Post by miwo on Aug 13, 2020 6:36:33 GMT
After witnessing the last 3 impeachments (formally called “Vote Off”) I still stand by my stance that Vote Off threads (VO) are stupid and pointless. This is even more evident by the new thread on the integrity of the current execs, see: totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/68014/regarding-executive-power-house-claims
Threads like these are a perfect example as to why I highly dislike the idea of a VO. They function as nothing more than a way to start flame wars and drama which always leads to disdain for the opposing party. There is no instance in which the executive in question gets to properly defend themselves. These threads quickly turn into a witch hunt because members of our community dislike the manner as to how the executive is adminstrating, or they simply just dislike the person who has been appointed executive.
The first VO thread was the one targetted towards me, and because I was absent for a couple of days from the forums I had no way in defending myself from any of the false accusations made towards me. This resulted in 5-10 pages of bickering and the final result of the poll being to kick me off as the ECD, however since it was clear that a lot of the evidence put furth against me were lies the EAO (Sks) decided to make a new VO thread which resulted in me keeping my position. I can only come to a similar conclusion from the conversations I had with W1ze in regards to his VO.
You could see from a mile away that this new thread essentially calling out the entire executive team (the EAO in particular) (https://totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/68014/regarding-executive-power-house-claims ) could only lead to a flame war. Thus I propose the following suggestion:
Remove the ability to Vote Off acting executives.
The only way you could remove a sitting executive is to wait for their term to end, or in the case of abuse, have the internal affairs team, the EAO or Seth sort the matter out.
This would end the unnessecary witch hunts that never lead to a satisfactory conclusion for both parties.
Ideally we would only vote in Executives who will fulfill their role for their tenure, but of course that is not always the case, and that is exactly the reason as to why we have term limits for executives (I think 4 months?), so you can always vote the executive in question off, if you think they are not fit for their role in the next election. Personally I’d prefer the term to only be 3 months, but I can make do with 4.
I would imagine that if you were to elect a new executive that the newly-elected would at least perform their duties for 1-2 months before any signs of negligence were to come forth, thus you would “only” have to wait 1-2 months in a worst case scenario with a negligent executive.
If were to experience an abusive executive, then that matter would be handled as with any other scenario that involves an Admin or Moderator abusing their position– the Internal Affairs make an impartial judgement on the case and deem whether or not to suspend the acting executive. If you believe the Internal Affairs are not fit to handle this responsibility, then the duty falls on the current EAO or ultimately Seth.
Of course this suggestion has the downside of us having to wait a month or two in order to elect a new executive in the instance of the current executive being negligent, but I still think that this proposal is far superior to the Vote Off system we have now.
Please vote on the poll and if you could state your reasoning behind your, then that'd be greatly appreciated. I've set the end date for the poll to be the 17th of August.
Threads like these are a perfect example as to why I highly dislike the idea of a VO. They function as nothing more than a way to start flame wars and drama which always leads to disdain for the opposing party. There is no instance in which the executive in question gets to properly defend themselves. These threads quickly turn into a witch hunt because members of our community dislike the manner as to how the executive is adminstrating, or they simply just dislike the person who has been appointed executive.
The first VO thread was the one targetted towards me, and because I was absent for a couple of days from the forums I had no way in defending myself from any of the false accusations made towards me. This resulted in 5-10 pages of bickering and the final result of the poll being to kick me off as the ECD, however since it was clear that a lot of the evidence put furth against me were lies the EAO (Sks) decided to make a new VO thread which resulted in me keeping my position. I can only come to a similar conclusion from the conversations I had with W1ze in regards to his VO.
You could see from a mile away that this new thread essentially calling out the entire executive team (the EAO in particular) (https://totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/68014/regarding-executive-power-house-claims ) could only lead to a flame war. Thus I propose the following suggestion:
Remove the ability to Vote Off acting executives.
The only way you could remove a sitting executive is to wait for their term to end, or in the case of abuse, have the internal affairs team, the EAO or Seth sort the matter out.
This would end the unnessecary witch hunts that never lead to a satisfactory conclusion for both parties.
Ideally we would only vote in Executives who will fulfill their role for their tenure, but of course that is not always the case, and that is exactly the reason as to why we have term limits for executives (I think 4 months?), so you can always vote the executive in question off, if you think they are not fit for their role in the next election. Personally I’d prefer the term to only be 3 months, but I can make do with 4.
I would imagine that if you were to elect a new executive that the newly-elected would at least perform their duties for 1-2 months before any signs of negligence were to come forth, thus you would “only” have to wait 1-2 months in a worst case scenario with a negligent executive.
If were to experience an abusive executive, then that matter would be handled as with any other scenario that involves an Admin or Moderator abusing their position– the Internal Affairs make an impartial judgement on the case and deem whether or not to suspend the acting executive. If you believe the Internal Affairs are not fit to handle this responsibility, then the duty falls on the current EAO or ultimately Seth.
Of course this suggestion has the downside of us having to wait a month or two in order to elect a new executive in the instance of the current executive being negligent, but I still think that this proposal is far superior to the Vote Off system we have now.
Please vote on the poll and if you could state your reasoning behind your, then that'd be greatly appreciated. I've set the end date for the poll to be the 17th of August.