|
Post by xShadowLordx on Jan 18, 2010 17:48:22 GMT -5
Exactly. That's the way it was actually done, GG. The Constitution itself doesn't do anything, but it's up to the government (staff in this case) to uphold it.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jan 18, 2010 20:44:18 GMT -5
thats not shooting my opinion down at all. We dont need a constitution. Things should be decided by staff, based on current events and factors. We dont need a big long over complicated wall of text to tell us what to do.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Jan 18, 2010 20:53:26 GMT -5
Qwerty wanted me to post this for him.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 19, 2010 0:45:41 GMT -5
By the way, I am not a Republican.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jan 19, 2010 23:08:39 GMT -5
So qwerty, because you are getting upset, no one else is going to listen to my opinion? Because it seems like you are still posting in this thread with me.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 20, 2010 0:46:55 GMT -5
No, not quite. The argument ends here. Now. No more posts.
It'll be ready for ratification soon.
|
|
|
Post by V.I.R.O.S. on Jan 20, 2010 15:42:00 GMT -5
Qwerty, we should still be discussing it. GG had a point there, I think that a Constitution may be a bit excessive. It's written very well and all, but a simple reversion/clarification of the rules thread would be just as effective. Newer (And less intelligent) member may have trouble understanding a Constitution. Like I said, it's really neat, but will the less intelligent understand it?
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jan 20, 2010 16:38:54 GMT -5
Plus, would anyone even read it? We had to add a rule summary so people didn't have to read the rules, remember?
|
|
|
Post by vaconcovat on Jan 20, 2010 17:54:26 GMT -5
I agree. Text-walls aren't the easiest thing to wrap around your head.
We didn't really NEED this.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 20, 2010 18:16:01 GMT -5
Well, it seems the this might fail ratification. Well, we should give it a shot at the designated time, and then we'll see. If what you all say is true, it is likely that many won't ratify this.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Jan 20, 2010 18:22:40 GMT -5
a simple reversion/clarification of the rules thread would be just as effective. You guys are obviously confused. The purpose of any Constitution is NOT to make rules. It's purpose is to establish a system of running the site and a system for making rules.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jan 20, 2010 21:12:23 GMT -5
We don't need a system for making rules. We have over enough rules. Seriously. Plus, it's not like we have any trouble making the few rules we've already added.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 20, 2010 23:47:21 GMT -5
Way to delete the whole argument, Ggoodie. Or, my side at least. It ends now. Do not discuss it further. Do not delete this this time.
|
|
|
Post by V.I.R.O.S. on Jan 21, 2010 6:34:39 GMT -5
First of all, GG, you shouldn't have deleted the argument. Secondly, we really need to keep discussing this. We can't just drop the whole thing because you are angry, Qwerty.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 21, 2010 9:34:12 GMT -5
VIROS, I'm not dropping it because I'm angry. I'm dropping it because, in a post Ggoodie deleted, Ggoodie said it should be stopped, and I agreed. Multiple people have said it should stop, Ggoodie and I included. When it is put up for ratification later today, you two don't have to vote for it, but your votes aren't going to be worth more because you are expressing it more.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jan 21, 2010 16:33:00 GMT -5
Way to delete the whole argument, Ggoodie. Or, my side at least. It ends now. Do not discuss it further. Do not delete this this time. What are you talking about? I didn't delete anything. And I never posted that it should stop. I say it should stop now. No more arguing in this thread or you will receive a warning for flaming. We're not flaming, we are debating our valid opinion that this thread was made to discuss. This thread is about the constitution. We are discussing the constitution. Warning us for it is immature and I will just take the warnings off.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Jan 21, 2010 18:32:13 GMT -5
I don't know about you, but I would consider that flaming. GGoodie, it's fine if you have disagreements, but if you wish to debate, please do so in a civilized manner. No one needs insults to get their point across. Please don't stoop to that level. Anyway, if there are no more suggestions by the end of today, then I will write up the one article that was suggested, we'll review that, finalize the whole thing, and vote on it. I'm kind of busy with homework, so I'll probably have the suggested article written by Monday.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 21, 2010 18:32:23 GMT -5
Sorry, Ggoodie, I assumed it was you that deleted it. Now, as I've said three times before and as Listo has said once, we stop now.
Also, this post doesn't actually argue about the constitution. Just for the record.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jan 21, 2010 20:53:39 GMT -5
Listo wants us to stop arguing. Since we aren't, i guess we will just have to continue.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 21, 2010 22:01:45 GMT -5
It's ratification time! Any volunteers to post the constitution in the announcements so we can all take a vote (AND ONLY VOTE) on it?
|
|