Governing Council - voting policy

The Vista vote has brought up a larger point in my mind:

I believe it is not wise to have a simple majority vote rule. I believe a 2/3 vote at a minimum, and preferably a 3/4 vote, should be required on all GC matters that are larger than voting someone out of a single franchise (and other such small matters). But voting on large issues such as group-wide sanctions on a member of the MG in general, voting on rule changes - etc. - these should not be a simple majority.

The reason for this is to guard against the failure of the organization. A simple majority vote runs a very high risk of fracturing the organization on a single hot topic issue. If 6 people vote one way and 5 people vote the other across a line in the sand then you have a real danger of the two sides splitting and forming 2 independent groups. We cannot foresee what issue could cause this - but I guarantee that eventually, as we grow - an issue like this will arise.

But having a 3/4 vote forces the side with 6 people to make concessions in order to win 3 more votes and get a decision. Then you have 9 people together - the other 2 can leave if they wish - but the organization stands strong.

This is a very important issue that I suggest should be heard sooner rather than later.

sam22smith wrote:The Vista vote has brought up a larger point in my mind:

I believe it is not wise to have a simple majority vote rule. I believe a 2/3 vote at a minimum, and preferably a 3/4 vote, should be required on all GC matters that are larger than voting someone out of a single franchise (and other such small matters). But voting on large issues such as group-wide sanctions on a member of the MG in general, voting on rule changes - etc. - these should not be a simple majority.

The reason for this is to guard against the failure of the organization. A simple majority vote runs a very high risk of fracturing the organization on a single hot topic issue. If 6 people vote one way and 5 people vote the other across a line in the sand then you have a real danger of the two sides splitting and forming 2 independent groups. We cannot foresee what issue could cause this - but I guarantee that eventually, as we grow - an issue like this will arise.

But having a 3/4 vote forces the side with 6 people to make concessions in order to win 3 more votes and get a decision. Then you have 9 people together - the other 2 can leave if they wish - but the organization stands strong.

This is a very important issue that I suggest should be heard sooner rather than later.

+1 another great post by Sam

makes perfect sense to me... but having said that - i think the GC got bogged down this year in "political BS" - it was clear changes needed to be made - but polictical nonsense got in the way of making changtes and nothing got done... hopefully we canb overcome this now

sam22smith wrote:The Vista vote has brought up a larger point in my mind:

I believe it is not wise to have a simple majority vote rule. I believe a 2/3 vote at a minimum, and preferably a 3/4 vote, should be required on all GC matters that are larger than voting someone out of a single franchise (and other such small matters). But voting on large issues such as group-wide sanctions on a member of the MG in general, voting on rule changes - etc. - these should not be a simple majority.

The reason for this is to guard against the failure of the organization. A simple majority vote runs a very high risk of fracturing the organization on a single hot topic issue. If 6 people vote one way and 5 people vote the other across a line in the sand then you have a real danger of the two sides splitting and forming 2 independent groups. We cannot foresee what issue could cause this - but I guarantee that eventually, as we grow - an issue like this will arise.

But having a 3/4 vote forces the side with 6 people to make concessions in order to win 3 more votes and get a decision. Then you have 9 people together - the other 2 can leave if they wish - but the organization stands strong.

This is a very important issue that I suggest should be heard sooner rather than later.

I agree with this completely.
The fact that Cheddah, Surf, FF, and others didn't even know a vote took place has me baffled.
I'd hate for in the future for a simple majority to get together and run off and vote, and have everyone else just going huh? before they got a chance to debate, offer up amendments etc....

Fr8trainShane wrote:

sam22smith wrote:The Vista vote has brought up a larger point in my mind:

I believe it is not wise to have a simple majority vote rule. I believe a 2/3 vote at a minimum, and preferably a 3/4 vote, should be required on all GC matters that are larger than voting someone out of a single franchise (and other such small matters). But voting on large issues such as group-wide sanctions on a member of the MG in general, voting on rule changes - etc. - these should not be a simple majority.

The reason for this is to guard against the failure of the organization. A simple majority vote runs a very high risk of fracturing the organization on a single hot topic issue. If 6 people vote one way and 5 people vote the other across a line in the sand then you have a real danger of the two sides splitting and forming 2 independent groups. We cannot foresee what issue could cause this - but I guarantee that eventually, as we grow - an issue like this will arise.

But having a 3/4 vote forces the side with 6 people to make concessions in order to win 3 more votes and get a decision. Then you have 9 people together - the other 2 can leave if they wish - but the organization stands strong.

This is a very important issue that I suggest should be heard sooner rather than later.

I agree with this completely.
The fact that Cheddah, Surf, FF, and others didn't even know a vote took place has me baffled.
I'd hate for in the future for a simple majority to get together and run off and vote, and have everyone else just going huh? before they got a chance to debate, offer up amendments etc....

i do know that EZ said he messaged every1 on the GC via PM about this - so b4 we jump down his throat - give him the courtesy to explain himself (i see guys jumping to conclusions on these messages board all the time when they dont have all the info - often they later retract statement made but not every1 sees the "retracted statement" and the damage is done...)

I know EZ deserves this minimal level of respect... so give him a chance to say whats what...

GREENERRRR wrote:makes perfect sense to me... but having said that - i think the GC got bogged down this year in "political BS" - it was clear changes needed to be made - but polictical nonsense got in the way of making changtes and nothing got done... hopefully we canb overcome this now

Yes - it seems to me that if this MLB the show thing did not rip apart the MG then we have made it intact - it was almost like the American Revolution. America was founded by England - but had to break out and fight for independence. England is still the U.S. strongest ally - but it took a war to separate the two.

So now the MG must move forward and develop a constitution which is structured for the long haul and is bigger than any single person......and franchises are not allowed to secede from the Union, we will wage civil war in order to keep them in the Group.

(I should nominate myself to be on the GC)

You have your private section now. Any votes should be done in this section, in a topic created for that specific purpose. For example, in this last instance, there should have been a topic called 'Vista's Punishment - Official Vote', the top post should have laid out the exact punishment proposed, and then the next however many posts should have been the council members with a simple 'Yes' or 'No'. Only votes cast there count. Discussion on this issue should have been handled in a separate thread. This way you never have anyone saying 'I never heard about this vote' or 'I never voted that way'

GREENERRRR wrote:

Fr8trainShane wrote:

sam22smith wrote:The Vista vote has brought up a larger point in my mind:

I believe it is not wise to have a simple majority vote rule. I believe a 2/3 vote at a minimum, and preferably a 3/4 vote, should be required on all GC matters that are larger than voting someone out of a single franchise (and other such small matters). But voting on large issues such as group-wide sanctions on a member of the MG in general, voting on rule changes - etc. - these should not be a simple majority.

The reason for this is to guard against the failure of the organization. A simple majority vote runs a very high risk of fracturing the organization on a single hot topic issue. If 6 people vote one way and 5 people vote the other across a line in the sand then you have a real danger of the two sides splitting and forming 2 independent groups. We cannot foresee what issue could cause this - but I guarantee that eventually, as we grow - an issue like this will arise.

But having a 3/4 vote forces the side with 6 people to make concessions in order to win 3 more votes and get a decision. Then you have 9 people together - the other 2 can leave if they wish - but the organization stands strong.

This is a very important issue that I suggest should be heard sooner rather than later.

I agree with this completely.
The fact that Cheddah, Surf, FF, and others didn't even know a vote took place has me baffled.
I'd hate for in the future for a simple majority to get together and run off and vote, and have everyone else just going huh? before they got a chance to debate, offer up amendments etc....

i do know that EZ said he messaged every1 on the GC via PM about this - so b4 we jump down his throat - give him the courtesy to explain himself (i see guys jumping to conclusions on these messages board all the time when they dont have all the info - often they later retract statement made but not every1 sees the "retracted statement" and the damage is done...)

I know EZ deserves this minimal level of respect... so give him a chance to say whats what...

EZ did not message me about the vote at all. I don't have any PMs, Texts, PSN messages, Emails or anything about it. Probably was just a simple mistake. But I just wanted to clarify that. I'd never just not vote on something that was brought to me. I had no idea about it at all.

Makes me wonder if Kight was contacted

Cheddah_Cheez wrote:

GREENERRRR wrote:

Fr8trainShane wrote:

sam22smith wrote:The Vista vote has brought up a larger point in my mind:

I believe it is not wise to have a simple majority vote rule. I believe a 2/3 vote at a minimum, and preferably a 3/4 vote, should be required on all GC matters that are larger than voting someone out of a single franchise (and other such small matters). But voting on large issues such as group-wide sanctions on a member of the MG in general, voting on rule changes - etc. - these should not be a simple majority.

The reason for this is to guard against the failure of the organization. A simple majority vote runs a very high risk of fracturing the organization on a single hot topic issue. If 6 people vote one way and 5 people vote the other across a line in the sand then you have a real danger of the two sides splitting and forming 2 independent groups. We cannot foresee what issue could cause this - but I guarantee that eventually, as we grow - an issue like this will arise.

But having a 3/4 vote forces the side with 6 people to make concessions in order to win 3 more votes and get a decision. Then you have 9 people together - the other 2 can leave if they wish - but the organization stands strong.

This is a very important issue that I suggest should be heard sooner rather than later.

I agree with this completely.
The fact that Cheddah, Surf, FF, and others didn't even know a vote took place has me baffled.
I'd hate for in the future for a simple majority to get together and run off and vote, and have everyone else just going huh? before they got a chance to debate, offer up amendments etc....

i do know that EZ said he messaged every1 on the GC via PM about this - so b4 we jump down his throat - give him the courtesy to explain himself (i see guys jumping to conclusions on these messages board all the time when they dont have all the info - often they later retract statement made but not every1 sees the "retracted statement" and the damage is done...)

I know EZ deserves this minimal level of respect... so give him a chance to say whats what...

EZ did not message me about the vote at all. I don't have any PMs, Texts, PSN messages, Emails or anything about it. Probably was just a simple mistake. But I just wanted to clarify that. I'd never just not vote on something that was brought to me. I had no idea about it at all.

well hearing this is certainly disconcerning - you didnt get the message about the thread he started in the GC section?

GREENERRRR wrote:
i do know that EZ said he messaged every1 on the GC via PM about this - so b4 we jump down his throat - give him the courtesy to explain himself (i see guys jumping to conclusions on these messages board all the time when they dont have all the info - often they later retract statement made but not every1 sees the "retracted statement" and the damage is done...)

I know EZ deserves this minimal level of respect... so give him a chance to say whats what...

I don't mean to imply anything negative toward EZ.... But from the responses of Cheddah & others it seemed they didn't even know a vote had taken place... which lead me to believe there had been no debate/discussion beforehand.

If EZ took my response the wrong way, I apologize, I just didn't word it well enough. It was not my intentions.

Fr8trainShane wrote:

GREENERRRR wrote:
i do know that EZ said he messaged every1 on the GC via PM about this - so b4 we jump down his throat - give him the courtesy to explain himself (i see guys jumping to conclusions on these messages board all the time when they dont have all the info - often they later retract statement made but not every1 sees the "retracted statement" and the damage is done...)

I know EZ deserves this minimal level of respect... so give him a chance to say whats what...

I don't mean to imply anything negative toward EZ.... But from the responses of Cheddah & others it seemed they didn't even know a vote had taken place... which lead me to believe there had been no debate/discussion beforehand.

If EZ took my response the wrong way, I apologize, I just didn't word it well enough. It was not my intentions.

Fr8 should come with an instruction manual.

A) Open mouth
B) Insert foot

Lol. j/k Fr8, wanna go spoon in that dumpster?

phantomshark wrote:

Fr8 should come with an instruction manual.

A) Open mouth
B) Insert foot

Lol. j/k Fr8, wanna go spoon in that dumpster?

Well, I wasn't attacking EZ in my post Just stating I was baffled that they others didn't know a vote had taken place.
and no dumpster diving for me.... and I'm not putting on that ridiculous costume for you either.

Fr8trainShane wrote:

phantomshark wrote:

Fr8 should come with an instruction manual.

A) Open mouth
B) Insert foot

Lol. j/k Fr8, wanna go spoon in that dumpster?

Well, I wasn't attacking EZ in my post Just stating I was baffled that they others didn't know a vote had taken place.
and no dumpster diving for me.... and I'm not putting on that ridiculous costume for you either.

Lmao

It's all my fault. Somehow I must have clicked on EZ's PM and not read it...idk how but I tend to do absent minded things when I'm a little toasty...which is most nights before I go to bed. But I just looked over my inbox again and sure enough it's there from Monday. Sorry about that, I just overlooked it. Anyway, I never called for him to be banned from MG. But the ruling is fine in my book.

@chedda: i sent pm's to everyone, in my inbox it said the messages had been delivered to you guys. i know greener received the messages i sent him. and FF specifically referred to my thread so i know for a fact he knew about it. and idk how many of you guys read his post but im guessing at least of a couple of you did. i gave effort to contact everyone about it and maybe it was a technical error but either way like i said in the other thread if you have something to say now go or forever hold your peace.

@sam: for the record the vote about vista was 100% to 0% since it was more than a majority vote. the fact that only one vote took place is not my fault.

@bill: i did send a pm to kight along with the other gc members, i don't know for a fact that he received it but i know on my end it says the message was sent to him by me.

Well there should be s minimum number of votes required also because 1 vote don't mean shit in my eyes.

ezweightloss wrote:@chedda: i sent pm's to everyone, in my inbox it said the messages had been delivered to you guys. i know greener received the messages i sent him. and FF specifically referred to my thread so i know for a fact he knew about it. and idk how many of you guys read his post but im guessing at least of a couple of you did. i gave effort to contact everyone about it and maybe it was a technical error but either way like i said in the other thread if you have something to say now go or forever hold your peace.

@sam: for the record the vote about vista was 100% to 0% since it was more than a majority vote. the fact that only one vote took place is not my fault.

@bill: i did send a pm to kight along with the other gc members, i don't know for a fact that he received it but i know on my end it says the message was sent to him by me.

Yeah, I said it somewhere else but somehow i clicked on it and didn't realize it...so I didnt actually notice it but it's in my inbox. I apologize for saying I didn't get it.

ezweightloss wrote:@chedda: i sent pm's to everyone, in my inbox it said the messages had been delivered to you guys. i know greener received the messages i sent him. and FF specifically referred to my thread so i know for a fact he knew about it. and idk how many of you guys read his post but im guessing at least of a couple of you did. i gave effort to contact everyone about it and maybe it was a technical error but either way like i said in the other thread if you have something to say now go or forever hold your peace.

@sam: for the record the vote about vista was 100% to 0% since it was more than a majority vote. the fact that only one vote took place is not my fault.

@bill: i did send a pm to kight along with the other gc members, i don't know for a fact that he received it but i know on my end it says the message was sent to him by me.

EZ - please don't get me wrong - my point had nothing to do with the details of the Vista vote. I don't weigh in on independent items like that. At least not unless I am asked. The Vista topic just raised the voting policy to my attention - that's all.

My point is solely belonging to the issue of voting policy. A simple majority vote runs a high risk of causing a fracture in the organization which dissolves the whole into two pieces. A 3/4 vote ensures that the whole will remain - it is a stronger policy and I believe one that is essential for the future of the group.

this is not the 1st time that GC members have shown inderffernce to a matter at hand - when yoiur called to vote on topics - you need to vote - either way - especoiially if we are going to have a quorum rule and decisions based on more than the majority...

GREENERRRR wrote:this is not the 1st time that GC members have shown inderffernce to a matter at hand - when yoiur called to vote on topics - you need to vote - either way - especoiially if we are going to have a quorum rule and decisions based on more than the majority...

I agree. I'd say from now on, like some of the other guys suggested, we should require 75% of the GC response before a decision can be made, and 75% of the voters must be for the change in order for it to pass

like i said on the other topic, i personally can't force people to vote.. but i do think having a % to pass something. as is it's at 50%(1/2), i would suggest to move it to 66.6% (2/3) rather than 75% (3/4) but that is just my personal opinion

ezweightloss wrote:like i said on the other topic, i personally can't force people to vote.. but i do think having a % to pass something. as is it's at 50%(1/2), i would suggest to move it to 66.6% (2/3) rather than 75% (3/4) but that is just my personal opinion

Maybe instead of % you make it a certain number of votes (whatever 66% is of voting members)

That forces people to vote.

100% of the GC needs to vote, theres only 10 or so of us and we're all generally active on the forums...but don't title subject lines blank for such a matter. i never referred to it either, its still marked as unread since i have two of the same message subjects in my inbox. my overall concern was not a mixup or lack of voting, but posting results with only 2 votes.

falconfansince81 wrote:100% of the GC needs to vote, theres only 10 or so of us and we're all generally active on the forums...but don't title subject lines blank for such a matter. i never referred to it either, its still marked as unread since i have two of the same message subjects in my inbox. my overall concern was not a mixup or lack of voting, but posting results with only 2 votes.

Ding ding ding