|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:26 pm
We have spoken of members in good standing, but have never defined 'good standing'. I open this thread up for discussion on how we should define this. This discussion shall be held according to the constution and will begin once someone posts their name here in the act of signing the petition for this amendment.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:12 pm
I propose this: Quote: Any member that has made at least one post in the each of the past two (2) months and that and has not been voted out of good standing by the board of directors(when we get one) shall be considered in good standing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:17 pm
I propose this: Quote: Any member that has made at least one post in the each of the past two (2) months and that and has not been voted out of good standing by the Crew shall be considered in good standing. I changed The board of directors to crew because we currently have no board of directors and we cannot do anything with it until it exists. If and when Novos gets a board of directors this can change. I think that only active members should be considered in good standing, too long away, and current issues would be too different. This would also encourage members to post at least once per month. I don't belive that is too much to ask. If everybody was that slow, then It would have taken us 5 years to get Novos from how it was in December to how it is now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:15 am
I proposed this: Quote: Any member that has made at least one post in the each of the past two (2) months and that and has not been voted out of good standing by the Crew shall be considered in good standing. I now sugest something more like this: Quote: Any member that is present and has not been voted out of good standing by the Crew, shall be considered in good standing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:32 am
Quote: I now sugest something more like this: Quote: Any member that is present and has not been voted out of good standing by the Crew, shall be considered in good standing. Well, isn't that interesting. If I get your meaning correctly, anyone who show up to vote is considered in good standing, merely because they are present at the the vote. Interesting... That does certainly make it easier on us, we no longer have to track when a user's last post was made on; however, it does present a number of potential problems, such as: If only the votes of members in good standing count, and a member voted on the topic yesterday, does that make his vote not count, because yesterday is not the present? I think the passage needs to be reworded to make its meaning clearer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:46 am
How about this: Quote: Any member that participates in any Party function(such as a vote) and has not been voted out of good standing by the Crew, shall be considered in good standing for the duration that function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:57 am
Myslec How about this: Quote: Any member that participates in any Party function(such as a vote) and has not been voted out of good standing by the Crew, shall be considered in good standing for the duration that function. Oo! Much better! I can accept that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:58 am
Aperium Myslec How about this: Quote: Any member that participates in any Party function(such as a vote) and has not been voted out of good standing by the Crew, shall be considered in good standing for the duration that function. Oo! Much better! I can accept that. But this is even better: Quote: Any member that participates in any Party function(such as a vote) and has not been voted out of good standing by the Crew, shall be considered in good standing for that function and for the duration that function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:59 am
Myslec Aperium Myslec How about this: Quote: Any member that participates in any Party function(such as a vote) and has not been voted out of good standing by the Crew, shall be considered in good standing for the duration that function. Oo! Much better! I can accept that. But this is even better: Quote: Any member that participates in any Party function(such as a vote) and has not been voted out of good standing by the Crew, shall be considered in good standing for that function and for the duration that function. I agree!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:16 am
Aperium The Constitution of the Novos PartyArticle I - AmendmentsAny proposed revision to the constitution must first be submitted to the whole membership by petition of at least two members in good standing. At the completion of the petition, the proposed revision must be subject to a period of discussion and deliberation between thirty (30) and thirty-five (35) days in length and open to all members in good standing. At the end of the deliberation period, a vote must be held with the ability to either confirm or deny the enactment of the revision. All members in good standing must be given the opportunity to vote on the proposed revision over a period of fifteen (15) days, beginning within seven (7) days of the end of the deliberation period. All members in good standing must be notified of the proposed revision and the date of the vote at the start of the deliberation period and again, at the beginning of the voting period. In order for such a proposed revision to be enacted, at least three-fifths (3/5) of all voting members must vote in favor of enacting the proposed revision. If the proposition is denied enactment, the proposition must restart the above process with the petition. I you read that, we only have to notify "members in good standing" about the vote, and only have to allow the "members in good standing" to vote, opening up the possibility that we could block people from voting. The votes of "all voting members" must be counted, so the vote of anyone who votes counts, but we can still block people from voting. This is a problem that I don't know how to solve, except make the term "members in good standing" a very broad term. Despite what I said in my last post, I do not agree with your proposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:21 am
What about this?: Quote: Any member that participates in any Party function(such as a vote) and has not been voted out of voting eligibility by the Crew, shall be considered eligible to vote in that function and for the duration that function. nah, scratch that. How about this?: Quote: Any member that is on the Leaders list shall be considered in good standing. Um... That sounds like only Crew have power. Um...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:41 am
Myslec How about this?: Quote: Any member that is on the Leaders list shall be considered in good standing. Um... That sounds like only Crew have power. Um... Yeah...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:45 am
Aperium Myslec How about this?: Quote: Any member that is on the Leaders list shall be considered in good standing. Um... That sounds like only Crew have power. Um... Yeah... All 'Good Standing' means is that those people have been steadily active enough that it is worth PMing them to alert them of goings on. That means that they get privileges because they earned them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:50 am
Myslec Aperium Myslec How about this?: Quote: Any member that is on the Leaders list shall be considered in good standing. Um... That sounds like only Crew have power. Um... Yeah... All 'Good Standing' means is that those people have been steadily active enough that it is worth PMing them to alert them of goings on. That means that they get privileges because they earned them. Perhaps, but I think that we should alert more that just the select few "core" members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
