Myself and Ben appoint Eddie...

Eilzel wrote:I hope so

Joy Division wrote:As Deuputy speaker as third place finalist , due to Edmund bowing out, will you accept this position Eddie?

You need not be savvy on political matters, Eilzel has some of that, keeping order is just as important and I'm sure your more than able for that!, it would probably benefit this house to have a female speaker as well as a male.

Do you accept this offer Eddie?

Regards, JD

PhilDidge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:As Deuputy speaker as third place finalist , due to Edmund bowing out, will you accept this position Eddie?

You need not be savvy on political matters, Eilzel has some of that, keeping order is just as important and I'm sure your more than able for that!, it would probably benefit this house to have a female speaker as well as a male.

Do you accept this offer Eddie?

Regards, JD

Hi Joy

Am all for Eddie taking the role as think she is fab, but out of respect and to allow others to post to me Lord to see if this may change his mind, please allow 24 hours before anything is decided?
I think as I have done myself will post and try to convince him to take the role as others may wish to do have the opportunity themselves, even if at the end Me Lord still wants to bow out at least it allows people a chance to prove to Me Lord people have faith in him?
So if others share my view then let Me lord know, as it does not hurt to try

Anyway just a suggestion

heavenly father wrote:why would anyone want to be second in command to a kangaroo court...

PhilDidge wrote:Now worries Joy and respect your view, as I say part of me hoped I could attempt to change Me Lord's mind and understand his mind is no doubt well made up, even more so due to recent events to take time out, and respect that, but it shows to me he will be sorely missed  

Joy Division wrote:

heavenly father wrote:why would anyone want to be second in command to a kangaroo court...

There will be no Kangaroo courts Favva, to ensure the Speaker's position is not abused, there will be a system where a minimum of four  complaints with EVIDENCE that the Speaker(s) are doing just that...

They have to be honest, listen to all sides fairly, keep order and not allow lies to discredit another party...

I don't always agree with Eilzel but I have every faith in him doing a good job, and he is the sort I can honestly say would listen to all political views and arguments.

While the system is there in setting down honesty, unbias etc, it can not be abused by anyone else either, and this is why we will have a minimum of a four complaints system with EVIDENCE to back up those claims.

Regards, JD

heavenly father wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


There will be no Kangaroo courts Favva, to ensure the Speaker's position is not abused, there will be a system where a minimum of four  complaints with EVIDENCE that the Speaker(s) are doing just that...

They have to be honest, listen to all sides fairly, keep order and not allow lies to discredit another party...

I don't always agree with Eilzel but I have every faith in him doing a good job, and he is the sort I can honestly say would listen to all political views and arguments.

While the system is there in setting down honesty, unbias etc, it can not be abused by anyone else either, and this is why we will have a minimum of a four complaints system with EVIDENCE to back up those claims.

Regards, JD

lol, like that would ever happen, i thought you was ok JD not sure what changed..   

Joy Division wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

lol, like that would ever happen, i thought you was ok JD not sure what changed..   

I am 'ok' Favva!  

Sometimes we have to put past personal differences behind us Favva,  still have a few 'auld enemies' on here so to speak!, but I would not rig a vote or not let my 'auld enemies' not have the chance of being polled just because I had some political or even silly run-ins with them Favva!

I thought God encourages love and peace?

Maine coon lover wrote:why do we need a forum speaker , it own't make any difference it will just be biased opinions . Stupid idea

heavenly father wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


I am 'ok' Favva!  

Sometimes we have to put past personal differences behind us Favva,  still have a few 'auld enemies' on here so to speak!, but I would not rig a vote or not let my 'auld enemies' not have the chance of being polled just because I had some political or even silly run-ins with them Favva!

I thought God encourages love and peace?

Yes  God does but he still expects you to stand up for the truth...  

Ben_Reilly wrote:The way I envision these speakers -- and Joy can correct me if I'm wrong -- but basically they get voted in and they get the titles, and their authority comes from having been voted by their peers level-headed enough to jump into arguments that are getting heated and do their best to settling things down, get threads back on track, etc.

We're not talking about appointing two new moderators, in other words.

NemsAgain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:The way I envision these speakers -- and Joy can correct me if I'm wrong -- but basically they get voted in and they get the titles, and their authority comes from having been voted by their peers level-headed enough to jump into arguments that are getting heated and do their best to settling things down, get threads back on track, etc.

We're not talking about appointing two new moderators, in other words.

Exactly so you need someone unbiased who can wade through the political mud slinging  

heavenly father wrote:
why would anyone want to be second in command to a kangaroo court...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

Exactly so you need someone unbiased who can wade through the political mud slinging  

If by unbiased you mean fair-minded, I would agree.

Beekeeper wrote:

heavenly father wrote:
why would anyone want to be second in command to a kangaroo court...

  

ONCE again we see "h_f" proving himself to be the #1 idiot troll on here this week...

Obviously couldn't even be bothered to actually follow the proceedings..

NemsAgain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:The way I envision these speakers -- and Joy can correct me if I'm wrong -- but basically they get voted in and they get the titles, and their authority comes from having been voted by their peers level-headed enough to jump into arguments that are getting heated and do their best to settling things down, get threads back on track, etc.

We're not talking about appointing two new moderators, in other words.

Exactly so you need someone unbiased who can wade through the political mud slinging  

Tess. wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

If by unbiased you mean fair-minded, I would agree.

I'd say that'd be Didge.

Beekeeper wrote:

heavenly father wrote:
why would anyone want to be second in command to a kangaroo court...

  

ONCE again we see "h_f" proving himself to be the #1 idiot troll on here this week...

Obviously couldn't even be bothered to actually follow the proceedings..

Ben_Reilly wrote:The way I envision these speakers -- and Joy can correct me if I'm wrong -- but basically they get voted in and they get the titles, and their authority comes from having been voted by their peers level-headed enough to jump into arguments that are getting heated and do their best to settling things down, get threads back on track, etc.

We're not talking about appointing two new moderators, in other words.

eddie wrote:No thanks JD. I would like to offer it to someone else.
Thanks very much but no thanks, I know you said knowledge of politics wasn't necessary, I don't post enough on that section to be able to judge it fairly etc.

Over to someone else