Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Suggest New Bands and Artists
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Kurt Rongey for symphonic
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedKurt Rongey for symphonic
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
lucas View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 06 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 8138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 08:15
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Underground Railroad here of course, but I was surprised Kurt's solo stuff wasn't already here

 
I remember a prog rock radio broadcast where the presenter claimed Kurt's solo discography is even more progressive than Underground Railroad's one.
And yes, I am also surprised he is not in PA yet.
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 08:19
Originally posted by toroddfuglesteg toroddfuglesteg wrote:

My point is that an accidental or a deliberate 0 vote means the 2 team members does have access to the 3rd member.  We are not sitting in a room together and the two other members does not have any means to understand if the 0 vote is down to death or the team member just being temporary indisposed. While we establish the status of the third member, the team will be frozen, disabled and out of business and ProgArchives disabled from offering a good service.    

That is my whole point here. Scott and Ivan was right.    


Ah, I see the cause of confusion here, however the previous paragraph in the Admissions Policy does clarify the situation:
4.1 A majority vote will be a number of positive votes in excess of 60% - on teams of 4 or less active members a single No vote will be taken as a veto, rejecting the artist.
and my first reply to you in this thread also stresses this:
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

That makes a mockery of the requirement for genre teams to have a minimum of three members - not waiting for the third vote is the essentially same as having a two-man team. The maths is not spot on, 2 votes are not an addition: Torodd voting Yes, PR, abstain or move would be okay to add the band, but his No could have vetoed. If you want to speed-up submissions then you need more people on your team.
So, in
4.1.1 Three-man team = 2 Yes votes, 0 No votes
We don't mean an absence of votes but an actual vote of "No" by a team member - this is also indicated by the "0" and capitalisation of the word No. if it simply meant absence of votes it would be pointless even stating it.
 
 
Sorry for the confusion. If anyone can suggest alternative wording then I'll happily consider it.
 


Edited by Dean - November 20 2011 at 08:26
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 08:22
Originally posted by lucas lucas wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Underground Railroad here of course, but I was surprised Kurt's solo stuff wasn't already here

 
I remember a prog rock radio broadcast where the presenter claimed Kurt's solo discography is even more progressive than Underground Railroad's one.
And yes, I am also surprised he is not in PA yet.
Yet? He's been here for hours LOL
What?
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 08:32
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by toroddfuglesteg toroddfuglesteg wrote:

My point is that an accidental or a deliberate 0 vote means the 2 team members does have access to the 3rd member.  We are not sitting in a room together and the two other members does not have any means to understand if the 0 vote is down to death or the team member just being temporary indisposed. While we establish the status of the third member, the team will be frozen, disabled and out of business and ProgArchives disabled from offering a good service.    

That is my whole point here. Scott and Ivan was right.    


Ah, I see the cause of confusion here, however the previous paragraph in the Admissions Policy does clarify the situation:
4.1 A majority vote will be a number of positive votes in excess of 60% - on teams of 4 or less active members a single No vote will be taken as a veto, rejecting the artist.
and my first reply to you in this thread also stresses this:
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

That makes a mockery of the requirement for genre teams to have a minimum of three members - not waiting for the third vote is the essentially same as having a two-man team. The maths is not spot on, 2 votes are not an addition: Torodd voting Yes, PR, abstain or move would be okay to add the band, but his No could have vetoed. If you want to speed-up submissions then you need more people on your team.
So, in
4.1.1 Three-man team = 2 Yes votes, 0 No votes
We don't mean an absence of votes but an actual vote of "No" by a team member - this is also indicated by the "0" and capitalisation of the word No. if it simply meant absence of votes it would be pointless even stating it.
 
 
Sorry for the confusion. If anyone can suggest alternative wording then I'll happily consider it.
 


4.1.1 Three-man team = 2 Yes votes, 0 No votes.  All three members must vote, even if that vote is to abstain.  No band shall be added until all member votes have been recorded.

I understood where you were coming from in the initial wording (one can't be sure of 0 no votes until all members have voted), but it might also help to be explicit - go for clarity over brevity.
Back to Top
toroddfuglesteg View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
Retired

Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 08:32

Please do Dean.

I think ExitTheLemmings also raised a very valid point. It is a good idea if two Pacific rim team members let an European member at least wake up and jump into some suitable clothes before closing the vote. Let me stress that I was very pleased and is very pleased with what the Pacific rim members Scott and Ivan did. But for further voting, it is maybe not such a bad idea to set a minimum vote time to 24 or 36 hours where the members are geographic distributed in such a wide area. That would have spared us from two pages here. 

When that is said, I also believe a maximum vote time as in 4 or 6 months from suggest to addition is very appropriate before the Admins gets involved in the matter by enforcing a vote and/or an addition if appropriate. We see some "where is my suggestion/band ?" threads now which may indicate where the swan is buried.  

So if you could putt in minimum to maximum vote and addition time in our rulebook too, that would be grand.

Edit: Sorry, I did not see the post above when posting. 

 



Edited by toroddfuglesteg - November 20 2011 at 08:39
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 09:04
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

The problem is having to register in Mindawn (As you said) and having to receive their spam.

But two votes are enough, he's accepted, I will make his bio in a couple of days.

Iván
Ah. Well. Two votes are not enough - if Torodd had voted "No" then the band would be rejected. Of course I have little doubt that he would have voted "Yes" but it would have been better to wait for him to wake up and give an opinion before pushing on with the addition.

Not correct Dean, (AS FAR AS WE KNEW)  Kurt Rongey is not a controversial band), we thought we needed only majority (2 votes out of 3)

Only in controversial bands unanimous votes are requireds:


.[quote]

Identification of a controversial proposal

Bands and artists will be considered potentially controversial if they:

  • Are not generally listed by other prog sites* AND/OR
  • They have been rejected in the past on the basis of their prog credentials OR
  • Are flagged up by the team concerned as being potentially controversial OR
  • Are flagged up by the admin team as controversial

* The requirement is that at least 2 other sites dedicated to prog have identified the band/artists as being prog. New bands are excluded from this requirement.

One a team has been identified as controvetial, we would recommend contacting the Admin team at this stage [/quote]

Kurt Rongey

1.- Is listed in Proggnosis, Progressor and if I'm not wrong in GEPR
2.- Have never been rejected in the past in basis of his Prog credentials
3.- We haven't flagged him as controversial
4.- The Administrators Team hasn't flagged him as controversial.


As far as we knew ,normal bands only require of MAJORITY

In our and there are three members

  1. Scott
  2. Tprodd
  3. Iván
If Scott and Iván have voted YES, no matter how Torodd votes, the band is added.

While I was with the arm broken, a band was added without my approval, and I agree completely., because Torodd and Scott had voted YES, so no matter how I voted, the band was added

We are accomplishing all the rules, if it's required from now on we will make sure to add three votes

Ask all the teams, when a majority is reached, the band is approved.

BTW: I have not ignored Torodd, I sent a Private message for him and Scott, 

Let's remember that our fourth member was vetoed and that's why we have only three

Iván



Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 20 2011 at 10:58
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 09:07
Please Ivan, not now. We've just cleared up this storm in a tea cup, don't make a hurricane in a bucket out of it.
 
The rules are that in a three man team all members must vote or say they are abstaining. This rule is over a year old and wasn't created specifically for any one team, least of all yours.
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 09:11
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Please Ivan, not now. We've just cleared up this storm in a tea cup, don't make a hurricane in a bucket out of it.
 
The rules are that in a three man team all members must vote or say they are abstaining. This rule is over a year old and wasn't created specifically for any one team, least of all yours.

Honestly Dean, I never read it.

But I talked with Angelo about a possible member who is not yet a Collaborator, and Sean with courtesy declined our invitation..

Iván



Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 20 2011 at 09:17
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 09:17
^ I admire your honesty. When I moved all the rules, policies and guidelines to one location I opened a discussion thread in the CZ - there is nothing I can do to force people to read either thread.
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 09:20
Now, as a complementary issue, I believe that 4 members is the ideal number for us, when we had 5 members it took us weeks to accept or reject a band, and there were a lot of protests.

Maybe the rule of majority could be increased to cover 4 members teams.

Just as a suggestion.

Iván
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 09:21
Can we move this to the discussion thread I linked to in my previous post?
What?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.244 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.