Has Le Pak given you gals a bribe or something?
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
Nope Lepaki is just awesomesauce
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
Ek bhi larkay ko vote nahi mila? I feel badly. How about diwana? 
No sympathy votes 
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
sorry 
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
I’d say Zafra…who else has more um…experience in the matter 
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
to phir kon hai? 
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
Unjust ban? CC…if the situation has reached a point where a member is facing a ban or will be issued a ban, then that means the blows/punches/kicks have already been exchanged or have already taken place.
And sometimes during a conflict, one member may transgress more than another. A “diplomatic” union president should not be a member who thinks, “Member A has been spewing crap for a very long time now in threads and blogs, therefore Member B is justified in teaching Member A a lesson by going above and beyond in limits” A diplomatic union president…chahay woh Le Pak ho ya koi aur ho… will recognize a transgression…and a double-triple-transgression…and won’t make excuses for both of them, especially the latter…irrespective of the union president’s personal feelings about the members in the conflict.
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
Union Presidents are usually Mod insiders put in place to pacify the mobs … Give them a vent space … I think to a certain degree unions are bad … The normal members would then have to place themselves on an either or basis … I prefer to be a neither nor sort of person …
Unions are like another layer of management … Any dissent from individuals will be unheard because they may get processed through a union filter.
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
I would nominate Queer.
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
Or if they are not mod-insiders, they could eventually become so…shudders. I foresee sticky situations especially if union president is strong enough to speak out against a mod…and if that mod happens to be close pals with other mods that are friends with Union president. I foresee game playing. I imagine some folks switching sides or playing both sides of the fence ..depending on what will be more advantageous to them. 
I don’t even know how to articulate it, but basically it will get messy and complicated in more apparent ways as well behind the scenes.
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
I would have voted for Aish..but seems like she wouldn’t want that position..so I would say Queer and Le-Pak…they are pretty cool.
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
I would agree with madz and nominate myself 
considering the fact that i just got like half the people unbanned (and my own self many times 
)
Waisay aisa kuch nahi. Psyah is watching too many 1980’s Indian movies where the president of labor union is actually the agent of Seth sahab, and towards the end of the movie Amitabh oos ko dhishoon dhishoon kar ke marta hai.
I can create a hypothetical foundation for all to understand what I think might be the logistics, if we had a union. Member A is getting reported left and right. Admins have a case to ban him. They inform the president about their intentions. Union president can agree, argue or can reach out to the accused member to see if he reach an agreement that member A is going to behave. You know that kind of stuff.
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
^TLK did the screening of this hypothetical picture take place in Lala Land? Yeah right …what is the likelihood that Member A is going to agree to back down and behave? And what if member A is a moderator? Hmm? Regular members ki tarha…mods don’t always behave either. Should behavior management be taken care of first before attempting more bolder revolutions like having a union presi? Maybe the former won’t necessitate the latter.
Also, does the case to ban a member have to be brought up by the admin members (mods, director, pres) first…or can the union president bring up the case first? Again, what if the offender is a moderator? Maybe mod says something rude…or maybe a mod in the attempt to earn "“da kewlness/funny points” instigates a joke about a member that sends a thread derailing…and the admins either have not noticed this or choose to turn a blind eye to it…can Union President report the case and be involved in the mediating/disciplining?
^ To this day, only two mods did something that was ban worthy, while they were mods; and we did ban those mods, right away.
When we pick mods, we pick members who are nice and fine to begin with. No one does ban worthy act overnight. The symptoms are there from day one, and those people are never picked as mod.
Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president
It doesn’t always have to be a ban-worthy offense, TLK. It can even be an infraction-worthy offense. Dude, when people vote for the leader of a country…they will also vote/pick the one that seems nice and fine and competent to them from the get-go…but the claws often come out after the position has been secured. And it may sound strange, but sometimes it’s the super-duper sweet, nice ones that one has to watch out for…that can get away with instigating ganging up and other things…because they are simply bettah playas than the mods who are more upfront/blunt.
They do get points. We have an internal system of three warnings, equivalent to 5-10 points per warning. After three warnings, mod has to leave the team. Only happened once.
I agree with your 2nd paragraph rv.
But I think you missed the point I was trying to make.
I refer you back to your original post.
Your first sentence implies that the pres will get angry. I disagree. When dealing with matters that relate to this I dont think the pres would (shall?) be dealing with these things with anger or emotion. Their purpose would not be retaliation. Or even unfairly siding with a member.
At times members are banned for unfair (please note I dont include myself. It seemed like you were implying I think my ban was unfair) reasons without even being allowed to have a say in the matter. Actually, members never have a say in the matter.
Thats where the pres would come in. If the accused member feels that they are being treated unfairly they can take their case to the pres. If the pres feels that yes they are being treated unfairly, then they have a chat about it. Remember, I said IF. That would just form part of it.
It would be more to protect members from double standards, rather than help a member dodge the law.
For example, in member vs mod arguments, despite poop being thrown by both sides, the member may receive a penatly whilst to the common member the mod will face no consequence whatsoever.
Excess of justice is out of the question. The pres wouldnt be a vigilante . They would be what the members currently dont have; an appointed respresentative who can weigh in on mod decisions.