|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:15 pm
[Motion] Motion 1:
That all crew log who they invite/admit into the guild into a specially prepared thread.
The OP will contain the member's name and their admission date. After their admission date will be included their status in the guild: Active, inactive, banned, quit in square brackets. Inactive members will be listed as Inactive;Guild or Inactive;Account with a date of their last post here or last post here and login respectively. Banned and Quit status will also have the date of their banning or quit. If the ban is due to inactivity, that will be listed, otherwise just banned. Any mules the account has will be listed under the main account in parentheses:
Bob_Smith :in 1/jan/01 [ban;inactive]
ML_Gore :in 1/jan/01 [inacctive;account post: 18/jun/07 login;18/jun/07] TAGGED FOR KEEPS: EMAILED REQUEST TO REMAIN MEMBER
MManson :in 4/jan/01 [inactive;guild post:12/oct/08] TAGGED FOR BANNING
(PainlessSuicide :in 12/nov/07 [active])
GygaxzGhost :in 5/feb/01 [inactive;account post 4/mar/08 login: 4/mar/08] TAGGED FOR DEIFICATION AND WORSHIP
[Inactive;guild] are those that have not posted here in three months, and [inactive;account] are those that have not logged in in 6 monthhs.
As we see above, Bob_Smith has requested (either through his own volition, or as a reply to a guild email) to remain a member despite his inactivity.
As easily seen, accounts can be tagged, for some reasons. In Gygaxz' case, he is so awesome he needs to be worshipped. In MManson's case, he is tagged for banning because the account is active on the site, while he has a mule that is active in the guild.
In any case, that was just a demonstration of my intention. The banning and such, for whatever reason, is to be voted on another time.
This is not to give any notion of superiority for those who came earlier than others, but to maintain data of activity that all can easily access, so that purges can be done properly, if we so vote, and so we can get a better grasp of activity within the guild.
[/motion]
[Motion] Motion 2:
That all members who have not been active in the last year, and who have less than 15 posts be banned. Those who have not been active in the last 3 months and have not posted at all, be banned.
That the banning message tell them why, and that they can join back up again if they wish once they get active again.
[/motion]
Motion 1:
Yes: 2
Gracchvs
Robson
No: 2
Gallenger
Tank
Motion 2:
Yes: 2
Gracchvs
Robson
No:2
Gallenger
Tank
As with all motions, amendments are welcome, though it is up to the motion's proposer to decide if it is put in.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:08 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:20 am
I think that Motion 1 would involve a lot of time and effort that none of us really have, to systematically compile this list. While interesting in principle, I don't think it's practically feasible...
As to Motion 2... I like the second half, but not the first. Someone who's never posted at all and not been active for the past three months seems fair enough. Anything else as far as kicking I'm still opposed to. Even that, to me, might not be a good idea, because even our inactive membership makes us look like a force to be reckoned with, because it boosts our numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:03 pm
Motion 1 only refers to invites/joining after the motion is passed, and again. If you think it is decent, but think it should be simpler, do tell. Amendments are welcome.
I didn't see any votes there (I only take explicit votes, not general dis/agreement), so I take it you are holding back judgement for now?
And yeah, I am trying to compile that list anyway... For all members.
Who cares about listed size?
If that membership did nothing but sit around here spewing memes and voting in polls for teh hella gold, if would be just as bad as having non-active membership.
The point is to be HONEST.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:38 pm
On the proposals listed in motion 1 I do support it but as Mere has said it is very very tedious. I would be interested to see though if it's possible to start doing it from here on out to new members, that would promote more people posting at least. Giving it an experimental run would be good.
So yes I support motion 1, but simply on a trial to see if it's possible.
Now motion 2, I have no real problem with inflated membership as deceptive as it might be. But I would like to motivate those who haven't posted or been active to come back. I just think a straight banning would be detrimental to that. I imagine there is some middle ground we could find. At least a system of warnings and then maybe some vote on if a banning is warranted or not.
So I think Motion 2 needs to be reviewed and amended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:02 pm
Quote: Now motion 2, I have no real problem with inflated membership as deceptive as it might be. But I would like to motivate those who haven't posted or been active to come back. I just think a straight banning would be detrimental to that. I imagine there is some middle ground we could find. At least a system of warnings and then maybe some vote on if a banning is warranted or not. I disagree heartily. While it may be appropriate for normally active people to get warnings. Apart from the dox I sent you, I have another couple which contain 2-10posts and 11-30posts. If we look at 0-10 posts, we find that is the majority of people here. The majority of the 0-10posters are not just new. They are also inactive. How many are active on gaia? I don't know. Eventually, I will get that info (and update every 2 months). But for now, the fact that they are not active in the guild is enough. They need to be dumped. This is for a 2 reasons: Practical: The corcom needs to do its job without sending off pointless PMs. No doubt, some people will refuse to get active again anyway, but those people, under these rules, would be banned. Ideological: We should not lie to ourselves about our size... s**t... I really need sleep. Will be edited for an argument that don't end mid sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:36 pm
I fail to see how any the above accomplishes anything beyond wasting time.
No
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:00 pm
REDGallenger I fail to see how any the above accomplishes anything beyond wasting time. No Shut down. Let the political grudge matches commence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:09 pm
REDGallenger I fail to see how any the above accomplishes anything beyond wasting time. No Agreed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:51 pm
Quote: I fail to see how any the above accomplishes anything beyond wasting time. If we are to maintain a steady, active membership, we need at least two things: 1: Propaganda appropriate to the ideological climate (and seeing as though this guild has no propaganda, we do not have that) 2: An idea of what our current active strength is. The first motion is to help create context for the second, so we shall deal with that in a moment. The second motion is about kicking people. Plainly said, that is what it is. The question is why. So, why would we want to kick people, and would it be, as Gallenger put forth, a waste of time? I have provided two reasons for kicking people: To get a better idea of our active membership, and to get a more manageable list for sending out mass PMs in the future. For a little effort and time, we can go through the 0post membership, of which I have a list, check their last login, and then ban those that have not loged in in the laast 3 months. And then, check the 15post membership, for their last login and ban those inactive for a year. This will save more effort when it comes to mass PMing in the future, of the sort you voted YES to. By voting no, you are making just that little more work and wasted time for those doing job a job YOU said should be done. But that is only showing inconsistency. If it is a waste of time to maintain manageable membership numbers, then it should be a waste of time to PM the membership to be active, especially when t contains so much inactivity. The point is, for a little effort now, we can maintain better, more accurate membership number, that requires our PMers to send out less pointless PMs. The first motion, gives context to the second motion: When did the person join. That is the main point of it. List the members, their date of membership, and any account status we might know of. With this knowledge, we can periodically go through the admissions, wee if we notice anyone we don't remember, and check their account to see why. With information on when they went inactive listed, we don't have to worry about looking for people who last logged in 3 years ago. And all through that, do we see why I want this? To stop wasting time. Hopefully you will agree that it is a decent idea. Quote: Shut down. Let the political grudge matches commence. You do realize he voted against you on m1, and his reasoning is against your position on m2 (and his own vote on the CorCom, as said above). And while I think his vote here is inconsistent, if it were a political grudge, I think it would have come up around the CorCom. If you want to play, the CorCom thread is now open for just that. Can we please not play here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:44 am
I think perhaps SovietTank and Gallenger should perhaps go more in depth on the reason for disagreements beyond 1 sentence explanation!
Also some alternatives to the current motions would be nice too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:35 am
Gracchvs Quote: I fail to see how any the above accomplishes anything beyond wasting time. If we are to maintain a steady, active membership, we need at least two things: 1: Propaganda appropriate to the ideological climate (and seeing as though this guild has no propaganda, we do not have that) 2: An idea of what our current active strength is. The first motion is to help create context for the second, so we shall deal with that in a moment. The second motion is about kicking people. Plainly said, that is what it is. The question is why. So, why would we want to kick people, and would it be, as Gallenger put forth, a waste of time? I have provided two reasons for kicking people: To get a better idea of our active membership, and to get a more manageable list for sending out mass PMs in the future. For a little effort and time, we can go through the 0post membership, of which I have a list, check their last login, and then ban those that have not loged in in the laast 3 months. And then, check the 15post membership, for their last login and ban those inactive for a year. This will save more effort when it comes to mass PMing in the future, of the sort you voted YES to. By voting no, you are making just that little more work and wasted time for those doing job a job YOU said should be done. But that is only showing inconsistency. If it is a waste of time to maintain manageable membership numbers, then it should be a waste of time to PM the membership to be active, especially when t contains so much inactivity. The point is, for a little effort now, we can maintain better, more accurate membership number, that requires our PMers to send out less pointless PMs. The first motion, gives context to the second motion: When did the person join. That is the main point of it. List the members, their date of membership, and any account status we might know of. With this knowledge, we can periodically go through the admissions, wee if we notice anyone we don't remember, and check their account to see why. With information on when they went inactive listed, we don't have to worry about looking for people who last logged in 3 years ago. And all through that, do we see why I want this? To stop wasting time. Hopefully you will agree that it is a decent idea. Quote: Shut down. Let the political grudge matches commence. You do realize he voted against you on m1, and his reasoning is against your position on m2 (and his own vote on the CorCom, as said above). And while I think his vote here is inconsistent, if it were a political grudge, I think it would have come up around the CorCom. If you want to play, the CorCom thread is now open for just that. Can we please not play here. Grow up The NCS was created as a guild for people of like minds or similar political ideologies to discuss politics. This is not nor was it ever suppose to be an Internet vanguard with faulty idealism. When the NCS first started out it was M-mann, Leningrade is my home, Crivv, and I. All that remain from that is simply me and M. We have been on this site since around what 2004? The point of the matter is that if your trying to get an internet vanguard going you dont have to PM everyone on a user list for those are people who either just look at the guild or simply just dont log on anymore. The people who post are already what you are looking for a steady consistent group. Why go through all this hassle that will produce little if at all any result that we already have now? The NCS was not designed nor is this website/Gaia online designed for an internet vanguard that can be taken seriously in the outside community. Kicking inactives will serve no purpose to what this guild is about. The guild is simply a community of like minds nothing more. If they wish to join and not be active thats fine. The same goes for simply those who quit gaia. Most of us are old dogs on a primarily teenager site, if you want an internet vanguard you can have fun playing in your own internet sandbox with a primarily jail bait user base but as for me Im way to busy IRL organizing my political agenda's same as Gallenger. Most of us are in college now and I come here as I have consistently just for debates, I have no interest in trying to make this guild/website into something its not. Why dont you just start playing with your ignorant IRL masses which you love so much and try to raise there social consciousness instead of trying an Internet vanguard as a mode from escaping there stupidity. Im sick of your bullshit of trying to find a consistent user base which is already there. You simply just dont like the amount and its ******** with your idealism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:20 am
[serious] This is the first time I have actually replied as me, and not as 'Gracchvs.' That is a pretty big thing to do tank. I have been here for a while, and it was your response that made me post, and not who I pay as online. Rather decent post for once, tank. But there are a few problems: Quote: The point of the matter is that if your trying to get an internet vanguard And then the rest of the post goes based on this 'if' as fact. This ignores the fact that I have said many times, and not too long ago, that it is impossible to create a vanguard party on the net. I won't bother going through the reasoning behind that, because it is likely you will agree with me on that. Unfortunately, the rest of the post is dedicated to this idea. You even referred to this as a sandbox, something I have done many times. It is public knowledge that I am not fond of the very loose politics of the guild, but has that stopped me from coming here? No, because I find the place entertaining. I mean, I have a flower on my head. That is cool! When I have said that it is stupid to try to make an internet vanguard, why would you accuse me of doing such? Quote: Kicking inactives will serve no purpose to what this guild is about. I am hoping it will. By getting rid of the inactive people, and by getting the new people do do something useful, even if it is just make-work, they will feel more like part of the group. If they are part of the group, they will post and be active. Quote: but as for me Im way to busy IRL organizing my political agenda's same as Gallenger. Good, do that. But for me, while things are dead here and I have the time, I will read books, play video games, and hang out on the net having fun. And if one way to have fun is to play dress-ups? When things start moving again (roughly the same as when uni starts) I will have less and less time for fun that isn't confined to the pages in a book while I am traveling to some demo, meeting or other political activity. Also: I wish you could be that coherent when explaining your politics. Damn, there is a huge difference. [/serious] [normal] Now, put up a decent political defence for your opposition! You have slandered me with politics that are not mine while refusing to give a decent answer! [I am tempted to go over the top here, and say something like 'taste my sword, foul wyrm!' but that doesn't seem overly appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
