lets fix the voting process.

Ideas ITT

Go

I don't know but everyone thinks it is broken.

I got to you. 

Either get rid of a bunch of voters who haven't posted here since the first day or get rid of the minimum number of votes concept. One or the other really.

I have no vote. My voice needs to be heard!!!1!!1!

I can't vote on mobile. Rather, I haven't found out how to do that from my phone yet. Thus, I often don't vote.

Ass Dan wrote:I can't vote on mobile.  Rather, I haven't found out how to do that from my phone yet.  Thus, I often don't vote.  

Switch to classic view.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I got to you. 

Either get rid of a bunch of voters who haven't posted here since the first day or get rid of the minimum number of votes concept. One or the other really.

Agreed. The only real problems are the non participating members. Ditch them or strip their voting rights.

How about do it like every other election in this country, a simple majority of those that cast their votes. If you don't show up by a certain time and vote you lose your chance to vote. We've been living with 20% voter turnouts since forever, why should this place be any different?

Sparty on brah! wrote:I have no vote. My voice needs to be heard!!!1!!1!

What?

SeeRockCity wrote:I don't know but everyone thinks it is broken.

It's not the time. The time will come.

Cull the herd. Geronte should be active at least weekly.

as long as we don't elect someone mod and then strip them of their mod duties..

  

Some sort of literacy test and voter identification would help.

Set up a special class of Gerontes. Super Gerontes! And, only the Super Gerontes get voting rights.

Or better yet, call them Gerontes Of Distinction. Someone will come up with a good acronym...

NigelUno wrote:Set up a special class of Gerontes.  Super Gerontes!  And, only the Super Gerontes get voting rights.  

Or better yet, call them Gerontes Of Distinction.  Someone will come up with a good acronym...

Gerontes of Distinction = GOD

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Gerontes of Distinction = GOD

or just call us what we are - Degenerates

Wally Fairway wrote:
or just call us what we are - Degenerates

you're being very kind..

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Gerontes of Distinction = GOD

Has a nice ring to it.

I think we need to get rid of the dated two party system

Distinguished Officers of Geriousa = DOGs

I would like to formally announce that I will be forming my own party.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:I would like to formally announce that I will be forming my own party.

Ok Ron Paul.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Ok Ron Paul.

You really should have thought twice before you posted the following...

heat, I told you and SRC both what was killing this place. Some moderation is necessary, as we can see the extremes (too little and too much) kill a board. Make use of the thread move, move overly politicized threads to the off-topic board, warn repeat offenders about turning non-political threads into Wells material or posting political threads on the main board, and you can save tSwill.

Step 1: Remove the "Secretary-General" who makes the rules up as he goes along and would make for a great RCMB mod.

Bizarro Fletch wrote:Step 1: Remove the "Secretary-General" who makes the rules up as he goes along and would make for a great RCMB mod.

Step 2: Only take suggestions from members who post on a regular basis, rather than just show up every other week and think they run the place.

InTenSity wrote:
Step 2: Only take suggestions from members who post on a regular basis, rather than just show up every other week and think they run the place.

Provide better content and people will participate more frequently. Free market, brah.

Bizarro Fletch wrote:Step 1: Remove the "Secretary-General" who makes the rules up as he goes along and would make for a great RCMB mod.

My bad. I didn't realize we could ban people (or vote to ban people) here for no reason at all...which is kind of what tRCMB does.

I have seen the light. Thank you.

???

Tanner was suggested for ban for turning on swill and posted at RCMB.

Roc was suggested for ban for trying to ban Tanner for a poor reason.

You were suggested for ban for failure to post the bans when the requirements were met.

All are "reasons". I don't see where there is a statement of a for-cause reason requiring a material violation of the charter before a ban can be requested. Although perhaps there should be? Or, perhaps leave it like it is an allow the members to ban the guy asking for a ban if it's a stupid reason.

We've discussed culling the herd.

I'm somewhat reluctant to do it before football season, however, we COULD change the inactivity time period to 2 months beginning today. This would allow us to start the culling process after the first few games have taken place.

Could you use the statistics to measure the # of active Germans over the past 30 days and do a simple majority of that number instead of the total number?

SeeRockCity wrote:We've discussed culling the herd.

I'm somewhat reluctant to do it before football season, however, we COULD change the inactivity time period to 2 months beginning today.  This would allow us to start the culling process after the first few games have taken place.

Do you have a way to monitor activity?

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:Could you use the statistics to measure the # of active Germans over the past 30 days and do a simple majority of that number instead of the total number?

Don't think that is possible without a lot of manual labor. I really think the Gerousia should be made up of people who are active on this board. Two months is more than enough time between posts. We all go AWOL once in a while but I don't ever recall being away from the board for more than a few weeks.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:Could you use the statistics to measure the # of active Germans over the past 30 days and do a simple majority of that number instead of the total number?

"Germans".....Freudian slip?   

Nope, no slip. It rolls off the tongue better.

Rook wrote:???

Tanner was suggested for ban for turning on swill and posted at RCMB.

Roc was suggested for ban for trying to ban Tanner for a poor reason.

You were suggested for ban for failure to post the bans when the requirements were met.

All are "reasons".  I don't see where there is a statement of a for-cause reason requiring a material violation of the charter before a ban can be requested.  Although perhaps there should be?  Or, perhaps leave it like it is an allow the members to ban the guy asking for a ban if it's a stupid reason.

Like I said, I didn't realize people could be banned at any time for any reason (which is quite similar to tRCMB)...although there is a voting process here obviously.

I have remedied this egregious mistake.  I hope you accept my sincere apology.

Snake Plissken wrote:
Do you have a way to monitor activity?

Member list. Sort by last post.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:as long as we don't elect someone mod and then strip them of their mod duties..

  

Is that sarcasm? I hope that's not sarcasm. That better not be sarcasm.