Grav's Proposition Revision Draft

The basic idea that I had that he incorporated above is that there would be some sort of member polling first, and if that vote passes, then it's passed to the council who will agree/disagree, if agreed, it's put into effect; if disagreed, it's vetoed.

Titus, that was awesome work. I agree with pretty much everything that you wrote.

What don't you agree with? Everything needs to be fine tuned.

I like most of it Titus, except the part where a members approval rating is based on his proper usage of the English language. Although some of you might find it aggravating when a member doesn't use proper English, I don't believe it should reflect upon how a person is rated. I think that a person should be judged solely on the content of their posts, and if their posts, due to their misuse of the English language, are difficult to comprehend then they could be gahhd or blisd.

Also, I would just like to let it be known that if I'm voted in I'm up for this council member thing.

Although some of you might find it aggravating when a member doesn't use proper English, I don't believe it should reflect upon how a person is rated. I think that a person should be judged solely on the content of their posts, and if their posts, due to their misuse of the English language, are difficult to comprehend then they could be gahhd or blisd.

Well, if some1 is typing lik dis then dey dunt rely desurve 2 be soa

I see no harm in it if they can be understood.

I don't really care if people type syxjzmzmz (can never spell that) but if they are typing like my example above, they just look plain stupid to me. Members should do their best to present themselves respectfully, not look like AOL idiots.

What if they are people of different nationalities, and their English is hard to understand, but they can't help it. I know this doesn't fall into that category. What if they are going using "Hey, U and meh r goin 2 b @ dat pwnzor partay?" Is that considered AOL idiocy? I hate internet lingo, it makes you look so unintelligient.

What if they are people of different nationalities, and their English is hard to understand, but they can't help it. I know this doesn't fall into that category. What if they are going using "Hey, U and meh r goin 2 b @ dat pwnzor partay?" Is that considered AOL idiocy? I hate internet lingo, it makes you look so unintelligient.

there is nothing wrong if u dont use punctuation or if u use abbreviations as long as u can be understood...but hey...w/e...its ur idea so u do what u want

That doesn't seem to be too hard to understand.

Under Sirpullido circumstances, I couldn't care less. Yes, it's AOL idiocy.

there is nothing wrong if u dont use punctuation or if u use abbreviations as long as u can be understood...

That's annoying to read.

It shouldn't be a negative, but it certainly lowers the ceiling a bit.. You're not going to have a bunch of people suggest that someone who types "omg i h8 dis guyz" is worthy of a SoA.

Grammar/Spelling/Vocabulary 35% (total), Content 65%. Grammar/Spelling/Vocabulary would be enough to block you from a SoA (unless you have some REALLY good posts), but probably not enough to be BLIS-ed on that one merit. Even if my percentages suck for some reason, I still think it should be a weighted average.

I agree with the weighted average thing like Blue Cube said.

I actually went over Titus's post again. With a weighted average, I think all of the rest of that sounds good.

Well, we're not machines, so this sort of thing isn't going to be solely based on input/output values. Variables always exist, these are just basic guidelines.