Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Change] Voting Results for Nweek 172

[Jeff Gitchel <gitchel@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 25/07/2010, at 15:19, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 03:09 -0500, Jeff Gitchel wrote:
>> Well, first, i think this declaration went to the discussion forum
>> instead of the official forum. I may be wrong about that: i have been
>> in the past.
>> Second, i think you may still be a newbie. I never figured out the
>> result of that discussion, but if you weren't a newbie, then you
>> weren't entitled to a mentor anyway, right? if you are a newbie, i
>> hereby volunteer to be your mentor, since i think i'm done with my
>> last mentor gig.
>> Third, i noticed your request (if it was a request) to not be required
>> to write out all 200 requests for a mentor, but the request doesn't
>> negate the need to do so. If the fact that no one spoke to your
>> request is all it takes to grant it, then i guess i will have to
>> object now. 
>> Fourth, it's possible that there wasn't reaction to your request not
>> be required to write out all 200 requests for a mentor because it
>> wasn't actually a request. It seemed more like an order, which had no
>> compulsion on any of the other players to allow it. The fact that no
>> one objected (or supported) does not mean it had any force.
>> It may have been more prudent to have simply pasted the request in 200
>> times.
> 
> I easily could have done. It's a basic metarule of basic email courtesy;
> I thought of writing the request 200 times, but nobody wants to receive
> an email that long. Precedent in Agora at least is that if it's
> reasonable to send something written out, it's reasonable to abbreviate
> it like that; I'm not sure if B has similar precedent.
> 
> I wrote the "don't make me" comment to encourage people to speak up if
> they had any issues with the abbreviation, as you note. If you want to
> claim it's invalid, I think you're wrong, but I can spam up the lists
> with similar repeated actions if you like. I don't think the rest of B
> would like that, though.
> 
> -- 
> ais523
> 





Sounds good to me. 

I need to point out, though, that there is another approach to the quandary. Two, in fact.

You could simply avoid making 200 requests - out of email courtesy, perhaps.

Or, you could make a request of the group to allow it to stand as 200 requests without objection - which i think we're allowed to do.

I think it's invalid. But I'm probably wrong. I don't think you have to spam the lists unless someone significant objects, because spam wouldn't matter to my understanding of it.

I assume you meant the spam remark as an offer to give me an example of the difference, rather than something more threatening ;-)

I will make 200 requests that you make your last announcement to the correct forum however:

I hereby make the preceding Request (R) 200 times....

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 

Without objection.




Gitchel


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss