Proposed Bill of Rights

well talk to your fellow members and ask them why they arnt taking a serious interest in this than.

Well, someone seems to be taking an interest, but not one that involves actually posting their point, which is why we have the thread.

I'd basically like all of the edits undone until their value has been proven on the thread through discussion that's open to everyone, as that's why this exists.

If you want a discussion, I'll be happy to give one, Pauper.

Firstly, age isn't always connected to maturity, and I feel that if someone proves themselves as being mature, their age shouldn't be an issue. Therefore, I feel that the age rule should be edited out, as Sage has done.

As for the grandfather thing, I feel that we should enact a grandfather clause for all rules, since we seem to be doing that already (like with recruits).

This would mean, for example, that if we had a 13-year-old staff member who was responsible and mature (we don't, I'm just saying, haha), we would keep them UNLESS the members wanted them out.

The Popular Pauper wrote:Well, someone seems to be taking an interest, but not one that involves actually posting their point, which is why we have the thread.

I'd basically like all of the edits undone until their value has been proven on the thread through discussion that's open to everyone, as that's why this exists.

IT IS.

Go to the first page.

Sasami wrote:If you want a discussion, I'll be happy to give one, Pauper.

Firstly, age isn't always connected to maturity, and I feel that if someone proves themselves as being mature, their age shouldn't be an issue. Therefore, I feel that the age rule should be edited out, as Sage has done.

As for the grandfather thing, I feel that we should enact a grandfather clause for all rules, since we seem to be doing that already (like with recruits).

This would mean, for example, that if we had a 13-year-old staff member who was responsible and mature (we don't, I'm just saying, haha), we would keep them UNLESS the members wanted them out.

I was just wondering why it (Grandfather Clause) was under rule enforcement. It looks to be assumed that the currents rues will be grandfathered in.


And, no, age isn't directly linked to maturity, but it's a better screening process (yeah, I know it's not 100% accurate, but what is?) Instead of arguing the maturity of a member, which is downright silly.

Member votes aren't reliable anywhere when it comes to positions of power, ever, due to skewed/biased opinions, and all that.

If we are the people then we do have a say, if we want to vote on it right here I surely will. You've even said yourself that you were mad that Ryu got to be a mod, so aren't you the one that's biased here?

Yeah, I am biased, everyone is.

I never excluded myself from that, it didn't say "Everyone, except for myself, is biased," now did it?

No need to get snarky, just asking a question ^^;

I'm not biased.

Other then you.

I pray to Gods you never get power again.

Other then you, I like to think as all members as my buddys, so If one of them gets power, then it's good for everyone anyway.

I'm pretty unbiased, but I'm also defensive and indecisive. D:

I'm the MOST biased, so I win.

And you are all off topic and not discussing this at all....

Short and sweet. I feel that Ryu is mature enough to be a functioning member of the staff.

As do I.

Just....Not so lazy.

Tobi wrote:Just....Not so lazy.

Which means more b& from c-box, gg.

NO.

Just...sending us the PMS to find out who we are playing in the game would be nice.

I haven't even been on, I strained myself shoveling snow D;

Also, I don't send people PMS.

AND I AM TOTALLY MATURE. Otherwise I wouldn't have even been made a mod in the first place XD

if you dont get on topic ans stay on topic i'll just assume you dont want a bill of rights and just close this thread....

I /AM/ ON TOPIC D;

Well tobi keeps taking everyone else OFF topic... so ignore him unless its on topic.

topic at hand:

Does anyone have a problem with the current edits? If not we can start defining terms seem with in the bill...

After we lose a dojo match, when can we re-challenge them, and have them HAVE to face us?

Tobi wrote:After we lose a dojo match, when can we re-challenge them, and have them HAVE to face us?

I can see how easily that rule can potentially be abused D=

Also, if you lost, then you lost. You had a chance.

Maybe the member/sensei can refuse your challenge for 24 hours after you've lost?

Of course, that doesn't mean that they HAVE to refuse. Just that they'll have the power to.

Actually, I was kinda thinking that re-challenges should be more spaced out.

Daily challenges would get trite indeed.

that is why we need to define 'timely manner'. I also believe a re-challenge time has already been put in to place...

Sagehawk wrote:that is why we need to define 'timely manner'. I also believe a re-challenge time has already been put in to place...

Yeah, one day#, I think

We might as well overhaul that. XD