So, Aratak wants to be "#2"

auren · Post by **auren** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:05 pm

Arev wrote:No one said it yet, geez...

Ok, I'll say it, "Who does #2 work for?"

And let just say this, it's okay to take sides. We are a constitutional monarchy, not a tyranny (either a one-man tyranny or a tyranny of the majority). So, the Council must come to a consensus for Lexx to know our decision. It's perfectly fine to be the dissenting opinion. Lord knows there was a time when the Council was ruled was tyranny of the majority, but I never gave in and gladly took the criticism of being the "negative guy".

i dont mind democracy arev but why would a member in the guild wish to know who was for and against them ?

As soon as a person knows who voted for or against them this creates a negative wall between those players. Who votes for who in the council is private isnt it ?

If i vote for someone i have to think they were a fair person and took the good with the bad , if the person is the sort of person who sorts the good from the bad and doesnt have anything to do with the negative side of things are they what you would call a fair person ?

Ramd · Post by **Ramd** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:56 pm

Arev wrote:No one said it yet, geez...

Ok, I'll say it, "Who does #2 work for?"

And let just say this, it's okay to take sides. We are a constitutional monarchy, not a tyranny (either a one-man tyranny or a tyranny of the majority). So, the Council must come to a consensus for Lexx to know our decision. It's perfectly fine to be the dissenting opinion. Lord knows there was a time when the Council was ruled was tyranny of the majority, but I never gave in and gladly took the criticism of being the "negative guy".

#2 obviously works for Rog

Arev · Post by **Arev** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:02 pm

It's not so much about being a democracy (which we aren't), it's basically pointing out that it's okay to disagree. Unanimity is a bad thing and something that we should never strive for.

Now, having that, I don't see the issue with Rog asking about "sides". If Rog wants to know, he should ask individual Councilmen what they think. Then, we choose whether or not to answer. RID looks to us for leadership. They'll want to know if we support this or don't support that. Or how we're going to address this or that issue.

On that note, can anyone guess the movie reference the bolded question was from?

Ramd · Post by **Ramd** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:09 pm

Arev wrote:It's not so much about being a democracy (which we aren't), it's basically pointing out that it's okay to disagree. Unanimity is a bad thing and something that we should never strive for.

Now, having that, I don't see the issue with Rog asking about "sides". If Rog wants to know, he should ask individual Councilmen what they think. Then, we choose whether or not to answer. RID looks to us for leadership. They'll want to know if we support this or don't support that. Or how we're going to address this or that issue.

On that note, can anyone guess the movie reference the bolded question was from?

Frankly, if someone asks me what I think about an issue like this, I don't think I'm required to answer the question. Once we all come to an agreement, then sure, I would release our decision(s), but before that, I wouldn't presume to speak for the Council, or my own opinions, really, which are incomplete.