hydrogen_bond wrote:

How does the voting happen, and can I be a nominee?

which election?

wat happened; I was on an unannounced hiatus (was trying to get used to my HP 15 which is as slow as heck.)

mbrick2 wrote:

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

Well, I think there should be a change in rules here. I feel like the BoD should get a part in voting things and not just specific things. Yes, they can manage a specific section, but they should have a part in voting and not just the CEO and Co-CEO deciding without thinking of the bad things that would happen.

Like what you did with that one guy! You guys had a BoD vote. I feel like we should have more of those often and not just a high-tier BoD accepting it without any support.

I mean, I'm not saying that they are doing that, but that can happen.

We have occasinal votes but it is hidden from users

And where do we have these votes? It seems to me that these votes are hidden from basically everybody? When was the last time that this team actually had a vote?

hydrogen_bond wrote:

So elections are happening and one single person is making everyone agree??? What the heck is going on. I don't wanna mention their name but still after reading a lot of messages I understood 1 thing, let me break that into 3 message
1 okay election are going, very good but even the high tier BoD members are people, not some computer language and by law, they have a right to vote, secondly you should remove a vote from an alt account of a nominee (if they use it in case)

I know and it is me. Is this a bad thing though? I am helping people with what they need. This OS needs help, and I helped them. I showed them that some things are silly. The codeword that was hidden. People agree and it was changed. I made a new position, and I promoted someone that didn't know they had that chance. I made a good wiki speech that I didn't even participate in because the Wiki isn't really useful because everybody in this OS inactive

Also, I don't know if you have read these posts because you are always surprised by the 5 pages that we make, but GAMS2 said he wouldn't vote and AIGamesDeveloper said “ok” or something else. But it seemed like he was calm

Only AIGamesDeveloper cannot because if he were to vote, it would be biased. And people are sensitive, so it's good that AIGamesDeveloper is aware of that, right? I mean, what if he just made people sad. That wouldn't be a good leader.

hydrogen_bond wrote:

2 everyone is spam messaging and all the posts make the forum toxic. Why aren't we doing the necessary things, see the glory days were awesome but everyone's got a life, and reading a lot consumes their time, for example, even AI is in school and what if he's just constantly posting, what happens if he couldn't concentrate on studies and studies at this age is the most important of all. I'm not telling any of these blindly, i have experienced these!!

IDK it doesn't seem like a problem to him
It looks like he posts during school.
Yet he bragged that he has A+'s

And if studies are a problem, then why do they suddenly show up for activity checks. It's like they don't care about this collaboration.
Just have the people who aren't here all the time removed from this collaboration. That way, we have people who actually want to join and will actually be active here.

hydrogen_bond wrote:

3 yes we're making new things but all these things are now like a tangled mess. We are responsible for abandoning the last forum and just imagine this - you wake up to do nothing sit down open scratch starts reading 5forum pages while still having some work, studies, personal works and you are living in the opposite time zone.
See we are the ones who can change anything
1. We should organize things
2. Take care of others, nobody is superior we're equal, we're humans
3. Accept good things so that everyone can be benefitted from it

I mean, that literally happens to every thread that had 500 pages
They were responsible. Was that a bad thing? It means that we were talking and interacting with each other.
Well not me, I have been here for two days.

How can we change anything if we can't even post something? I showed that anybody could change anything and not the mid-tier and high-tier BoD (I'm not being narcissistic) but I haven't seen anybody else. You said that everybody has lives, so how could we change this OS and how it works if everybody has a life and schoolwork?

Most of these posts are off-topic
Some are on-topic because I made sure but most of these are off-topic using the <offtopic> thing.

Yeah, we are humans, but who said anything about being superior? It's just the BoD. It is more of being trusted. You can't just trust a random person to do something so bad. The BoD is literally just full of trustworthy people who can make the big decisions in AspectOS because they can be trusted and they know what to do.

And yes, the BoD has accepted good things. They may have accepted bad things. Lots of bad things actually… but aside from that, they try their best to accept the best things for the OS, not the coolest.

hydrogen_bond wrote:

And finally, i care about aspect OS and all of its employees.
Am I telling this in a state where I am I'll and going through immense depression. I'm telling this with all care and respect

To be honest, I thank you for this. You care about this OS more than most people do.
This OS really matters to you. Some people still have faith in this OS and I admire that.
I wanted to bring this OS back to work and to make sure that we actually get tasks done

That is why I want to be in the BoD. I don't want to go mad in power. I want to assign and I want to remove people that aren't helping at all and just doing things. Yes, they have lives, but some are really inactive and it seems like they have no time at all.

Now, I don't want to remove people because they are inactive and I don't want to hurt their feelings because they had schoolwork, I want to remove people to get the weight of this OS off their shoulders, so they feel a bit better.

mbrick2 wrote:

I think we should do something. That's what we are missing.

Yes!
But we are missing production because we are missing inactivity.
Fewer people = Less production

hydrogen_bond wrote:

Please everyone send your views on this ASAP.
I'm not doing any of this for popularity, I'm doing this for our well-being

I personally agree with your view. This OS team has gone so far and it seems like they haven't changed. People are power-hungry
People have lives
And people aren't doing anything

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

-BIG SNIP-

All your posts are literal essays…

And also, don't judge me about the wiki.

I don't freaking care most people are inactive,
As long as its there I'm content.

ANd YES, we do need some mods and stuff on there. Again, don't judge me.

Question: Idk when I said that I will make a Calendar, and I've told you two times that the calculator is a mess because I suck at clones

I_LOVE_TO_MAKE_STUFF wrote:

Question: Idk when I said that I will make a Calendar, and I've told you two times that the calculator is a mess because I suck at clones

it was a problem with initials. I meant to put WDWDN

GAMS2 wrote:

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

-BIG SNIP-

All your posts are literal essays…

And also, don't judge me about the wiki.

I don't freak care most people are inactive,
As long as it's there I'm content.

And YES, we do need some mods and stuff on there. Again, don't judge me.

So? Better than the two words most people have

And you don't care about people being inactive? Kind of suspicious. Kind of like you aren't caring about your fellow contributors.

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

-BIG SNIP-

If you want to be in the BoD, then I can and will step down.

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

And you don't care about people being inactive? Kind of suspicious. Kind of like you aren't caring about your fellow contributors.

It sounds more to me that he does care. Even if someone is inactive, they should still be allowed to work here. What if AI got a screen time limit in which he could only be online an hour a week? Would you want him fired? Even if people are a little inactive they should still have a chance. We've accepted people with 4/10 activity. Everyone should have a chance, not just those users that are blessed with the ability to get on anytime they want.

yooit_32 wrote:

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

-BIG SNIP-

If you want to be in the BoD, then I can and will step down.

They requested a higher role and it got accepted and now they want to be in their own position but 3 other people are running. Please keep your spot. They might have a chance of winning

Dream-123-123 wrote:

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

And you don't care about people being inactive? Kind of suspicious. Kind of like you aren't caring about your fellow contributors.

It sounds more to me that he does care. Even if someone is inactive, they should still be allowed to work here. What if AI got a screen time limit in which he could only be online an hour a week? Would you want him fired? Even if people are a little inactive they should still have a chance. We've accepted people with 4/10 activity. Everyone should have a chance, not just those users that are blessed with the ability to get on anytime they want.

To be honest, it is quite irritating when we have people do nothing
I understand some are working but others are taking forever.
If they have that screen time, why bother applying? It's a waste of our time.

I do accept those people, but only because I expect them to do work. I don't want them to just sit around and have their name there while we are waiting for them. Because to be honest, I have been waiting for some people to respond

This is making me want to have 2 activity checks a month.

AlGamesDeveIoper wrote:

Dream-123-123 wrote:

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

And you don't care about people being inactive? Kind of suspicious. Kind of like you aren't caring about your fellow contributors.

It sounds more to me that he does care. Even if someone is inactive, they should still be allowed to work here. What if AI got a screen time limit in which he could only be online an hour a week? Would you want him fired? Even if people are a little inactive they should still have a chance. We've accepted people with 4/10 activity. Everyone should have a chance, not just those users that are blessed with the ability to get on anytime they want.

To be honest, it is quite irritating when we have people do nothing
I understand some are working but others are taking forever.
If they have that screen time, why bother applying? It's a waste of our time.

I do accept those people, but only because I expect them to do work. I don't want them to just sit around and have their name there while we are waiting for them. Because to be honest, I have been waiting for some people to respond

This is making me want to have 2 activity checks a month.

Adding to this, although I do want people to get on whenever they want, I at least want them to contribute every once in a while. We tried having people active and Meower employees started a controversial topic

Dream-123-123 wrote:

(#1349)

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

And you don't care about people being inactive? Kind of suspicious. Kind of like you aren't caring about your fellow contributors.

It sounds more to me that he does care. Even if someone is inactive, they should still be allowed to work here. What if AI got a screen time limit in which he could only be online an hour a week? Would you want him fired? Even if people are a little inactive they should still have a chance. We've accepted people with 4/10 activity. Everyone should have a chance, not just those users that are blessed with the ability to get on anytime they want.

plus, you are the one who can't get on Vercel. what if they make a vercel team and mark you as inactive, removed, even, because they have a rule that says you have to be on all the teams?
everyone should have a second chance, like you said.

AlGamesDeveIoper wrote:

Dream-123-123 wrote:

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

And you don't care about people being inactive? Kind of suspicious. Kind of like you aren't caring about your fellow contributors.

It sounds more to me that he does care. Even if someone is inactive, they should still be allowed to work here. What if AI got a screen time limit in which he could only be online an hour a week? Would you want him fired? Even if people are a little inactive they should still have a chance. We've accepted people with 4/10 activity. Everyone should have a chance, not just those users that are blessed with the ability to get on anytime they want.

To be honest, it is quite irritating when we have people do nothing
I understand some are working but others are taking forever.
If they have that screen time, why bother applying? It's a waste of our time.

I do accept those people, but only because I expect them to do work. I don't want them to just sit around and have their name there while we are waiting for them. Because to be honest, I have been waiting for some people to respond

This is making me want to have 2 activity checks a month.

That's kind of what I meant. If you are able to do something for the OS even though you are inactive, then you should be allowed to stay. Otherwise, there's just no reason to be a part of this. I also agree we should have two activity checks per month.

yooit_32 wrote:

Dream-123-123 wrote:

(#1349)

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

And you don't care about people being inactive? Kind of suspicious. Kind of like you aren't caring about your fellow contributors.

It sounds more to me that he does care. Even if someone is inactive, they should still be allowed to work here. What if AI got a screen time limit in which he could only be online an hour a week? Would you want him fired? Even if people are a little inactive they should still have a chance. We've accepted people with 4/10 activity. Everyone should have a chance, not just those users that are blessed with the ability to get on anytime they want.

plus, you are the one who can't get on Vercel. what if they make a vercel team and mark you as inactive, fired, even, because they have a rule that says you have to be on all the teams?
everyone should have a second chance, like you said.

multiple ppl cant get on vercel

yooit_32 wrote:

Dream-123-123 wrote:

(#1349)

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

And you don't care about people being inactive? Kind of suspicious. Kind of like you aren't caring about your fellow contributors.

It sounds more to me that he does care. Even if someone is inactive, they should still be allowed to work here. What if AI got a screen time limit in which he could only be online an hour a week? Would you want him fired? Even if people are a little inactive they should still have a chance. We've accepted people with 4/10 activity. Everyone should have a chance, not just those users that are blessed with the ability to get on anytime they want.

plus, you are the one who can't get on Vercel. what if they make a vercel team and mark you as inactive, fired, even, because they have a rule that says you have to be on all the teams?
everyone should have a second chance as you said.

I have never heard AIGamesDeveloper say that
He usually has teams for every site.
He doesn't force you, right?

Anyways, I'm done with this. I don't want to be blamed for a controversial topic.

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

yooit_32 wrote:

Dream-123-123 wrote:

(#1349)

ABC1234567890XYZ wrote:

And you don't care about people being inactive? Kind of suspicious. Kind of like you aren't caring about your fellow contributors.

It sounds more to me that he does care. Even if someone is inactive, they should still be allowed to work here. What if AI got a screen time limit in which he could only be online an hour a week? Would you want him fired? Even if people are a little inactive they should still have a chance. We've accepted people with 4/10 activity. Everyone should have a chance, not just those users that are blessed with the ability to get on anytime they want.

plus, you are the one who can't get on Vercel. what if they make a vercel team and mark you as inactive, fired, even, because they have a rule that says you have to be on all the teams?
everyone should have a second chance as you said.

I have never heard AIGamesDeveloper say that
He usually has teams for every site.
He doesn't force you, right?

Anyways, I'm done with this. I don't want to be blamed for a controversial topic.

No, he doesn't. Yooit_32 was saying what if AI made that rule.

Dream-123-123 wrote:

That's kind of what I meant. If you are able to do something for the OS even though you are inactive, then you should be allowed to stay. Otherwise, there's just no reason to be a part of this. I also agree we should have two activity checks per month.

Yes. That one rule where I say “contribute”

I mean that you have to contribute once in a while rather than just not doing anything

All we need is another person to agree on this activity check act

AIGamesDeveloper wrote:

Dream-123-123 wrote:

That's kind of what I meant. If you are able to do something for the OS even though you are inactive, then you should be allowed to stay. Otherwise, there's just no reason to be a part of this. I also agree we should have two activity checks per month.

Yes. That one rule where I say “contribute”

I mean that you have to contribute once in a while rather than just not doing anything

All we need is another person to agree on this activity check act

me

Dream-123-123 wrote:

No, he doesn't. Yooit_32 was saying what if AI made that rule.

If I made that rule, I would be a terrible collaboration leader
I try to be as universal as possible, finding workarounds for everybody

I care about this OS and I wouldn't want to remove someone (yooit don't say fired, I don't want to start a controversial argument with people from other collaborations again. We say removed) just because they don't have something

If so, I would've removed GAMS, Dream, and others because they don't have access to something.