blast wrote:
What, deleting the post that was posted by a newly registered user using a proxy in order to troll out a reaction? For the record, I deleted that post, not the GU admins.
For the record, that player, whether his intent was to troll or not, had valuable information for the past 5 years. And I think we can all agree 5 years ago things became the way they are now. And if his intent was to troll, which is completely your bias opinion, you could have handled in a much more mature and civilized way than to abolish his existence and his information. By deleting a post in such a thread as this one, you are not only preventing a possible troll, but you are preventing knowledge/ideas/creative space.
And why is this person considered a troll? He did no more "damage" than what spicy, me or any other player who has posted on this thread done. kierra did not say but one could make a conclusion that she said spicy trolled and had no knowledge. So why was spicy not punished and why did his thread stay? Was it because admins who are part of the discussion found out, oh goodness.
And the huge difference between what happened from spicy's post and what this player said was you forbid feedback. When spicy did or did not troll, kierra and others read it and were able to make their own conclusions. kierra and constistution gave feedback, which was able to lead for further discussion and further opinions made. But you just demolished that further development and you blocked out potential information. Not only did you stop that, but you did not speak one word that said you deleted this player. You could have said "i deleted a post that violated several forum rules, lets please disregard that message and move on to another part of the topic". But you only came forward when I said something about it...and I say this because you posted after him.
SO, I am willing to move on and forget this post and forget this part.
Now to move on, about this voting concept. It needs to be simple. If council members are unable to discuss and be part of a vote, then they are not fulfilling their duties. If they are unable to decide yes or no, then they should be able to vote "undecided". If majority vote undecided, then the topic needs to be re-discussed and reevaluated. Again, if the member is unable to vote for any reason, then they need to 1) Choose another available member to vote for them, or 2) Resign. Its not like you need to make these deadlines 2 hours. You make it 7 days, and by then, each admin
should be able to read and decide their vote.
Also, perhaps there should be a rule that states any final and decided issue cannot be retried for 2 months. Meaning if the admins discuss then vote and decide say HEISENBURG should not have played, then every player and every admin must wait a minimum of 2 months before arguing against that decision and/or trying to change it. This, however, does not go towards "undecided/abstain" majority decisions. Those decisions need to be changed promptly. The goal of this rule will help prevent a "circle" of never ending arguments and get things done. Once its decided, its decided, move on to another topic. After 2 months, (or whenever u decide the length to be) there would have been new experiences/new tests/new thoughts for the next argument.
