Members of the Shining Path to Awesomeness and Success Association ("Shining Path") shall all be considered "jolly good fellows" and "fine chaps". They shall be encouraged (but nor required) to donate to save the baby seals, and to make efforts to reduce their carbon footprint.
Shining Path associate membership is established by the mutual agreement of the Association president, Aaron A Aaronson, and the individual player.
OK, haters, why were you unwilling to accept 1's awesome cool guild idea? I really want to be in such an association, so am ready to hear any and all objections.
Let's create some legislation we can all live with here.
Some people seemed to be responding to the initial font goofiness. I know I did, when I first opposed it.
I was also opposed to involuntarily being "drafted" into an organization, but that was corrected in the version we voted on.
Couldn't you just start a "cool guild" without any legislation? All the guild members could indicate their membership in their profiles, or if they really want to feel special, could add "super-special guild member" to all their posts. We don't really need to vote on this, unless you are hung up on the annoying fonts and colours.
OK, so what would be non-annoying? Maybe just have our posts displayed in bold? Or something just slightly different, like Times New Roman?
Member ship by mutual agreement?
How is the current rule I have drafted above, will you support it?
OK, so what would be non-annoying?
Having your posts displayed in exactly the same way as everyone else's.
(well you did ask :-P )
I object to anything that involves making people cooler than me. I want this to be more like socialism.
Maybe this rule should, instead of requiring the the association's text be displayed differently, could just require that the association be generally thought of as charming folks? Or some other unobtrusive measure?
I really don't see any reason to vote for any of this guild business, nor do I see why we should waste our time with it.
If we could get you on board, ssg, it would actually waste less time - we would move to vote rather than sit here debating and arguing. Is there any way I can get you to see the womderfulness of this plan, ssg? What if we included saving baby seals, somehow?
How about the current revision? Is that something that would work?
shelleycat: done. can we assume "yes" from you?
backseatpilot: much more socialist and less cool now, will that be a "yes"?
ssg: trying hard to make this as quick and waste-free as possible, perhaps by pledging your support we can minimize further waste and move more quickly to pressing matters - can we count on your support here?
I think this stuff is generally frivilous and silly and am not really interested, but don't see that as being a good enough reason to vote something down. Just because I have no sense of humour this week doesn't mean I should make everyone else suffer. So I'll probably vote yes if it's not too annoying and as long as it's always opt out (which I think things have been so far anyway). I voted yes for the previous proposal after all.
I still fail to see the upside, AAA.
So saving the planet is not an upside? Did you see the part about reduced carbon footprint? And about saving the baby seals?
It doesn't seem we've reached consensus. Naysayers, let's here how this rule needs to be modified to work for you.
Define what team play means as referenced in the current ruleset.