The Town of Odyssey

Catspaw wrote:

Woody wrote:Do Canadians really say "eh" often?

Talk about a stereotype, eh? Yes, some of us Canadians do actually say "eh" a lot, myself included. It's just one of those expressive filler words that gets added to the end of sentences without me even thinking about it. Just one more reason to love Canadians! We're super fun.

If you want to apologize for someone, apologize for Justin Beiber

Marvin D. wrote:Set a reminder on your phone for next year, Grace

I already did

Catspaw wrote:

bookworm wrote:

Catspaw wrote:

Marvin D. wrote:

bookworm wrote:

DanP740 wrote:

snubs wrote:How many times can a person be elected into ToO office?

It tends to be however many times EK's been elected, plus one.

This post would be humorous if it wasn't accurate.

It *is* humorous because it doesn't claim to be hard fact.

It is indeed humourous because it is not hard fact!

Sure it is. Last time EK ran he was over the limit, but it was raised in order to allow it.

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. We've run almost 30 elections already, so serving even 5 times wouldn't be a huge percentage of the entire history of the ToO. 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. It will make sense to change it again in the future, because more time has passed and that is a significant factor for this type of rule.

Sooo... is it going to remain four? or five times?

EDIT: Just read your other post. So it will stay at four for now?

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...

Woody wrote: If you want to apologize for someone, apologize for Justin Beiber

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

I already did

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...

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 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!

I only questioned because *I* wanted to monopolize the ToO.

*sighs* alas.. now I'll have to look for other alternatives..

Catspaw wrote: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!

That reminds me.. I don't understand why I get absolutely NO credit for Catsville.

Catspaw wrote: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 understand what you're saying here, but in this particular context I'm unable to take it seriously since the legacy of EK's last term is a blatant noninvestment of time or energy.

snubs wrote:I only questioned because *I* wanted to monopolize the ToO.

*sighs* alas.. now I'll have to look for other alternatives..

Catspaw wrote: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!

That reminds me.. I don't understand why I get absolutely NO credit for Catsville.

The time for your monopoly has not yet begun. Be patient.

Now I'm picturing a Snubsopoly game available at fine retailers everywhere!

Next time you want credit, put your name in the title. I think that it's become more of a general term for "Catspaw is the admin instead of elected people" instead of just specifically referencing that deliciously evil (yet far too short) time in the ToO's history that you do indeed deserve lots of credit for.

bookworm wrote:

Catspaw wrote: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 understand what you're saying here, but in this particular context I'm unable to take it seriously since the legacy of EK's last term is a blatant noninvestment of time or energy.

It's always too bad when somebody is elected and then spends much less time than anticipated fulfilling the role they were elected to, but this has happened multiple times during the ToO's history. That doesn't mean that the person can't run again when life looks different for them, and it's still up to voters to decide if they think the potential benefits outweigh the risks if a person in that situation does decide to run again later. That still doesn't negate all the other great stuff that EK has been a part of on the ToO since April 1, 2005.

Yeah, I was about to make an edit with a preemptive clarification that I didn't mean that as an attack, I just found it to be a humorous juxtaposition.
You're too quick on the click.

Catspaw wrote:I think that it's become more of a general term for "Catspaw is the admin instead of elected people"

I don't understand why every election now people want the option of you being the sole admin. An EVIL DICTATOR ADMIN at that.




*whispers* I think you have bigger problems with these townspeople than you realize.

I think we might have a slightly modified version of Stockholm syndrome o:

Yay for Sweden!

I'm wondering, can I use 2 or 3 avatars from the gallery and put all 3 (or 2) in my signature? Or will the system not accept that?

I don't think it will let you put the avatars side by side, and it will be way too big if there's three avatars underneath each other in a signature. Your signature has a lot of text and already takes up an above-average amount of space. If you have found avatars that you really like that you want to have in a signature, see if somebody will combine them into one image for you, with those 2 or 3 avatars side by side, so it will still fit the size requirements.

Can we add interest to the bank? (If that mean we get more money.. If not please don't..)

I think interest has always been broken.

Yes, unfortunately, that isn't an option right now. If memory serves me correctly, there isn't something compatible that could be used, or it would take a ton of time and/or knowledge that our experts just don't have. So we live without interest.

The option is on the ACP... Do you mind if I experiment with it a bit?

Check with Darcie first, since she is the one who did the conversion work when we upgraded a few years ago. She should be able to tell you if there is any point to that or not.

The option is there, but it doesn't have any affect. That's why it was just completely disabled, so people stopped wondering why it said they were getting X% and nothing ever happened.