VOTE NO ON AUSSIE'S REFERENDUM

[Aussie]

You are soooooooooooo right Maxine!

Monk....please do not use your puppet Maxine in that fashion......as though you were a different person to Maxine.

On the point...............

Monk, you have been marketing snake oil. There is a mechanism to get rid of a non-performing Admin. My amendment specifically provides for it. It goes like this.

1. You start a Petition calling for the head of Admin.
2. If there is widespread support, you will be overwhelmed overnight with the necessary support, and if you did not get it over night, you would get it within a week....if there was wide spread support.
3. My proposal generously allows TWO MONTHS for that support to gather.

Those who have voted 'nay' need to consider those facts.....not Monk's hysterical paranoia.

[Jovial Monk]

No, those who are unsure of your sneaky amendment need to read the threads from b4 kiwi_dave joined and signed the Petition.

Why was kiwi_dave necessary? Because you had banned 2 -3 members and driven more off so there were none to sign the petition. That is why FD turned to kiwi_dave etc. Please, Aussie, I was one of the banned and I saw no one was around much at all. Don’t go lying and saying it would be easy to get the signatures when it wasn’t in the very recent past. That is dishonest, a lie!

[Aussie]

No, those who are unsure of your sneaky amendment need to read the threads from b4 kiwi_dave joined and signed the Petition.

Why was kiwi_dave necessary? Because you had banned 2 -3 members and driven more off so there were none to sign the petition. That is why FD turned to kiwi_dave etc. Please, Aussie, I was one of the banned and I saw no one was around much at all. Don’t go lying and saying it would be easy to get the signatures when it wasn’t in the very recent past. That is dishonest, a lie!

There were plenty around. Many more than plenty. The only issue was....as it later became apparent.......freediver could not find anyone willing to stand against me......until Monkey Magic offered. He then garnered support from Kiwi Dave, Senexx et al.

The only banned Member at the time was......you. I had banned Sappho.....but boxy/freediver must re-admitted her under the guise of MM.

Monk.....if there is wide-spread support to oust Admin. it should not take more than a week for s/his opponents to vote in a Petition. My proposal allows them to get their act together......in TWO MONTHS.

If anyone had been driven off, they would flock back to sign up to oust Admin.....in a nanosecond.

My proposed Amendment is very fair to Members and to Admin.

[freediver]

1. Initial signatories may no longer agree, or may have left or been banned. Circumstances surrounding signatories change.

Like I said RM, you can withdraw your signature. You did not respond to this. Also, why would someone who has been banned suddenly support the admin?

Thus initial signatories and later signatories may not be in agreement.

Again, you can withdraw your signature.

3. Temporary new members (IE Kiwi-Dave) could join up, acquire a brief but sufficient posting history, and vote, in order to get the petition passed.

And a two month limit will prevent this?

4. If there is good reason that is apparent to most members, and they rate the reason of sufficient concern, then a petition should be easily passed within a relatively short time frame - it should not need 3 months or more to pass.

As I have already pointed out (and you have ignored every time), it may take two months or more for a suitable candidate to step forward.

Um sorry, but I agree with Aussie on this one ..

There IS a mechanism, and it is mischievous of you to suggest there is not one. In two months, get enough aye votes in a Petition and Bob's yer Uncle. If Admin genuinely is crap, there will be a rush of Members signing up within a week.

Except that under Aussie's amendment, if a person steps forward after two months, you have to wait another three months to start another petition. Do you agree to that? How does being forbidden from starting a petition when 'the situation changes' as you put mean that "There IS a mechanism, and it is mischievous of you to suggest there is not one."

Monk, you have been marketing snake oil. There is a mechanism to get rid of a non-performing Admin. My amendment specifically provides for it. It goes like this.

And if the 'situation changes' as Annie puts it after two months, what then? Aussie is protected by his own amendment? What if the admin starts the petition early so it expires before people get pissed off enough?

There were plenty around. Many more than plenty.

That's right, there were. But they did not sign the petition because no-one had stepped forward to oppose you. When someone did step forward, after two months, they signed. Simple as that. But you can't handle that. You want to force them to have the election before a candidate steps forward or be forbidden from triggering an election, no matter how many members want it. This is all about Aussie denying members control over their own forum.

Admit it Aussie, you are the only one selling snake oil here. Your referendum has nothing to do with the silly petitions as you claimed. It is all about you trying to ban people from triggering an election.

A few weeks from now, Aussie could flood this board with 100 referendums each week. We would have to vote in all of them or his amendments would get passed. If we didn't, he could change the constitution to just about anything he wanted. We could do nothing to stop his flood of amendments to the constitution because he would be protected by his own amendment.

[Aussie]

1. Initial signatories may no longer agree, or may have left or been banned. Circumstances surrounding signatories change.

Like I said RM, you can withdraw your signature. You did not respond to this. Also, why would someone who has been banned suddenly support the admin?

Thus initial signatories and later signatories may not be in agreement.

Again, you can withdraw your signature.

3. Temporary new members (IE Kiwi-Dave) could join up, acquire a brief but sufficient posting history, and vote, in order to get the petition passed.

And a two month limit will prevent this?

4. If there is good reason that is apparent to most members, and they rate the reason of sufficient concern, then a petition should be easily passed within a relatively short time frame - it should not need 3 months or more to pass.

As I have already pointed out (and you have ignored every time), it may take two months or more for a suitable candidate to step forward.

Um sorry, but I agree with Aussie on this one ..

There IS a mechanism, and it is mischievous of you to suggest there is not one. In two months, get enough aye votes in a Petition and Bob's yer Uncle. If Admin genuinely is crap, there will be a rush of Members signing up within a week.

Except that under Aussie's amendment, if a person steps forward after two months, you have to wait another three months to start another petition. Do you agree to that? How does being forbidden from starting a petition when 'the situation changes' as you put mean that "There IS a mechanism, and it is mischievous of you to suggest there is not one."

Monk, you have been marketing snake oil. There is a mechanism to get rid of a non-performing Admin. My amendment specifically provides for it. It goes like this.

And if the 'situation changes' as Annie puts it after two months, what then? Aussie is protected by his own amendment? What if the admin starts the petition early so it expires before people get pissed off enough?

There were plenty around. Many more than plenty.

That's right, there were. But they did not sign the petition because no-one had stepped forward to oppose you. When someone did step forward, after two months, they signed. Simple as that. But you can't handle that. You want to force them to have the election before a candidate steps forward or be forbidden from triggering an election, no matter how many members want it. This is all about Aussie denying members control over their own forum.

Admit it Aussie, you are the only one selling snake oil here. Your referendum has nothing to do with the silly petitions as you claimed. It is all about you trying to ban people from triggering an election.

A few weeks from now, Aussie could flood this board with 100 referendums each week. We would have to vote in all of them or his amendments would get passed. If we didn't, he could change the constitution to just about anything he wanted. We could do nothing to stop his flood of amendments to the constitution because he would be protected by his own amendment.

Quoted.....just to preserve.

[freediver]

You could always try responding Aussie.

[Aussie]

You could always try responding Aussie.

Oh....I will.....in detail.....but not while I am trying to watch the NRL.

All in good time.

[Jovial Monk]

Not much time left, 4 days, 2 of those the weekend when people are away from their computers.

Isn’t it funny how whenever there is some serious discussion of the amendment it straightaway goes to the matter of unseating a bad Admin—it clearly is the only reason for the amendment.

It is a bad amendment and loyalty or friendship with Aussie shouldn’t affect your vote. Only the good of the board is important.

[Jovial Monk]

Freediver has just made a big post on the huge dangers of accepting Aussie’s amendment. I hope people really think about this on the facts of the matter. Would be better for everyone if Aussie retracted it.

[Aussie]

Freediver has just made a big post on the huge dangers of accepting Aussie’s amendment. I hope people really think about this on the facts of the matter. Would be better for everyone if Aussie retracted it.

It will not be retracted. It is a sound amendment and freediver is simply scaremongering, just like you have been.