaking for yourself of course, I rather like to poke-em. I am trying to get-em thinking.

But that's not ACTUALLY going to get us anywhere - trial and improvement has shown that about 5-10 pages ago. :p

Any more tactics, or can we move on?

I think we need more marketing, a catchy slogan,... such things.

A catchy slogan can be something we'll discuss in the main NS Local thread rather than here - that would be more of a brainstorming than anything else.

Otherwise, we should, for now, after this meeting, make....err...."consumer polls", asking people what they would want introduced.

"We poll, we push!" Possible Consumer Marketing Slogan? ;)

Haken?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391522&page=53&pp=15

We'll discuss it there. Any more tactics?

Chicken Pi has been on and hasn't had anything else to say, and I think we've pretty much sorted tactics. So, unless anyone has anything else to say, we'll move on to....

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

I shall do just that. Referr to topic made.

12: Other Business:

Any?

I'm just here for the cookies really.

What about a membership drive? How about a rally?

I think that once we choose a slogan, and a negotiation comitee, memebers will start comming back. A rally sounds fun...what exactly do you propose?

How do you do a rally without looking like complete reform zealots? :p

Nice idea. But as Kreitzmoorland said, what do you propose?

[this sort of discussion's really for the main thread...we're discussing slogans there]

I like this slogan!!

Chairman, a point of order..

Can I still bring up an item of new business?

I would just like to say that I have started to create a platform for the NSRP (the link is in my sig) and I would like to invite all of you to provide suggestions.

However, my computer is down, so I may not be able to respond as quickly. If that is the case, please be patient.

Ok then the Chair left so I'll slip in.

I have a new item.

Should we ask the mOds for Avatars? The Jolt guy get them after 5000. The mOds keep them to theirselves. Greedy selfish mOds, we want the precious Avatars too..

GW, the time has come to stop with this anti-mod rhetoric, it REALLY isn't constructive.
Avatars might be fun, but they have been dissalowed (along with images in sigs) in NationStaes from the begining. I have feeling that this is a futile point to lobby the mods over, but by all means, let the debate begin.

Would you not want a nice avatar?

There's a good reason too: bandwidth.

[/rare contribution]

There's a good reason too: bandwidth.

[/rare contribution]

Ok so why do they get-em?

What's banwidth? [/technical boorishness]

What's banwidth? [/technical boorishness]

The pings of people... more people+more images=slow forums.

Ok so why do they get-em?

Because mods are a select group, however tyrannical, and they have earned it.

What's banwidth? [/technical boorishness]

The speed I guess..

http://www.sixten.bizland.com/Avatars/avatar.jpg

If I could have an Avatar I would use this

http://www.sixten.bizland.com/Avatars/avatar.jpg

If I could have an Avatar I would use this

http://www.sixten.bizland.com/Avatars/avatar.jpg

It's kind of large. However, it would be nice if we could use our nation's flags or other images (with reasonable sizes, say 64x64 or somewhere around there) as a avatar...but, bandwith comes into play.

NS has alot of users, and that many images on this server would cause massive amounts of lag and such. (like the old forums were, but caused because of images and not a crappy server)

We've already had a discussion on avatars in this meeting I think, and came to the same conclusion. Any more business?

[OFF-DISCUSSION]Look! THIS is what the union is supposed to do! Look at this post on the "Possible NS Social Thread?" topic! :p

I'll think this idea over and discuss it with the other Mods. Note that I can't make any promises, though.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

We're starting to be noticed! Ah cn' feeel it in mah bohnes![/OFF-DISCUSSION]

The avatar thing could be slightly [/underexageration] damaging to the server and create a tad bit [/another underexageration] of lag. Plus, I don't think there ever was a time where there were avatars. Though I do remember some people (Letila was one) who had small images in their sigs.

We could ask about them..

We could ask about them..

It's been asked before, and the official line is that they use up too much bandwidth.

So why do Jolt Spammers and mOds Get them?

Don't give-em to ANYONE!

So why do Jolt Spammers and mOds Get them?

Don't give-em to ANYONE!

I think it varies from forum to forum. Plus, the moderators are a small group of people who monitor the forums. Besides, their avatars are all the same.

Let's just leave the avatar thing be for now, the answer will always be a firm 'NO' and noting's going to change that, nice as avatars may be.

I think the lack of ideas pretty much ends Other Business, any objections or last-minute points before we move onto the descision of when to hold the next meeting?

[I think, to make matters easier, after this we should make a summary of the results of each point before finally making the motion to close the meeting, so we can look at our results in one post rather than dispersed through the topic]

If you are chairing this part of the meeting, you can't just announce a decision. All matters get voted on. You get a chance to voice your opinion and call for a vote.

I never did, did I? "I think" is an opinion.

here

Let's just leave the avatar thing be for now, the answer will always be a firm 'NO' and noting's going to change that, nice as avatars may be.
I think the lack of ideas pretty much ends Other Business, any objections or last-minute points before we move onto the descision of when to hold the next meeting?

[I think, to make matters easier, after this we should make a summary of the results of each point before finally making the motion to close the meeting, so we can look at our results in one post rather than dispersed through the topic]

That's a suggestion, not a descision.

Try to take it a step at a time. Call for a vote before moving on. If you want to talk about all the other stuff use the other thread.


Avatars are on the floor for discussion, you vote before moving on.

Very well - up to 3 ayes, shall we move on now?

Aye.

Very well - up to 3 ayes, shall we move on now?

Aye.

Please restate the motion so its clear what we are voting on.

Shall we move on from Other Business to "Picking a time for our next meeting?"

Up to 4 Ayes or Nays.

I vote Aye.

I vote Aye.

*we need to cool off*

*dont need anymore "heat"*

When did we vote on avatars?

Mr Chairman, I propose that:

to adjourn the meeting 3 votes are enough.

When did we vote on avatars?he Proposed to discuss the issue later.

Let's just leave the avatar thing be for now...
there...

Also he Proposed to adjourn the meeting...

I have to go...If there is an urgent issue, please tell me...I could give advance vote.

There are three seperate items here



1) >>> Let's just leave the avatar thing be for now, the answer will always be a firm 'NO' and noting's going to change that, nice as avatars may be.

2) >>> I think the lack of ideas pretty much ends Other Business, any objections or last-minute points before we move onto the descision of when to hold the next meeting?

3) >>> [I think, to make matters easier, after this we should make a summary of the results of each point before finally making the motion to close the meeting, so we can look at our results in one post rather than dispersed through the topic]

If we conduct business in this manner the slogan "Your union your way" is just words. We have to mean it. There are alot of issues we voted on that I personally don't agree with. They are still on the platform as this is a democracy.

Signing out.

1) >>> Let's just leave the avatar thing be for now, the answer will always be a firm 'NO' and noting's going to change that, nice as avatars may be.

<< AYE on..."we can discuss this later".
<< NAY on..."the answer will always be NO"...we should never close the door ourselves.

2) << Aye

3) << Aye

Bye guys, be pacient with each other...The Union is counting on you.

Protocol and procedure is important. I see Brother Chink has signed off, we can take this up later.

If we conduct business in this manner the slogan "Your union your way" is just words. We have to mean it. There are alot of issues we voted on that I personally don't agree with. They are still on the platform as this is a democracy.

Understood, yet I see no point in pursuing futilities that will, overall, only stop us from acheiving other, more reachable changes.

OceanD, you're right, 3 ayes is enough. Vote changed to 3 ayes. Also, I'm not saying necessarily we should close the door ourselves, but at least for "Other Business". Who said this wouldn't be brought up at another point? (and it invariably will, I suppose)

2 ayes, WG has yet to vote.

I vote "nay" for the union slogan. I like the 'your union, your way' section but not the 'fighting for forum freedom'. We're meant to be getting rid of our reputation as nutcases, not perpetuating it.

Remember the history of 8976. If it were not for a hairbrained nut job you would all be posting alone. Now you are a part of something much bigger, something that's growing is destined to do great things.

We really shouldn't dig up the skeletons, but I must comment that wasn't it that hair-brained nutjob who LOST us two members, not gained? ;)

In terms of the slogan, how about changing "Fighting for forum freedom" to "Making your voice heard"? It's certainly more accurate. WG, what do you think?

Also, as the chairman, I will temporarily stop the vote to move on to summary, picking next meeting and adjournment of the meeting to allow another vote (chairmen can control which votes, I think) on the rally, being:

Shall we have a rally?

Aye
Nay
Make it an 'office party'

Up to 3 ayes, and when this is done, we can continue with the other vote.

I vote for the Office Party. :)

aye


Who were the two lost members?

aye


Who were the two lost members?

The ones who left just after the vote of "no confidence"? They were Neo-Anarchists and The Slaglands.

Remember the history of 8976. If it were not for a hairbrained nut job you would all be posting alone. Now you are a part of something much bigger, something that's growing is destined to do great things.

I was not calling you a nutjob, WG. However, we cannot avoid the fact that many people seem to think that we are.

The ones who left just after the vote of "no confidence"? They were Neo-Anarchists and The Slaglands.
NUUUUUUUUUUU!

*wakes up in pool of beer*

What's the debate?

Well, we're currently having a vote on whether or not we should have an NS 'rally' - for more info see the main NS Local topic.

The choices are

Aye, we should
Nay
Make it an 'office party' (which would be less extreme)

Currently it's one to the latter, and the first to three votes passes the vote.

Well, we're currently having a vote on whether or not we should have an NS 'rally' - for more info see the main NS Local topic.

The choices are

Aye, we should
Nay
Make it an 'office party' (which would be less extreme)

Currently it's one to the latter, and the first to three votes passes the vote.
Lets see, lets see...I like office parties (for the beer and 'socialising') but I don't like the fact that it's got office in the name... :p

On the other hand, I like rallies because I get to sout slogans at the corrupt establishment, but I REALLY don't like the water cannons and beanbag shotguns....

I'll vote 'office party'.

One more vote and office party gets it.... :)

I vote "office party", too.

*buys office party paraphanaelia*

To the office, and BEER!

Vote passed, 'Office Party' it is.

Back to the vote to move onto the summary and deciding when the next meeting is -

2 ayes at the moment. 3 votes wins.

Arrgh.

Oops, sorry. I got confused between seaman and pirate again

Que? :confused:

Oh, let's just carry on with the vote. One more Aye and we can move on.

I vote "aye", just to move the meeting on.

Very well, vote passed. This now moves us on to

13: Next meeting

Personally, I believe that we should hold one on a regular basis, because there's never a 'bad' or 'good' time for a meeting. How about one a month, because it's taken about a month for the course of this meeting so far (or at least, 27 days, and that's one less day than the number of days in this month) - so we could have a break about as long as each meeting takes, and then have another one. Or do we need more?

PS: Could someone try and rack up a summary of our descisions on each motion please? I'll do it if no-one else wants to, but I'm a bit busy at the moment. :)

Very well, vote passed. This now moves us on to

13: Next meeting

Personally, I believe that we should hold one on a regular basis, because there's never a 'bad' or 'good' time for a meeting. How about one a month, because it's taken about a month for the course of this meeting so far (or at least, 27 days, and that's one less day than the number of days in this month) - so we could have a break about as long as each meeting takes, and then have another one. Or do we need more?


I think we should hold a meeting whenever we have enough issues to discuss, and when we've come up with an agenda. It would be a good idea to make sure that there's a reasonably long break between meetings, though.

EDIT: I'll do the summary at some point.

EDIT: I'll do the summary at some point.

Thanks. :D

Thanks. :D

*sigh* In future I'm going to keep some kind of record of the more important decisions. It'll save a lot of trawling through threads.


EDIT:It'll be done by this evening.

Yeah, that's probably a good idea.

Now, any more ideas on how we should decide when the next meeting should be? How about......

We have a new meeting when new ideas come up, but we don't have a meeting in the amount of time after the meeting which is equal to how long the meeting took?

sounds good. Lets scedule the next meeting for Sunday, March 20th.
keep posting agenda ideas on THIS THREAD, and I'll put them together into an scedule for the next meeting, and start a new thread then.

However, we should have our office party well before the next meeting, so that hopefully, there will be more members by that time.

BTW, is Ocean still in the Union? I havn't seen him for a while

Wouldn't spacing between meetings delay the addressing of issues that could be important, and may be forgotten? Would we have emergency meetings? How would members be notified of future meetings?

One more thing, I was looking for the list of members we compiled a while ago, but couldn't find it, what thread is it in?
I thought it would be a good Idea to send a telegram to everyone advising them of the office party, free drinks, unvailing of our statute, and summary of the previous meeting, and encouraging their attendance and renewed contribution.

Wouldn't spacing between meetings delay the addressing of issues that could be important, and may be forgotten? Would we have emergency meetings? How would members be notified of future meetings?
You have a point San, maybe a sooner date would be preferable. But I think it sould be set, say, march 10th? I will let everyone know when I start the new thread by telegram, (if I find that damned list)... of course, it also depends if we have enough agenda points byt that time.

Any ideas ppl have, post them here, and they will be added to next meeting's agenda!

Okay, I'm done with the summary. If you've got any suggestions, I'll add them.

Summary of agenda

1: Nominations for Chair (Chair will rotate as required)
Originally I was nominated for chair, although I quickly passed the position on to WG, as I was about to go to bed. Later in the meeting we decided not to have a formal chair, and to simply have a member take up the responsibility if there is nobody online currently acting as chair.

2: 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.


3: Approval of agenda: (chance to place items on agenda)
The agenda was approved. During the course of this motion, it was suggested that the meeting be moved to an IRC channel, #NS_local_8976. Although the vote was passed, too few members logged on to the IRC channel to make it a practical method of discussing motions.

4: Motion on spam lite: Discussion..word the motion..vote on it..
This was a long discussion. During this, it was decided that word games would be discussed in a separate motion and several definitions of spam-lite were put forward.
-The Slaglands suggested that it be defined as "decent, but not as good as regular Spam, even though it all fries up the same."
- I suggested that spammy threads could be limited by making people go to the union for permission to start one. Realising the impracticality of this in regards to spam threads, I suggested that this would be a better method to use with word game threads, to be discussed in motion 9(b).
-The discussion about spam also brought up the issue of social threads. The idea of having a single general social thread was brought up, and a separate thread was started to gauge people’s reaction to the idea. According to Cogitation, this proposal is being discussed amongst the mods.

We agreed upon Word Games’ of spam-lite: “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.”

5: Motion on mOds selection:
-It was agreed that democratic mod elections would be impractical, for various reasons.
-A People’s Choice Mod Awards thread was suggested.
-As an alternative to direct elections, it was suggested that the union could put together a list of suitable candidates to be mods, which the mods could decide upon.
- Somebody suggested having a union representative on the mod team, perhaps with some form of limited access in order to protect OPSEC. Word Games and Haken Rider were nominated as potential candidates, but in the end we decided that we should finish the meeting and implement a couple of our other ideas first.
-During the course of this, a vote of “no confidence” in Word Games was held. This was passed with four “ayes”.
-As a result of the vote of “no confidence”, Sandpit suggested that we completely scrap the name “NS local 8976” and merge with the NSRP under the name “Nationstates Reform Alliance”. This was rejected, however.

6: Motion on the NS Board Oath
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.

-This motion was not passed. Although there were more ayes than nays, it did not reach the required number of 7 ayes. Also, several members protested, saying that they would quit if they had to take any oaths.


7: Motion on more poll options:
- After a short discussion, we decided to skip motions 7 and 8 until such time as we are better informed about why we only have 10 poll options and whether it would be feasible to have this changed.

8: Motion on search times:
- This motion was skipped along with motion 7, as we would need to talk to somebody at Jolt to be reliably informed about this.

9: Other Motions?
a) Word games
-The general consensus was that unlimited word games should not be allowed, as the forum would be flooded with them. A few of the suggestions were: 1) Having a single thread for all word games. Any word games outside of this thread would be deleted. 2) making people get union approval for word game threads. 3) Only allowing one word game at a time, which would have to be a game with a reasonable degree of complexity. 4) Just not allowing word games at all.
-Although the exact method in which word games would be implemented was not decided upon, allowing one word game at a time seemed to be the most popular method.

b) NSRP

[QUOTE=Word Games] b) Motion
That NS Local 8976 and the NationStates Reform Party (NSRP) be allied 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.


-Firstly, I feel that it is important to note the purpose of the NSRP. According to Sandpit, “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”
-This vote was passed unanimously. All members are encouraged to become members of the NSRA forum (http://s6.invisionfree.com/PCRA_Central/index.php?showforum=25) , if they haven’t already.


c)
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.

- It was decided that there should be a compromise on this one. Accepting this proposal would have meant that NS local 8976 would effectively cease to operate in the Nationstates forums, while declining it would have meant that we would not have a separate forum to use, should we so wish. Most members voted for a compromise, so we will make use of both forums.

10: Motion on tactics:
Chinkopodia summarised this effectively


-first tactic snipped-
2nd tactic: Putting forwards ideas to the Mods explaining pros, taking public polls over it, presenting all of the evidence for it, and seeing what they think.

Pros: Viewing in a better light, a possibility the mods will actually read it.
Cons: The mods won't necessarily agree with our ideas, but then they never will regardless, unless we hold Myrth hostage, which is never a good idea.
Effectiveness: Probably the best we can have.

Third Tactic: Use the PCRA under the NSRA to dicuss stuff.

Pros: It will allow us to discuss things in secrecy and without mod intervention, thus stopping any meetings etc. being sidetracked.
Cons: It doesn't spread AS MANY of our ideas to the normal NSers in the 'production stage'. (AS MANY being because we're still using here due to the last vote's results)
Effectiveness: Very Good, and regardless, how many NSers are reading this at the moment? 0.

It was generally agreed that both tactics have their good and bad points, so we need not limit ourselves to a single method of bringing about change.

11: Motion on negotiating team: (Suggest we have a meeting just for these nominations)
A separate thread was made for this. Chinkopodia, myself and Oceandrive were nominated for the negotiating team.
As to our method of negotiation, Chinkopodia suggested that we “would we make a topic in Moderation or something after each meeting explaining what we want and so putting forwards suggestions to the mods, then discussing with them on the topic the issues, or some other way?”

12: Other Business:
- It was suggested that we come up with a union slogan. Some of the ideas put forward were:
Fighting for forum freedom – your union, your way
Making your voice heard – your union, your way

- Avatars were also brought up in this section. We decided that these would be discussed in more detail in another meeting.

- Some kind of union rally/social thread was suggested. The original proposal was to have a rally, but we decided that a union office party would be better.


Okay, I guess this fits in the category of "other business", although it was written after that section of the meeting was wrapped up. Here is the NS local 8976 Mission Statute, written by Kreitzmoorland:

The Mission Statute of NS Local 8976

We, the as members of the general forum, have come together as a union to form the democratic collective of NS Local 8976. The Union shall reflect the wishes of its membership through a democratic process, thereby maintaining the true principles of modship, addressing issues of proletarian concern, and exerting the strength of the collective for the furtherment of the rights and innovations of its membership, and those of General’s posters at large. The Union shall welcome new brothers and sisters to its ranks with open arms; howsoever loyal members gather in unity, NS local 8976 shall carry forth its mission. Members will signal their commitment to the Union by stating its name in their signatures, and actively participating in the forging, strengthening, and shaping of the Union: discussion of issues and ideas; participation in membership meetings and events; and a commitment to the mission statement. Local 8976 is committed to organizing with fellow posters, improving quality of forum-life, and offering creative and thoughtful ideas to our peers, and respected m0ds, in a manner respectful of all brothers and sisters, and in an environment conductive to debate and challenge from all quarters.

MISSION STATEMENT: To improve the quality of the NS General Forum through collective action, innovation, and open, democratic means.

13: Next meeting:
This is in progress. These are the basic points so far:
- We should hold meetings on a regular basis. Once a month would be good, although it may be a good idea to have a break between meetings, probably the same length as an average meeting (about 27 days?)
- If there are important issues which need to be decided upon, it would be a good idea to hold emergency meetings.
- Chinkopodia suggested that we discuss various motions for the next meeting in PCRA Central.

14: Motion to close meeting:
The meeting has not yet reached this point.

(if I find that damned list)

Haken Rider
Word Games
Chinkopodia
Kreitzmoorland
Oceandrive
San Texario
Stephistan
Nihilistic Beginners
Mdn
Saetans Army
BLARGistania
The Burnsian Desert
Right Thinking Whites
Mentholyptus
The Tribes of Longton
Witzgall
Antebellum South
Sandpit
-The Prophet-

Here's the list. I'm not sure if a couple of them are still members, but their sigs said "NS local 8976" when I looked through the union thread.

Can we please omit join-nazi-europe, I honestly do not feel comfortable asking him to get re-involved in the union.

Also, before this meeting closes, lets vote on wether to officially adopt the statute. Mr. Chairman, I propose that this statute be adopted as the core policy of Local 8976, to be accepted by all new members in principle, jointly with the Union oath.

The Mission Statute of NS Local 8976

We, the as members of the general forum, have come together as a union to form the democratic collective of NS Local 8976. The Union shall reflect the wishes of its membership through a democratic process, thereby maintaining the true principles of modship, addressing issues of proletarian concern, and exerting the strength of the collective for the furtherment of the rights and innovations of its membership, and those of General’s posters at large. The Union shall welcome new brothers and sisters to its ranks with open arms; howsoever loyal members gather in unity, NS local 8976 shall carry forth its mission. Members will signal their commitment to the Union by stating its name in their signatures, and actively participating in the forging, strengthening, and shaping of the Union: discussion of issues and ideas; participation in membership meetings and events; and a commitment to the mission statement. Local 8976 is committed to organizing with fellow posters, improving quality of forum-life, and offering creative and thoughtful ideas to our peers, and respected m0ds, in a manner respectful of all brothers and sisters, and in an environment conductive to debate and challenge from all quarters.

MISSION STATEMENT: To improve the quality of the NS General Forum through collective action, innovation, and open, democratic means.

That's great! However, I have one complaint - my name's Chinkopodia! 'Chinkopedia' makes me sound like some sort of monetary encyclopedia! :p

sounds good. Lets scedule the next meeting for Sunday, March 20th.
keep posting agenda ideas on THIS THREAD, and I'll put them together into an scedule for the next meeting, and start a new thread then.

However, we should have our office party well before the next meeting, so that hopefully, there will be more members by that time.

BTW, is Ocean still in the Union? I havn't seen him for a while

I don't think an EXACT date is a good idea, we need a bit of flexibility. I think that a thread for a fully fledged meeting hould be kept until about a month after the last meeting, and then we can allow flexibility for when we have it after then, but for ideas that need discussing immediately in another topic, those should be made - I'd advise on the NSRA forum (PCRA I think), so as not to clutter up NS. It's really just the fully fledged meeting we're discussing. I don't think that we should continue posting ideas afterwards on here - the main NS Local thread is the brainstorming ideas 'factory', this is simply where we have discussed initial ideas put forwards and taken our stances on them. Although it may be a good idea to keep a record of what ideas are put forwards, the make it easier to make them into an agenda.

Yes, I suggested having it soon after this meetings has finished.

I haven't seen him online much, so I doubt it's that he's left....

That's great! However, I have one complaint - my name's Chinkopodia! 'Chinkopedia' makes me sound like some sort of monetary encyclopedia! :p


Christ, I've been reading your name as "Chinkopedia" for months!


By the way, I think the mission statute is brilliant, Kreitzmoorland. I can think of nothing to add to that.

That's great! However, I have one complaint - my name's Chinkopodia! 'Chinkopedia' makes me sound like some sort of monetary encyclopedia! :p



I don't think an EXACT date is a good idea, we need a bit of flexibility. I think that a thread for a fully fledged meeting hould be kept until about a month after the last meeting, and then we can allow flexibility for when we have it after then, but for ideas that need discussing immediately in another topic, those should be made - I'd advise on the NSRA forum (PCRA I think), so as not to clutter up NS. It's really just the fully fledged meeting we're discussing. I don't think that we should continue posting ideas afterwards on here - the main NS Local thread is the brainstorming ideas 'factory', this is simply where we have discussed initial ideas put forwards and taken our stances on them. Although it may be a good idea to keep a record of what ideas are put forwards, the make it easier to make them into an agenda.

Yes, I suggested having it soon after this meetings has finished.

I haven't seen him online much, so I doubt it's that he's left....
Heeh, I've allways pronounced it as Chinkopedia in my head too...sorry.
I don't care whwere people post the new agenda items, the NS local 8976 thread is just as good, as is the NSRA forum, which I have yet to find. Just as long as people post ideas so they can be collected before the meeting that will start in mid-to late march.
Items to vote on before end of this meeting: 1)Statute 2)time of office party
who's the chair?

I'm the chair at the moment, but it alternates and anyone who wants to pick the position up can.

I also view the mission statute in high regard, and vote a firm aye to the vote I'm about t set up. As Chicen Pi's post obviously implies that he would post Aye in a vote, I'll take it as two ayes. Kreitzmoorland can vote too.

Up to 3 ayes, as usual, 2 ayes so far.

I think that a vote on Office Party time isn't that necessary - we could just decide 'NOW!' when the time is right? Don't you think?

PS: I'm honored that I now have a ritual misspelling of my name...it makes me feel complete as an NSer. :p

EDIT: Kreitzmoorland, the address is: http://s6.invisionfree.com/PCRA_Central/index.php?act=idx

Aye!

And the statute is passed!

Do you think we should have a vote on the time of the 'Office Party' or not?

It looks like we're the only ones online at the moment. lets wait till everyone sees chicken pi's summary (to which the statute should be added,) and simply agree to start the party as soon as this meeting is offically closed.

Stuff to do at party:
-Welcome all Forum users to NS Local 8976
get some upbeat music to jive to- anyone know how to post links to listenable music?
-let everyone know about yummy punch
-post the summary of this meeting & the statute,
-casually chat and recruit folks.
-encourage people to check out the Local 8976 thread and post ideas for next meeting.
-make sure m0ds are welcomed-they get virtual cookies as well as puch.

Yeah - good idea!

The next vote we'll be having is the motion to close the meeting, but yes, we should wait until more members have seen Chicken Pi's summary.

Quick point on the next meeting issue. I'm probably gonna miss most of it. I am a theatre technician intern for a theatre group and I do tech at my school, and I have at least 2 performances per week in the next 3 weeks, so I'm going to be fairly inactive.

That's no problem San, the new meeting probably won't be for a few weeks anyway, and you can contibute whenever you're around. Good to see more members getting involved!

I've added the mission statute to the summary. I put it under "other business" as it didn't really seem appropriate to put it under motion 13 or 14.

That's no problem San, the new meeting probably won't be for a few weeks anyway, and you can contibute whenever you're around. Good to see more members getting involved!


hey there

WHAT!?

Very well, we have decided roughly when to have the next meeting, if there aren't any objctions, shall we move on to the motion to close the meeting?

hey there

Hey WG.

Oh, it's WG.

I think I'll start the vote now - no-one's objected. 4 votes as it's a major one.....

Shall we close the meeting?

I vote "aye" to close the meeting. We can discuss how to implement some of the ideas we've had here in the "NS local 8976" thread.

Aye

Aye.

One more aye needed.

Bump! :p

Aye?

And the meeting is closed! It's been a great meeting, and NOW the ball starts rolling!

Summary of Meeting: (from Chicken Pi)

Summary of agenda

1: Nominations for Chair (Chair will rotate as required)
Originally I was nominated for chair, although I quickly passed the position on to WG, as I was about to go to bed. Later in the meeting we decided not to have a formal chair, and to simply have a member take up the responsibility if there is nobody online currently acting as chair.

2: 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.

3: Approval of agenda: (chance to place items on agenda)
The agenda was approved. During the course of this motion, it was suggested that the meeting be moved to an IRC channel, #NS_local_8976. Although the vote was passed, too few members logged on to the IRC channel to make it a practical method of discussing motions.

4: Motion on spam lite: Discussion..word the motion..vote on it..
This was a long discussion. During this, it was decided that word games would be discussed in a separate motion and several definitions of spam-lite were put forward.
-The Slaglands suggested that it be defined as "decent, but not as good as regular Spam, even though it all fries up the same."
- I suggested that spammy threads could be limited by making people go to the union for permission to start one. Realising the impracticality of this in regards to spam threads, I suggested that this would be a better method to use with word game threads, to be discussed in motion 9(b).
-The discussion about spam also brought up the issue of social threads. The idea of having a single general social thread was brought up, and a separate thread was started to gauge people’s reaction to the idea. According to Cogitation, this proposal is being discussed amongst the mods.

We agreed upon Word Games’ of spam-lite: “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.”

5: Motion on mOds selection:
-It was agreed that democratic mod elections would be impractical, for various reasons.
-A People’s Choice Mod Awards thread was suggested.
-As an alternative to direct elections, it was suggested that the union could put together a list of suitable candidates to be mods, which the mods could decide upon.
- Somebody suggested having a union representative on the mod team, perhaps with some form of limited access in order to protect OPSEC. Word Games and Haken Rider were nominated as potential candidates, but in the end we decided that we should finish the meeting and implement a couple of our other ideas first.
-During the course of this, a vote of “no confidence” in Word Games was held. This was passed with four “ayes”.
-As a result of the vote of “no confidence”, Sandpit suggested that we completely scrap the name “NS local 8976” and merge with the NSRP under the name “Nationstates Reform Alliance”. This was rejected, however.

6: Motion on the NS Board Oath

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.



-This motion was not passed. Although there were more ayes than nays, it did not reach the required number of 7 ayes. Also, several members protested, saying that they would quit if they had to take any oaths.


7: Motion on more poll options:
- After a short discussion, we decided to skip motions 7 and 8 until such time as we are better informed about why we only have 10 poll options and whether it would be feasible to have this changed.

8: Motion on search times:
- This motion was skipped along with motion 7, as we would need to talk to somebody at Jolt to be reliably informed about this.

9: Other Motions?
a) Word games
-The general consensus was that unlimited word games should not be allowed, as the forum would be flooded with them. A few of the suggestions were: 1) Having a single thread for all word games. Any word games outside of this thread would be deleted. 2) making people get union approval for word game threads. 3) Only allowing one word game at a time, which would have to be a game with a reasonable degree of complexity. 4) Just not allowing word games at all.
-Although the exact method in which word games would be implemented was not decided upon, allowing one word game at a time seemed to be the most popular method.

b) NSRP

[QUOTE=Word Games] b) Motion
That NS Local 8976 and the NationStates Reform Party (NSRP) be allied 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.



-Firstly, I feel that it is important to note the purpose of the NSRP. According to Sandpit, “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”
-This vote was passed unanimously. All members are encouraged to become members of the NSRA forum (http://s6.invisionfree.com/PCRA_Central/index.php?showforum=25) , if they haven’t already.


c)

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.



- It was decided that there should be a compromise on this one. Accepting this proposal would have meant that NS local 8976 would effectively cease to operate in the Nationstates forums, while declining it would have meant that we would not have a separate forum to use, should we so wish. Most members voted for a compromise, so we will make use of both forums.

10: Motion on tactics:
Chinkopodia summarised this effectively


-first tactic snipped-
2nd tactic: Putting forwards ideas to the Mods explaining pros, taking public polls over it, presenting all of the evidence for it, and seeing what they think.

Pros: Viewing in a better light, a possibility the mods will actually read it.
Cons: The mods won't necessarily agree with our ideas, but then they never will regardless, unless we hold Myrth hostage, which is never a good idea.
Effectiveness: Probably the best we can have.

Third Tactic: Use the PCRA under the NSRA to dicuss stuff.

Pros: It will allow us to discuss things in secrecy and without mod intervention, thus stopping any meetings etc. being sidetracked.
Cons: It doesn't spread AS MANY of our ideas to the normal NSers in the 'production stage'. (AS MANY being because we're still using here due to the last vote's results)
Effectiveness: Very Good, and regardless, how many NSers are reading this at the moment? 0.


It was generally agreed that both tactics have their good and bad points, so we need not limit ourselves to a single method of bringing about change.

11: Motion on negotiating team: (Suggest we have a meeting just for these nominations)
A separate thread was made for this. Chinkopodia, myself and Oceandrive were nominated for the negotiating team.
As to our method of negotiation, Chinkopodia suggested that we “would we make a topic in Moderation or something after each meeting explaining what we want and so putting forwards suggestions to the mods, then discussing with them on the topic the issues, or some other way?”

12: Other Business:
- It was suggested that we come up with a union slogan. Some of the ideas put forward were:
Fighting for forum freedom – your union, your way
Making your voice heard – your union, your way

- Avatars were also brought up in this section. We decided that these would be discussed in more detail in another meeting.

- Some kind of union rally/social thread was suggested. The original proposal was to have a rally, but we decided that a union office party would be better.


Okay, I guess this fits in the category of "other business", although it was written after that section of the meeting was wrapped up. Here is the NS local 8976 Mission Statute, written by Kreitzmoorland:


The Mission Statute of NS Local 8976

We, the as members of the general forum, have come together as a union to form the democratic collective of NS Local 8976. The Union shall reflect the wishes of its membership through a democratic process, thereby maintaining the true principles of modship, addressing issues of proletarian concern, and exerting the strength of the collective for the furtherment of the rights and innovations of its membership, and those of General’s posters at large. The Union shall welcome new brothers and sisters to its ranks with open arms; howsoever loyal members gather in unity, NS local 8976 shall carry forth its mission. Members will signal their commitment to the Union by stating its name in their signatures, and actively participating in the forging, strengthening, and shaping of the Union: discussion of issues and ideas; participation in membership meetings and events; and a commitment to the mission statement. Local 8976 is committed to organizing with fellow posters, improving quality of forum-life, and offering creative and thoughtful ideas to our peers, and respected m0ds, in a manner respectful of all brothers and sisters, and in an environment conductive to debate and challenge from all quarters.

MISSION STATEMENT: To improve the quality of the NS General Forum through collective action, innovation, and open, democratic means.



13: Next meeting:
This is in progress. These are the basic points so far:
- We should hold meetings on a regular basis. Once a month would be good, although it may be a good idea to have a break between meetings, probably the same length as an average meeting (about 27 days?)
- If there are important issues which need to be decided upon, it would be a good idea to hold emergency meetings.
- Chinkopodia suggested that we discuss various motions for the next meeting in PCRA Central.

14: Motion to close meeting:
The motion to close the meeting was passed unanimously with 4 ayes.