Proposed addition to the Constitution

[Aussie]

Thanks SN. The problem is if an administrator has his duties discharged and leaves a huge mess in his wake - then can be nominated again immediately and wins the role again because he's got his troops waiting in the background, the same old mess will be created all over again. Enough is enough.

The Constitution really does need to clarify this.

What's the point of everyone making a huge effort to get this board going again - if Aussie can reclaim it 5 minutes later.

Ignoring your false rhetoric, (and rubbish about 'huge effort') and to answer with the most obvious response.....that's democracy for you.

[mantra]

Not if the previous administrator had his control removed because he didn't act in the best interests of the members and he couldn't be trusted.

Be realistic Aussie - you don't have a clue how to run a forum. You shouldn't be allowed to run again.

[freediver]

How can you have a petition unless you produce the necessary additional clause first?

Draft it yourself woman!!!! Why ask others to do your work for you!!

Aussie, as the author of the only constitutional amendment to ever be voted down by members, perhaps you should encourage people to discuss these issues before trying to put it to a vote.

[freediver]

What fucking password sabotage you whining idiot? You obviously just forgot your password.

Everything is a great big conspiracy against you, eh Mantra?

And you could have used the "I have forgotten my password" facility. That is built in to phpBB, not controllable by an Admin.

Now, liar, you have said I am corrupt.

Can you provide one scintilla of evidence? Do you know what you are fucking talking about at all?

LOL, is Monk getting confused by his own socks?

[Super Nova]

Spot on FD.

Aussie, why discourage discussion on potential ammendments?

I know, you don't like discussions on things that influence your power when you're admin. That's a threat to the possession of the precious.

Let's discuss this proposal and any other. Good idea Mantra.

[mantra]

It seems Monk is the only one allowed to have socks here - and they're all vile. Bizarro is actually very polite in comparison to his mate Jovial.

[mantra]

I know, you don't like discussions on things that influence your power when you're admin. That's a threat to the possession of the precious.

This will have to be discussed and shortly - otherwise if the next few weeks are spent going through this crap only to have Aussie returned - it will reflect very badly on the integrity of this forum. It will never get back on its feet.

[Aussie]

Not if the previous administrator had his control removed because he didn't act in the best interests of the members and he couldn't be trusted.

Be realistic Aussie - you don't have a clue how to run a forum. You shouldn't be allowed to run again.

And just who will make that decision? A screaming minority in the ear of a Host who has now demonstrated twice that he will ignore the existing Constitution? The process currently provided for is fine, and democratic. Get the number of (VALID) aye votes, and away you go...you have a Spill, and an election. If you disagree with a decision made by Admin about declaring a vote invalid, again there is a democratic Constitutional process provided for.

The current document concerning this matter is fine.

As for your crap about running a Forum etc......it seems a majority of Members on many occasions in the long history of PA disagree with you.

[freediver]

Some points on the actual topic:

I don't want my position put into the constitution. Eventually an official position similar to what I currently do could be created, but that is a long way off. We have enough trouble trying to find a single suitable person willing to run for admin.

Making the constitution clearer is a good idea, as is emphasising it's role in protecting the democratic process. It should not been seen as a barrier to an election that might overthrow the admin. I have tried to write it so that it only prevents an election that the current admin would end up winning anyway, and I believe it has fullfilled that purpose. However, you need to clarify and distinguish an attempt to clarify the current meaning and to add new content.

No amount of re-writing can remove all ambiguity or prevent Aussie from claiming he has been treated unfairly. You cannot write it so that everyone will agree on when interference is necessary, even if they put aside their vested interests in the outcome. Aussie will whinge no matter what. He claims to not understand the constitution (and also claims the opposite when it suits him), but I think the real issue is that he opposes on principle anything that can give the power back to the members when he is in charge. He made no attempt to hide his opposition to the constitution and anything that takes away his complete authority over when (and if) another election will be held. There is no process or bureacracy that can both expedite an election when it is called for and prevent one when it is not called for by the members. Aussie would love to have some extra hoops for us to jump through, but what matters is those signatures - a transparent expression of the will of the members. Nothing else.

With so few members, the constitution must tread a fine line. There is a risk that a bad admin will ban or scare off so many members that they cannot be removed from power and the board will become an incestuous clique. The constitution relys on there being enough members who object to this on principle. So the constitution must allow for members to intervene early enough to prevent a 'clique death', but not so early that frequent elections become a burden. The people who really hold power here are the ones who change their vote or sign depending on the specific actions and promises of the admin at the time - the swinging voters. They are the ones who bring about the changes.

[Jovial Monk]

Would be good if you stopped interfering FD.