| Welcome to Chatterb0x - The Last Remaining Slammy Gang Forum **Please Register to join a vibrant, historic community!!** Join our community! Please read the Board Rules before registering: **Note: These are the current rules of the board but they are ALL open to discussion and possible amendments/repealments may take place through a period of debate followed by a simple majority vote.** 1. Absolutely zero tolerance on spamming and flooding. Users can be banned for life immediately for a single infraction. Flooding is defined as FOUR posts or more with the same or similar content within a period of TEN minutes or less or FOUR shouts or more with the same or similar content within a period of SEVEN minutes. 2. No overt hate speech/links to overt hate speech is allowed. Users can be banned for life immediately for a single infraction. 3. Flaming (i.e. insulting attacks on other members) is allowed ONLY in the FLAME WARS section. It will not be tolerated anywhere else on the board and any infractions can lead to a lifetime ban. 5. Any Member who creates a 'sockpuppet' account (i.e. a fake account) will be suspended for a period of no less than 90 days. 6. Any Member caught impersonating another member in the shoutbox will be suspended for at LEAST one week. Further infractions of this kind may lead to a lifetime ban. 7. Rules 1 and 2 also apply to the Shoutbox. 8. Any Member who does not log in for a period of two months will be immediately terminated. 9. Supreme Adjudicators will be elected to a term not exceeding ONE calendar year (365 days). 10. All suspensions may be appealed. An appeal must be made within 24 hours of notice of a suspension and any submissions must be posted in the Penalty Box within 48 hours of the notice. If 24 hours passes without an appeal, the Member will begin serving his/her suspension. All Members of CB may be involved in the appeal process. The Supreme Adjudicator will render a final decision which may include: a) upholding the original suspension; b) amending the suspension period (either higher or lower); nullifying the suspension. 12. Any Member may ask for a vote to impeach the Supreme Adjudicator. In 30 days, a vote will be held to determine whether or not the Supreme Adjudicator should stay in his/her role. During the intermediary period, a thread will be created in Board Announcements, wherein the members of CB may debate the motion to impeach. If the vote is unanimous, the Supreme Adjudicator will be removed immediately and the Member who launched the impeachment motion will be installed as the Interim Supreme Adjudicator. Members including the deposed Supreme Adjudicator will have 14 days to declare their candidacy for Supreme Adjudicator in Board Announcements. 30 days after the deadline for announcement of candidacy, an election will be held. If only one member declares his/her candidacy, he/she will automatically become Supreme Adjudicator at the expiration of 30 days. If no member declares his/her candidacy, the Interim Supreme Adjudicator will assume the position of Supreme Adjudicator at the expiration of 30 days after the deadline for candidacy. He/she will be Supreme Adjudicator for a term of one year. If the motion to impeach fails, the Member who launched the motion will be suspended for a period of 120 days for causing undue instability to the Board and for damaging the reputation of the Supreme Adjudicator. Any Member who invokes Rule 12 may withdraw his/her invocation at any time before the day of the scheduled impeachment vote at no penalty. 16. No member may change his/her Member Name more than ONE time per year up to a maximum of THREE name changes. Name changes will be approved or denied by the discretion of the Supreme Adjudicator or Interim Supreme Adjudicator if applicable. 17. No member or guest of Chatterb0x may post any altered picture, video or audio recording of any other mmber or guest of Chatterb0x without that Member or Guest's expressed written permission. Furthermore, no member or guest of Chatterb0x may post any altered picture, video, or audio recording of any mmber or gest's family members, friends, acquaintances, or colleagues without the expressed written permission of that member or guest. Any violation will lead to an automatic 100 day suspension from Chatterb0x. A subsequent violation will result in a 1,000 day suspension from Chatterb0x. A third violation will result in a 10,000 day suspension from Chatterb0x. A fourth violation will result in a 25,000 day suspension from Chatterb0x. 18. Under exceptional times of threats (internal and/or external), and backed by a simple majority vote of Members, the Supreme Adjudicator may declare martial law whereby all rules will be immediately suspended. The Supreme Adjudicator will have then been granted full authority for a period of up to 30 days to carry out whatever action(s) he/she deems necessary to protect and preserve the wellbeing of Chatterb0x and its Members. 19. Chatterb0x Election Day will be September 7 of every year. All Active Members as of 9:00 AM Atlantic Time on August 31 will be listed as candidates; at which time the poll will open. Members serving suspensions will not be eligible. The poll will close at 9:00 PM Atlantic Time on September 7. The winner will become Supreme Adjudicator of Chatterb0x at 12:00 AM Atlantic Time on September 8. 20. In the event of a Supreme Adjudicator's resignation, death, or physical/mental incapacity to fulfill the role, the Member with the second amount of votes in the previous Chatterb0x election will become Interim Supreme Adjudicator effective immediately. If there was no sole second place finisher, the previous Supreme Adjudicator will become Interim Supreme Adjudicator effective immediately. The successor will retain his/her Interim Supreme Adjudicator position unless altered via Rules 12, 19, or this Rule. 21. Any member who suggests or actively tries to split up the Slammy Gang will be charged with treason and if convicted by a simple majority vote, be banned from Chatterb0x for life. 22. The threshold for conviction for violations of Rules 3, 5, and 17 is beyond a reasonable doubt. 23. The Supreme Adjudicator has full discretion to edit or delete any posts he/she believes could, did, or are causing instability to Chatterb0x. 24. The Supreme Adjudicator may suspend a member he/she suspects of treasonous or pernicious activity for up to SEVEN days without a formal charge. 25. Any member who intentionally causes instability to Chatterb0x through pernicious activity will be charged with causing a disturbance to Chatterb0x. If convicted by a simple majority vote, he/she will be sentenced to a suspension of between 90 to 999 days. |
| Rule 3 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 24 2017, 07:22 PM (272 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 06:04 AM Post #16 |
|
Deleted User
|
This isn't a vote for what will happen next, it's a poll to take stock of how everyone is feeling about the flaming situation. I stated that in my original post. So, people are allowed to choose up to 2 options because they may have mixed feelings about it. They might be leaning towards one option but think another option might also be viable. If number 2 gets 4 votes, number 3 gets 3 and number 1 gets none, this gives a good idea of what people are generally feeling about flaming. I didn't want people to be restricted to just one option as that limits the spread of the results. Statistics and surveying works in many different ways, not just "vote this or this". |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 07:10 AM Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
Give me a break. I know you screwed up somehow and aren't going about it the right way. Giving people too much power to want to choose completly incompatible "solutions" or something. Dont feel like thinking about it right now, but you're either doing it wrong, making it more complicated than it needs to be, or something. Like mixed feelings here doesn't really matter Jane. You can "only flame in the flame forum"....is an absolute....the "only"....gives it away and isn't compatible with any other option....so knock that one right out of your witch potion. That's a win all or win none there. And for the other possible combinations of your most likely incompatible witch potion.....a potion that will blow up in your face from toxic fumes trying to mix volcano ingredients....I just don't care right now. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 08:46 AM Post #18 |
|
Deleted User
|
She's fucking wrong on so many levels and it just isn't coming to me and been up forever and just want to beat her with a stick. I know this shit ain't right....not giving the same person two choices for opposing solutions....in order to just come up with one answer in the very end. Tapping into different sides of us?....for what purpose? In the end, no matter what the votes say, it will either be "only flaming in the flame board" or "you can flame anywhere" or "let Jane rule by her own discretion after we figure out what her discretion is later"...which would be the next step in this at that point.....then we move onto that, should it win the votes.....or we come up with an entirely New undetermined alternative later should choice 4 win...one of only 4 possible outcomes here, and it doesn't matter in the end if one individual likes one choice more than he likes another.....NO MATTER HOW MANY VOTES YOU GET ON ANY OR EVERY CHOICE....you still must choose one of these based on the pole, and IF one side of us who voted two different ways loses, one side of each of us may still be disappointed in the end....so you doing this to determine "what everyone is generally feeling" by giving each of us two votes each, doesn't fucking matter in the long run, within the end result. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 09:44 AM Post #19 |
|
Deleted User
|
I don't care if this pole is to determine what will directly happen next. I have projected beyond all of it. Like you say, it's just to "see how everyone is generally feeling", and that would lead to the "next step in your study" eventually, hopefully, leading to action. Yet you are allowing each person to vote two different ways, yet this poll has no way to gauge if the same person's one vote is what that person prefers over their second vote.....and combine just one individual voter's futility here with each extra two timing voters' double votes here? Add this message to my last message and see just how innacurate this study of your's really is when trying to determine "how everyone is generally feeling about flaming." |
|
|
| Degree | Sep 25 2017, 03:27 PM Post #20 |
|
Level 6
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Get rid of all the rules. How many rules do we need for a few people? |
![]() |
|
| Angry Squirrel | Sep 25 2017, 05:37 PM Post #21 |
|
Level 8
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's a violation of Rule 3. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 06:05 PM Post #22 |
|
Deleted User
|
Rule 3 is currently under construction. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 06:08 PM Post #23 |
|
Deleted User
|
I worry that Mark will have some kind of break down if things move too fast. Baby steps. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 06:09 PM Post #24 |
|
Deleted User
|
Monty is just pissed off because he didn't understand that he could vote for 2 options. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 06:14 PM Post #25 |
|
Deleted User
|
I deduced that for myself, and by myself later. Nos then confirmed it. It doesn't change the fact that your study is ultimately flawed based on that very thing. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 06:27 PM Post #26 |
|
Deleted User
|
I meant I deduced for myself that one could vote on two different things. And Nos confirmed that. You told me I could vote twice after I already only voted once, which doesn't really matter. I was hung up later if I could have voted for the same choice twice, rather than simply just being able to vote twice. And none of that matters anyway. Your study is just dumb, and a nagging subconscious thought was telling me that from the very beginning |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 06:50 PM Post #27 |
|
Deleted User
|
Nos actually was able to post his "one can vote on two different things" comment-confirmation BEFORE I posted my "I think one can vote on two different things since I think someone just did" comment, but I didn't read his post until I already posted mine afterwards, since I was still in the slow process of writing it/theory....so I figured out for myself that someone could vote on two different things....you just told me that someone can just vote twice, which wasn't enough information, and again, none of this matters. It just proves "I understood/discovered for myself that I could have voted on two different things." None of this has to do with why your test is fundamentally flawed. Had I simply read what you originally said "that we can vote twice", maybe I would have....but anyway, one person not voting twice like the rest may or have already, possibly just ruined your test results even further than the design of such test is already ruined in and by itself. Remember, chicks suck at math and any true technical analysis. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 07:08 PM Post #28 |
|
Deleted User
|
Jane is so stupid and pisses me off sometimes. She just dismisses any real input and the real matter at hand of "how this study is so flawed" (though she somehow thinks its not) by just saying "Monty didn't understand at first that he could have voted twice" - that doesn't fucking matter. I'm living in the now, not the then - and the NOW says your "poll-study" is gay. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 07:15 PM Post #29 |
|
Deleted User
|
You're the one who doesn't understand the methodology. All surveys are flawed in some way; there is no perfect way to survey people's views. A one-choice poll is flawed because it restricts how much people can express their views and therefore isn't a true reflection. A multi-choice poll is flawed because it allows for contradictory results. Again, this isn't a deciding vote. It's a poll to gather information. You disagree with me simply to disagree with me, which is unintelligent. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 25 2017, 07:59 PM Post #30 |
|
Deleted User
|
That's all I needed to hear - and maybe, (and maybe not) but not as flawed as this one. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Board Announcements and Suggestions · Next Topic » |







![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)


8:06 PM Jul 11