No comments yet.join the discussion
Robert Smyth (shingama), United Kingdom5 years ago Comments: I'm still reading the posts tbh.. but i do feel this is VERY! unfair
Sanguis, United Kingdom5 years ago Comments: In my view as a newcomer, there are a few facts and decisions and opinons that are all getting jumbled, and I will try to unjumble them here to explain why I think Aes has been treated unfairly. 1. Two years ago, a dispute of some kind occurred involving Aes and the vetoer. 2. The vetoer resents the idea of raiding with Aes, but the community as a whole gave Aes an honoured status. 3. Rules were written with the benefit of the community (not the individual) in mind. One rule covered Honorary Members, offering them a recognised spot in the community. Another covered the power of veto, offering individuals the ability to empower their vote for or against someone. All rules were written by Senate and, with the overall agreement (presumably a majority) of Senate, can be modified. Modification of a rule is a largely academic exercise if it is clear that requirements to make the change are already evident verbally (i.e. if Senate largely agrees with the change, actually making it happen is just paperwork). 4. In all things, whilst Senate makes the final decision, it exists to coordinate, arbitrate and, most importantly, serve the community. Therefore, Senate is strictly dutibound (if not by its own rules then by the very spirit of being part of an organisation that is not dictatorial) to recognise the wishes of the commnity as a whole. 5. Recent events clearly indicate strong resentment from Senate members and regular members alike towards the rejection of Aes's application on the basis of a single veto that appears to stem from an outdated argument and relies on the applicability of a rule that has not been revised in a similarly long time. 6. This should be a no-brainer. Apologise to the vetoer, but maintain their anonymity. Apologise to Aes and respect the community's wish to invite her to join Seventh flight without trial. Amend the rule of Veto and consider expanding on the meaning of an Honorary Member. Accept that the vetoer may wish to no longer raid, but that either way, you would be losing one individual from the community if this were to occur. Be secure in the knowledge that the community's interests have been served, but all opinions have been considered and respected - including those of the minority of Senate who agreed to reject Aes's application. Sanguis.
Banana, Italy5 years ago Comments: turth is that this person tried to screw Nana, she of course refused, and this nerd can't live with that. the other one is so ugly that she's just jealous of Nana.
There are no highlights yet.