feather wrote:
please no feather, I tell ya I want to stop the polling.

What I meant with my last post is that if there was a new members subforum, their behaviour could be monitored and existing members could ask the facilitators to permit them access to the main forum.

So not really a poll, just a nod or a wink....

That way if you're a friends with someone else, and from another webpage they'd skip the new members forum, and would not need to be 'brought through via the illumination process.

Right. What rules are the righteous fronts now subjected to you pleb bastards?

Thanks for providing the polls oi,

Yes yes but the sock poll failed to get a result of any kind and the other one failed by 5%... So again...
What rules blah blah...

dubmeup wrote:
But the one where new sign ups need to be verified did, so that will affect both of these issues to a degree.

The polls were never gonna please everyone and those of us who didn't get the results we wanted, will just have to suck it up for now and get on with it .... which includes me and you

dubmeup wrote:
a) 8 44.4%
b) 7 38.9%
c) No votes 0%
d) 3 16.7%

a) wins, does it not?

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/The-Community-Ch...ing-clean-socks.html

Am I being thick and missing something?

Blue_Tackler wrote:
sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/The-Community-Ch...ean-new-members.html

andyh wrote:
So what's not been decided or what poll failed etc....

I'd like to propose a simple poll....
Should the 'community chest' be renamed ''psketti'' Yes or No

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Perhaps Pskgilly?

None of the polls reached a two thirds vote did they?
Two came close, one was way off....do i have to ask again?

And no bt... I aint asking you

This is why we revisit the same shit over and fucking over.

psketti wrote:

After gilly's experience i'd have taken the new members poll to be a foregone. Didn't it only get 60% though?
The sock one was split and non posters was 60 too weren't it?
So doesn't that mean nothing was decided? There was an insufficient mandate as i understand it. I even read oi quote 66% the other day iirc.
One of the polls at least, had more voters back the non 'winning' options than voted for the 'winner'.

feather wrote:
Which brings me back to my earlier contention that this is all a waste of time...bar the obvious need to avoid the pm thing that merv did.
The elephant in the room is still here...and it's us lot.
Tinkering with policy is meaningless if we.continue in the way we have done recently.

Imho

Fuck the 2/3rds nonsense. That's what keeps this joint stagnant.
Grow a pair, make a decision or live in a soul destroying loop.

The trolls love your hand-wringing dilemmas.

feather wrote:
Options b,c and d basically sum up to the same thing, ie closing the door.

Given that option c was the biggest by far and when you take into account the votes for the options b and d too then the correct thing to do is follow up on option c at the very least rather than doing nothing.

That would seem logical tbh.

dubmeup wrote: Yeah ok, ok, we're all very naughty. Can I get a witness?

Now can we get shot of the fucking socks and trolls please?

andyh wrote:
I make it 78.3% vs 21.7% going by the above interpretation.

You're gettin a spriggan in yer pasty over nowt feather.
I aint calling for adherence to the two third thing. I am however saying hey look here is an example of an amendment to policy which will be passed by virtue of going against a previous, overarching decision. Which is daft and a waste of time imo.
Everyone can see the socks and trolls as they come....and go. We'll never be able to stop it completely. No matter what policy you vote in and which policy has to be binned in the process...
The only reason i couldnt vote for stay as you are was that we cant. The trollsock paranoia and feeding has to stop. Its us that does that not some usurper policy...
Other than that, what has been wrong with banning them on discovery? Nowt that i can see.

Well if the end result is do nothing then 5 ppl get what they wanted and 18 do not.