anyway, as onebat says, the problem with there being only a negative vote in the form of a veto, is that if not everyone is participating in the system or if some people are voting for different reasons (like they don't recognise the name rather than that they think the person goes to the same toddlers' as they are and don't want to be identified, or if they just have a massive personality clash with them and would stop posting on the new site) then it's a bit fucked because it puts a few people in charge.
i'd noticed that there were a few names saying (not illegitimately, i should say) that they were vetoiing people who they didn't know, i thought this was unfair as it gave them a lot of sway for a trivial reason and posted about it and got flamed. i think onebat, you posted too, didn't you? and sophable posted another thread and got flamed too... it was a very defensive evening and the posts got deleted or moved. very un-MN-like so a great affront to my sense of fair-play but to be fair it was never a question of making another MN, the majority really did want somewhere nice to chat and that was it. perhaps by getting narked about the voting system it was ruining the equilibrium? dunno. but you sleep on it, don't you, and you think fuck it, a lot of those people are my friends, i'm not getting run off a board by a minority who disagree with me. so i stayed.
onebat didn't. i rather applaud her for that ethical stance, likewise swedes and mp. but i did think that things would calm down and a better system would be found, tbh. and i still do hope that will be the case because they are still the same people as they were and are posting on MN. gobby, insightful, obnoxious, utterly lovely, wanky, soft, hard, etc. no trolls, though. but a lot of them aren't posting on MN any more and i still like them so i'm going to stick with being able to catch up with them on there. i can understand if that rankles with some of you, though.