Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

JayW

Members
  • Content Count

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

332 profile views
  1. Legally forum posts are copyrighted to the author and publishing them (making them available to others) without the author's permission is a violation of copyright laws. That said, since most forum posts aren't commercial ventures, there's not a whole lot you can do about it since most copyright suits are based on a loss of income to the author because of the theft. You can send a cease and desist, of course, and you can contact the host and/or service provider -- they often have strict copyright policies regardless of actual damages. For the most part, however, as sad a commentary on society as it is, it's practical to assume that if you put it online, you lose all control over where and how it is published.
  2. Messenger is when someone sends you a private message. Notifications are to be notified when there are replies to a post you're following or various other events. If you click on the "Notifications" icon, at the right click on "Options" and then you can set up which notifications you want to receive and how (Notification list or email).
  3. Yes, and I just realized I should have noted that you did the highlight/click *after* you had the quote in your reply box. (On some other forum software you can highlight someone else's post, click the 'quote' button at the bottom of the post and just quote that portion of the text, but this software quotes the whole post.) You can add in that information manually, but you have to go into the BBCode to do it. I suppose one way would be to "Quote" the entire post, which will retain the name and post info on the first portion to which you're responding, copy/paste outside of the quote box, cut the first quote down to your first point, then use the word bubble on the copied/pasted text for future points, which wouldn't have the identifying information but ideally would be implied to be related to the first, identified point. Of course, that seems admittedly complex and cumbersome, so if you're concerned about keeping the identifying information on your quoted points, going into BBCode Mode and copy/pasting the opening quote code is likely the best option.
  4. If you're a more visual/mouse person, you turn (or leave) BBCode Mode off, highlight the portion of the long quote you want to address and press the 'quote' button (looks like a word bubble, next to the twitter bubble, at the top of the reply box.) Then just be sure your reply starts *below* the quote box and not inside of it (because for some reason when you do a quote non-BBCode it leaves the cursor inside the quote box), and I'd agree with adding a blank line between the quote box and your response.
  5. It seems to be an IE11 issue. I found this fix on another forum using the same software, so perhaps it will work for you: ETA: Replace "forumflash" for "Westeros" in the above.
  6. Do you not have a "quote" button at the bottom right of each post? If not, can you use the code [ quote ] quoted text [ /quote ] (without the spaces)? It's similar to HTML mode vs WYSIWYG mode, basically. With BBC Code Mode on, you see the text and the formatting codes ( [ quote ], [ b ] for bold, [ i ] for italics, etc., with of course their closing partners). With BBC Code Mode off, you see the pretty quote boxes and the bolded or italicized text, and you can click on the icons to accomplish formatting rather than inputting (and knowing) the codes.
  7. Know which posts you want to quote. (If you're quoting from multiple threads, have a separate tab or window open for each one.) Knowing the order in which you want to quote them would probably be very helpful, too. Click the "MultiQuote" button within the first post you want to quote -- a pop-up box will appear that says "Reply to 1 quoted post(s)" (or "Clear"). Now click the "MultiQuote" button within the second post you want to quote -- notice the pop-up will change to "Reply to 2 quoted post(s)". Repeat for the third, fourth, etc. When you're ready to start typing your reply, click on the "Reply to x quoted post(s)" and then have fun cutting down the quotes to manageable chunks. Also, be sure you the cursor is outside of (below) the quoted text box before you start replying; I've noticed that sometimes the cursor ends up inside the box, and then your reply is included as part of the quote.
  8. I'm going to pretend I didn't read that.... I think, in our case, at any rate, the nominating committee would be a special committee because the bylaws state it shall be appointed each year. So it's not an ongoing committee with an annual function -- it's a new committee created annually. I could be completely wrong about that, of course!
  9. Sorry, I meant to note that our Bylaws do not list any standing committees. Thanks again!
  10. You're absolutely right about that! Now that's an interesting point. (Maybe.) Our Bylaws also state that "Committee members will be appointed by the respective Committee Chairpersons." So would the creation of a Committee that pre-specifies the Committee members be a violation of the Bylaws, and since the Committee is an ongoing entity would that constitute a continuing breach for which a Point of Order could be raised at any time? Another interesting point. This Committee is intended to have an annual function, so would be standing committee -- in which case the statement about the President appointing ad hoc committees isn't relevant, anyway. The Board decision to approve the Committee was unanimous, so I do think it was properly created (not considering the potential Bylaws violation above), but recognizing that it is a standing committee makes a difference. Thanks, as always, for the information and advice!
  11. Trying to get my ducks in a row, here... At a meeting of our Board several months ago, a "motion to accept the proposed Committee" was passed by the Board. Once the members found out about it, an uproar ensued, and several Board members have realized that the Committee is not what they thought it would be, and would like to revisit the matter at an upcoming meeting. One Board member (who is a bit of a bully, and is not the President) has informed the rest of the Board that only the President can create committees, and thus only the President can eliminate them. Our Board does have the authority to create committees, in that "the government and management of the Club shall be vested in the Board of Directors." Our Bylaws also state, in various places: "The Board of Directors shall have the power to discharge committees of the Club for violation or neglect of duty, provided that a report of such action is made to the Club." [Does not apply in this case.] "The President shall, with the concurrence of the Board of Directors, appoint all committee chairpersons within one (1) month of his or her election to the Presidency." [We assume this to mean Standing Committees.] "The Standing Committee chairpersons may be appointed by the President of the Club with the concurrence of the Board of Directors. The President may also appoint ad hoc committees as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Club." [The bully Board member takes "the President may also appoint" here to mean "the President may also create".] RONR seems quite clear on the matter with this statement: "Whenever it is stated in the bylaws... that the president 'shall appoint all committees,' this means that the president shall select the persons to serve on such committees as the bylaws prescribe to be established or the assembly may direct to be appointed; it does not mean that the president can himself decide to appoint and assign a task to a group and thereby give it the status of a committee of the society." (I don't have the citation, this stuff always comes up when my book is at home!) I realize it's ultimately up to the club (or the Board) to interpret the Bylaws, but can I get confirmation that I'm fairly solid footing in saying that nothing in the Bylaws appears to give the President the right to unilaterally create a committee, and that it is thus the Board that has the power to create and eliminate committees? From there, if the other Board members can get the bully to concede that point, I'm wondering what the next step is. I've read the section on Discharging a committee but it doesn't quite seem to apply here -- nothing has yet been officially referred to the committee, it was set up as part of a process that will change in the latter half of this year. (I posted about it in another thread; essentially it's designed to pre-select candidates for a judging assignment that will appear on the ballot. All nominations go to the committee, and from those the committee chooses three candidates to send to the membership for a vote.) Would a motion to rescind the motion to "approve the Committee" be the better/easier/more appropriate approach? If there are any other items/citations supporting the notion that the President cannot act unilaterally to create a committee, I'd appreciate those as well. My gratitude, as always!
  12. Thanks all, as always! Yes, for those who bother to look at the bios. I believe that most of our members are rather apathetic and simply vote for whomever has an asterisk by their name, which invariably keeps the status quo of a Board who is not especially interested in what the members want. I was hoping for a nice, easy, "You can't do that" but should have known better. The burden lies on us, then, to shake more members out of their apathy and get them to vote the self-serving Board members out of office. It may be a Standing Rule rather than a custom, I have no idea since the Standing Rules aren't written down anywhere. Regardless, the Board would have voted to create the Standing Rule so would vote to change it if they wanted to. Our bylaws say that "The government and management of the Club shall be vested in the Board of Directors", which has been interpreted to mean the Board can do anything that the Bylaws do not specifically 'assign' to the members. Since the Bylaws are silent on selection of judges, it seems then that the Board can enact this pre-screening of candidates without violating anything in RONR. (Am I right in thinking that if it were an election of officers/board members, presenting only the pre-screened candidates would not be allowed?) I had thought of write-ins after I sent this, so thanks for confirming that it's a viable option.
  13. A couple of questions about Nominating Committees and ballots. 1. Our club votes for Board members (among other things) by mail, as allowed in our Bylaws. If the Nominating Committee submits its nominees to the members one month prior to the deadline for members to submit their own nominees ("from the floor", as it were), is it appropriate (allowed, proper) for the ballot, which goes out about a month after nominations close, to indicate which nominees were selected by the Committee? (Attached to the ballot is a brief "biography" of each candidate, which also indicates by whom they were nominated.) Does having an asterisk next to a nominee's name (which is how the Committee selections are noted) somehow provide a bias toward that candidate? 2. We also vote on judges for our annual event. In the past a candidate was nominated by two members and if they accepted, they were put on the ballot. (We typically have around 10-12 nominees, of which two are chosen.) The Board recently decided to change this process, and create a "Selection Committee" of five to whom all the members' nominations would go, and the Committee will narrow down the nominations to three; only those three would go on the ballot (again with two being chosen). Our Bylaws are silent on the selection of judges (but do allow the President and Board to create committees). If this were a Nominating Committee for the Board elections, I'd think that the process would not be allowed since nominations from the floor must be accepted unless the bylaws state otherwise. Since this is not about Board positions, however, and not technically a "Nominating" Committee, I'm not sure the same Rules apply. It would seem to me that this process will infringe on the rights of members to have their candidates voted on by the membership, but maybe in a non-election situation that's not exactly a right of the members.... As usual, any insight would be appreciated!
×
×
  • Create New...