Woody wrote:
If you want to apologize for someone, apologize for Justin Beiber
![Dancing \:D/](./images/smilies/eusa_dance.gif)
Well, it's an old video. There wasn't anything to apologize for back when it was made.
Graces4you wrote:Marvin D. wrote:Set a reminder on your phone for next year, Grace
![Dancing \:D/](./images/smilies/eusa_dance.gif)
I already did
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/wink.gif)
Yay!
snubs wrote:Sooo... is it going to remain four? or five times?
EDIT: Just read your other post. So it will stay at four for now?
Yes, as I clearly stated in my post in the EK's election thread, the limit will stay at 4 for now. The point I was making in the post here is that even if it was 5, it stil wouldn't be an unreasonable amount, considering the long history we have on the ToO.
bookworm wrote:Catspaw wrote:This is the kind of limit that really should be updated periodically, since the intent is to make sure that one or two people do not monopolize the position of mayor/chief of police. ... It is still entirely keeping with the intention of the rule to change it now and then. It made sense to change it a long time ago, and so it was changed.
Yeah that's the official story, but the timing was pretty suspect.
Also in contrast to the intent of preventing monopolizing, EK is pretty much the only member affected either way, the limit has not been an issue for anyone else and no one else's candidacy has so far been influenced by the change. So in fact all the last increase has done so far is
aid the expansion of a single member's monopoly...
![Whistle :-](./images/smilies/eusa_whistle.gif)
At this point, EK is the only one who would be impacted, but that might not be true in the future, since we do have other people who had multiple terms, and you never know what the future might hold. Increases have been made to fairly uphold the intention of the limit. Refusing to update in a sensible way to block one person from serving in the future doesn't really seem like a great way to do something, and "monopoly" doesn't quite seem like the right way to describe EK's history with the ToO, considering that he has been a member of the ToO since the day it opened. He has served four four-month terms over the past nine and a half years. Is that a decent chunk of time? Yes. A monopoly or majority in any sense? Not even close. EK has had moments where he has spent lots of time on the ToO and no time on the ToO, but overall he has been instrumental to this board, and I would never want to underappreciate the fun and events and ideas and time and talent that he's brought over the years. I think EK could back me up when I say that we haven't come close to agreeing on everything
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/wink.gif)
but it would be a shame to say that somebody interested in giving of their time and energy can never do that again because of the interest of enforcing the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.
I find it very odd that people who have an issue with some people serving a certain number of terms think that a valid alternative to the electoral process is me. Talk about a monopoly!