Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 1:15:22 GMT
It was deleted like 2 months ago Why? Why not? We have a permanent owner, and an established line of command if said owner(s) become inactive. Employing an ownership transfer policy, now that Seth is our permanent owner, seems to make Seth's job seem a whole lot more temporary now, doesn't it? Perhaps there exists an underlying motive to your questioning of this action?
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 2:07:06 GMT
Why not? We have a permanent owner, and an established line of command if said owner(s) become inactive. Employing an ownership transfer policy, now that Seth is our permanent owner, seems to make Seth's job seem a whole lot more temporary now, doesn't it? Perhaps there exists an underlying motive to your questioning of this action? The premise of your questions is incorrect because it implies the following: - ownership policy makes ownership impermanent - ownership policy didn't establish/enforce exactly what would happen if a permanent owner suddenly dropped dead Refer to the many pages of many threads on the ownership policy for more information. Furthermore, you would be disagreeing with the majority of this community that voting in favor of its existence and successfully used it to elect the current owner in place to argue that it shouldn't exist, and you would also be disagreeing with the validation of Seth's current rank because the ownership policy is the one thing that validates ownership, without it you kind of don't have anything de jure validating it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 2:27:55 GMT
Why not? We have a permanent owner, and an established line of command if said owner(s) become inactive. Employing an ownership transfer policy, now that Seth is our permanent owner, seems to make Seth's job seem a whole lot more temporary now, doesn't it? Perhaps there exists an underlying motive to your questioning of this action? The premise of your questions is incorrect because it implies the following: - ownership policy makes ownership impermanent - ownership policy didn't establish/enforce exactly what would happen if a permanent owner suddenly dropped dead Refer to the many pages of many threads on the ownership policy for more information. Furthermore, you would be disagreeing with the majority of this community that voting in favor of its existence and successfully used it to elect the current owner in place to argue that it shouldn't exist, and you would also be disagreeing with the validation of Seth's current rank because the ownership policy is the one thing that validates ownership, without it you kind of don't have anything de jure validating it. The sole purpose of the ownership policy, is the fact that it accounts for the position of owner, being non-permanent. If the position was "permanent", why would we need a policy that constantly contradicts that notion? I'm sorry, but that's just bad policy. That original ownership policy had one purpose, and one purpose only; to facilitate the passing of this community from the founder, to its owner. Unfortunately for you, Wilee, That event will never happen again, for the benign reason that we will never have a transition from founder to owner, ever again. Fortunately, TF has found its permanent owner, whether you agree with him or not. Opinion should never effect policy. Moving forward, in the event that both Seth and Robin are unable to resume command of TF, a completely unforeseeable, and new policy would have to be drafted, as its a completely different circumstance then before. Unfortunately, as Seth pays the bills, and is the sole person responsible for keeping this community alive, he himself, is the validation. So I'm not quite sure what you meant by "validating" him as owner, unless that position wasn't permanent, as you so morbidly implied. Although you used it incorrectly, the only "de jure" validating an owners position, would be the sole fact that he's the only member of the community "paying the bills". Hypothetically speaking, an unpopular owner, as you seem to imply Seth is (by invoking conversation about a policy responsible for Seth's downfall, on a post meant for congratulations), can't be removed democratically. Why should he be? He's paying money to keep this community alive, and the users who aren't, shouldn't have any say whatsoever. TF is not a public company, and thus, shouldn't be treated like one. Nobody complained about marks power, because, whatcha know, the ownership role is permanent, inherently validating, and almighty. Good day sir.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 2:30:55 GMT
Follow-up question, do you think Mark would ever tolerate a policy outlining a democratic removal of him back in the day (before he went inactive)?
|
|
Fleek
Veteran Member
Posts: 3,548
|
Post by Fleek on Jan 23, 2020 2:33:11 GMT
Follow-up question, do you think Mark would ever tolerate a policy outlining a democratic removal of him back in the day (before he went inactive)? That's different... Mark is the server's founder and if he decided to shut the server down, we wouldn't be here today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 2:34:46 GMT
Follow-up question, do you think Mark would ever tolerate a policy outlining a democratic removal of him back in the day (before he went inactive)? That's different... Mark is the server's founder and if he decided to shut the server down, we wouldn't be here today. And Seth can do the exact same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 2:52:31 GMT
That's different... Mark is the server's founder and if he decided to shut the server down, we wouldn't be here today. And Seth can do the exact same thing. And no he cannot. This server is larger than one person, and if it wasn't then this server would have indeed been shut down following the Mark days. Mark and Finest control the Total Freedom domain and forum respectively, and it is that way for a reason. If something were to happen, then we can easily set up a new Minecraft server and point the domain to it. Nobody is trying to challenge Seth's authority here, but arguing that one person can take down this entire community is ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 2:58:47 GMT
Follow-up question, do you think Mark would ever tolerate a policy outlining a democratic removal of him back in the day (before he went inactive)? No, we have progressed since those days. We do not have the founder of this server in charge, we have somebody else who the community chose under such a policy. There are aspects of the Mark days that people loved and hated and the whole anti-democracy thing was actually the most hated thing, I don't think it's exactly safe for people to be yearning for a return to the good old days of people having less freedom and power on a freedom server like this. Additionally, Mark made it very clear when he left that it's up to us to shape how we want this server to be, with any changes or progressions being totally valid. It is simply regressive to question what Mark would have wanted half a decade ago. Also keep in mind that it requires unanimous consent of the executive team to remove the owner under the ownership policy which isn't exactly an easy feat. Most importantly, I see absolutely no reason why democratic removal of people is an issue... If the majority of this community wanted somebody removed from power, would it be a good thing to step in and say "no, fuck you, you have no say over who's in power" on a freedom server?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 2:59:15 GMT
And Seth can do the exact same thing. And no he cannot. This server is larger than one person, and if it wasn't then this server would have indeed been shut down following the Mark days. Mark and Finest control the Total Freedom domain and forum respectively, and it is that way for a reason. If something were to happen, then we can easily set up a new Minecraft server and point the domain to it. Nobody is trying to challenge Seth's authority here, but arguing that one person can take down this entire community is ludicrous. Eh, Seth can delete all backups, the very server itself (the entire in-game experience dying with it). Mark controls the domain, sure, but nothings stopping Seth from creating a new domain (totalfreedom.io). Additionally, Seth can delete every single board on this forums, thus rendering it useless. He can also essentially create a clone of these forums and point it to said domain. Shrinking the entire history of totalfreedom, down to a single, empty domain. Ludicrous? Absolutely not lol. Possible? Most definitely. Probable? Not in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 3:15:43 GMT
The premise of your questions is incorrect because it implies the following: - ownership policy makes ownership impermanent - ownership policy didn't establish/enforce exactly what would happen if a permanent owner suddenly dropped dead Refer to the many pages of many threads on the ownership policy for more information. Furthermore, you would be disagreeing with the majority of this community that voting in favor of its existence and successfully used it to elect the current owner in place to argue that it shouldn't exist, and you would also be disagreeing with the validation of Seth's current rank because the ownership policy is the one thing that validates ownership, without it you kind of don't have anything de jure validating it. The sole purpose of the ownership policy, is the fact that it accounts for the position of owner, being non-permanent. If the position was "permanent", why would we need a policy that constantly contradicts that notion? I'm sorry, but that's just bad policy. That original ownership policy had one purpose, and one purpose only; to facilitate the passing of this community from the founder, to its owner. Unfortunately for you, Wilee, That event will never happen again, for the benign reason that we will never have a transition from founder to owner, ever again. Fortunately, TF has found its permanent owner, whether you agree with him or not. Opinion should never effect policy. Moving forward, in the event that both Seth and Robin are unable to resume command of TF, a completely unforeseeable, and new policy would have to be drafted, as its a completely different circumstance then before. Unfortunately, as Seth pays the bills, and is the sole person responsible for keeping this community alive, he himself, is the validation. So I'm not quite sure what you meant by "validating" him as owner, unless that position wasn't permanent, as you so morbidly implied. Although you used it incorrectly, the only "de jure" validating an owners position, would be the sole fact that he's the only member of the community "paying the bills". Hypothetically speaking, an unpopular owner, as you seem to imply Seth is (by invoking conversation about a policy responsible for Seth's downfall, on a post meant for congratulations), can't be removed democratically. Why should he be? He's paying money to keep this community alive, and the users who aren't, shouldn't have any say whatsoever. TF is not a public company, and thus, shouldn't be treated like one. Nobody complained about marks power, because, whatcha know, the ownership role is permanent, inherently validating, and almighty. Good day sir. So let's address this point-by-point. You state that as owner is a permanent position, it is contradictory to have an ownership policy that accounts for a transition of power. This makes little sense because believe it or not, Seth is a human being. If he died of a heart attack tomorrow, should we just pack up and pretend this server never existed and leave and die? No, we will have a transition of power as outlined under the ownership policy. Sorry, but this world is not perfect, you cannot guarantee with 100% certainty these things and making a gamble like this puts this server in unnecessary jeopardy, but I apologize that you think things voted on by the community to prevent this server from dying is bad policy. "Unfortunately for you, Wilee, That event will never happen again, for the benign reason that we will never have a transition from founder to owner, ever again." Can you also tell me the lottery numbers? Because you are not a wizard. You do not know if we will ever need to have another owner again, literally nobody on this planet knows that. Point is, if Seth dies of a heart attack tomorrow, we will and this is an important policy to prevent the server from dying as a result of a power struggle or whatever from just an event occurring. Additionally, I have little clue what "transition from founder to owner" means because that never happened under this policy, Windows preceded Seth, not Mark. "Fortunately, TF has found its permanent owner, whether you agree with him or not. Opinion should never effect policy. " Literally nobody on this thread has stated whether they agree with Seth or not nor is that relevant to this discussion. Opinion should never affect policy is agreeable in that the opinion that Seth will be here forever shouldn't be something putting this server in jeopardy by not having a protective policy in place. "Moving forward, in the event that both Seth and Robin are unable to resume command of TF, a completely unforeseeable, and new policy would have to be drafted, as its a completely different circumstance then before. " As it stands right now, de jure the ownership policy is what has been voted by the community and what has placed Seth in position as the owner of this server. Robin is co owner de facto, that does not mean he would be succeeding Seth but it does mean that we would need to make some sort of amendment to the ownership policy to account for something regarding that. That's a separate discussion. A new policy does not need to be drafted, an amendment needs to be made to the one that already exists. "Unfortunately, as Seth pays the bills, and is the sole person responsible for keeping this community alive, he himself, is the validation. So I'm not quite sure what you meant by "validating" him as owner, unless that position wasn't permanent, as you so morbidly implied." We set precedent with the ownership policy that owners are elected. Seth was elected to this position, and the ownership policy declares him to be the valid owner of this server. By removing the ownership policy, there is now no policy validating his position. That is a problem whether you see it as one or not and it has little to do with permanence. "Although you used it incorrectly, the only "de jure" validating an owners position, would be the sole fact that he's the only member of the community "paying the bills". Hypothetically speaking, an unpopular owner, as you seem to imply Seth is (by invoking conversation about a policy responsible for Seth's downfall, on a post meant for congratulations), can't be removed democratically." According to a dictionary, de jure means "According to law; by right." So yes, it is his right to the owner position by the ownership policy which is what this community views as law. Popularity has nothing to do with this discussion nor have I claimed Seth is unpopular and this conversation is a result of a question that I wasn't even the one asking (how the hell did I invoke it?). Great to hear your opinion on the matter of hypotheticals, however. "Why should he be? He's paying money to keep this community alive, and the users who aren't, shouldn't have any say whatsoever." This community is bigger than any one person, but it sure is great to hear you as an executive state that the users of this server should not have any say whatsoever. Definitely a great thing to have going on a freedom server, but I digress. "TF is not a public company, and thus, shouldn't be treated like one. Nobody complained about marks power, because, whatcha know, the ownership role is permanent, inherently validating, and almighty." Nobody complained about Mark's power because he created this server.
|
|
Fleek
Veteran Member
Posts: 3,548
|
Post by Fleek on Jan 23, 2020 3:16:43 GMT
And no he cannot. This server is larger than one person, and if it wasn't then this server would have indeed been shut down following the Mark days. Mark and Finest control the Total Freedom domain and forum respectively, and it is that way for a reason. If something were to happen, then we can easily set up a new Minecraft server and point the domain to it. Nobody is trying to challenge Seth's authority here, but arguing that one person can take down this entire community is ludicrous. Eh, Seth can delete all backups, the very server itself (the entire in-game experience dying with it). Mark controls the domain, sure, but nothings stopping Seth from creating a new domain (totalfreedom.io). Additionally, Seth can delete every single board on this forums, thus rendering it useless. He can also essentially create a clone of these forums and point it to said domain. Shrinking the entire history of totalfreedom, down to a single, empty domain. Ludicrous? Absolutely not lol. Possible? Most definitely. Probable? Not in the slightest. We got an archivist aka Video which we can get the back up from. If Seth even did delete everything off this forum, we can just create a new forum instead using proboards. Honestly, I would say go for it if Seth wants to.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 3:22:13 GMT
And no he cannot. This server is larger than one person, and if it wasn't then this server would have indeed been shut down following the Mark days. Mark and Finest control the Total Freedom domain and forum respectively, and it is that way for a reason. If something were to happen, then we can easily set up a new Minecraft server and point the domain to it. Nobody is trying to challenge Seth's authority here, but arguing that one person can take down this entire community is ludicrous. Eh, Seth can delete all backups, the very server itself (the entire in-game experience dying with it). Mark controls the domain, sure, but nothings stopping Seth from creating a new domain (totalfreedom.io). Additionally, Seth can delete every single board on this forums, thus rendering it useless. He can also essentially create a clone of these forums and point it to said domain. Shrinking the entire history of totalfreedom, down to a single, empty domain. Ludicrous? Absolutely not lol. Possible? Most definitely. Probable? Not in the slightest. Seth can delete the entire server itself and the server can still be revived. These Minecraft servers are extremely simple to set up, this isn't complex infrastructure at all. If it wasn't this easy, then again, we wouldn't be here right now because that's what happened when Windows went inactive. Seth can create a new domain, but so can literally anybody else on Earth. If people don't recognize it as official, then it isn't (we are literally discussing a scenario in which either Seth just disappears or all executives (which are elected by the people) remove Seth from power by force). Deleting every single board on the forums would be one of the biggest tragedies of this community but it would not absolutely destroy it. He cannot create a clone of these forums as that is both illegal and impossible under ProBoards. So the maximum destruction would be the loss of the Minecraft server (server can literally be created in 15 minutes + however long it takes to contact Mark to point the domain), loss of the boards on the forum (essential crap has already been archived by other people and can be put back), and the creation of a new domain which wouldn't be recognized by anybody else as official and therefore wouldn't matter. These would be blows to the community, but wouldn't absolutely destroy it as long as we properly executed the ownership policy to get back on course. I will thank you for putting the need for the ownership policy into perspective, though.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 3:23:46 GMT
Eh, Seth can delete all backups, the very server itself (the entire in-game experience dying with it). Mark controls the domain, sure, but nothings stopping Seth from creating a new domain (totalfreedom.io). Additionally, Seth can delete every single board on this forums, thus rendering it useless. He can also essentially create a clone of these forums and point it to said domain. Shrinking the entire history of totalfreedom, down to a single, empty domain. Ludicrous? Absolutely not lol. Possible? Most definitely. Probable? Not in the slightest. We got an archivist aka Video which we can get the back up from. If Seth even did delete everything off this forum, we can just create a new forum instead using proboards. Honestly, I would say go for it if Seth wants to. Not realistic because it has been suggested like 5 times and each time the community voted against it. Additionally, it would be illegal to move any content from this forum to a new one if we went that route (which would be important), and there are obvious system administration and reliability concerns that I am almost certain would come up with hosting a forum ourselves if we went that route.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 3:38:32 GMT
The sole purpose of the ownership policy, is the fact that it accounts for the position of owner, being non-permanent. If the position was "permanent", why would we need a policy that constantly contradicts that notion? I'm sorry, but that's just bad policy. That original ownership policy had one purpose, and one purpose only; to facilitate the passing of this community from the founder, to its owner. Unfortunately for you, Wilee, That event will never happen again, for the benign reason that we will never have a transition from founder to owner, ever again. Fortunately, TF has found its permanent owner, whether you agree with him or not. Opinion should never effect policy. Moving forward, in the event that both Seth and Robin are unable to resume command of TF, a completely unforeseeable, and new policy would have to be drafted, as its a completely different circumstance then before. Unfortunately, as Seth pays the bills, and is the sole person responsible for keeping this community alive, he himself, is the validation. So I'm not quite sure what you meant by "validating" him as owner, unless that position wasn't permanent, as you so morbidly implied. Although you used it incorrectly, the only "de jure" validating an owners position, would be the sole fact that he's the only member of the community "paying the bills". Hypothetically speaking, an unpopular owner, as you seem to imply Seth is (by invoking conversation about a policy responsible for Seth's downfall, on a post meant for congratulations), can't be removed democratically. Why should he be? He's paying money to keep this community alive, and the users who aren't, shouldn't have any say whatsoever. TF is not a public company, and thus, shouldn't be treated like one. Nobody complained about marks power, because, whatcha know, the ownership role is permanent, inherently validating, and almighty. Good day sir. So let's address this point-by-point. You state that as owner is a permanent position, it is contradictory to have an ownership policy that accounts for a transition of power. This makes little sense because believe it or not, Seth is a human being. If he died of a heart attack tomorrow, should we just pack up and pretend this server never existed and leave and die? No, we will have a transition of power as outlined under the ownership policy. Sorry, but this world is not perfect, you cannot guarantee with 100% certainty these things and making a gamble like this puts this server in unnecessary jeopardy, but I apologize that you think things voted on by the community to prevent this server from dying is bad policy. "Unfortunately for you, Wilee, That event will never happen again, for the benign reason that we will never have a transition from founder to owner, ever again." Can you also tell me the lottery numbers? Because you are not a wizard. You do not know if we will ever need to have another owner again, literally nobody on this planet knows that. Point is, if Seth dies of a heart attack tomorrow, we will and this is an important policy to prevent the server from dying as a result of a power struggle or whatever from just an event occurring. Additionally, I have little clue what "transition from founder to owner" means because that never happened under this policy, Windows preceded Seth, not Mark. "Fortunately, TF has found its permanent owner, whether you agree with him or not. Opinion should never effect policy. " Literally nobody on this thread has stated whether they agree with Seth or not nor is that relevant to this discussion. Opinion should never affect policy is agreeable in that the opinion that Seth will be here forever shouldn't be something putting this server in jeopardy by not having a protective policy in place. "Moving forward, in the event that both Seth and Robin are unable to resume command of TF, a completely unforeseeable, and new policy would have to be drafted, as its a completely different circumstance then before. " As it stands right now, de jure the ownership policy is what has been voted by the community and what has placed Seth in position as the owner of this server. Robin is co owner de facto, that does not mean he would be succeeding Seth but it does mean that we would need to make some sort of amendment to the ownership policy to account for something regarding that. That's a separate discussion. A new policy does not need to be drafted, an amendment needs to be made to the one that already exists. "Unfortunately, as Seth pays the bills, and is the sole person responsible for keeping this community alive, he himself, is the validation. So I'm not quite sure what you meant by "validating" him as owner, unless that position wasn't permanent, as you so morbidly implied." We set precedent with the ownership policy that owners are elected. Seth was elected to this position, and the ownership policy declares him to be the valid owner of this server. By removing the ownership policy, there is now no policy validating his position. That is a problem whether you see it as one or not and it has little to do with permanence. "Although you used it incorrectly, the only "de jure" validating an owners position, would be the sole fact that he's the only member of the community "paying the bills". Hypothetically speaking, an unpopular owner, as you seem to imply Seth is (by invoking conversation about a policy responsible for Seth's downfall, on a post meant for congratulations), can't be removed democratically." According to a dictionary, de jure means "According to law; by right." So yes, it is his right to the owner position by the ownership policy which is what this community views as law. Popularity has nothing to do with this discussion nor have I claimed Seth is unpopular and this conversation is a result of a question that I wasn't even the one asking (how the hell did I invoke it?). Great to hear your opinion on the matter of hypotheticals, however. "Why should he be? He's paying money to keep this community alive, and the users who aren't, shouldn't have any say whatsoever." This community is bigger than any one person, but it sure is great to hear you as an executive state that the users of this server should not have any say whatsoever. Definitely a great thing to have going on a freedom server, but I digress. "TF is not a public company, and thus, shouldn't be treated like one. Nobody complained about marks power, because, whatcha know, the ownership role is permanent, inherently validating, and almighty." Nobody complained about Mark's power because he created this server. Before I start, I’d just like to point out an incorrect assertion you made, that most people will most likely just skim over, about myself. This server has two branches, as far as I’m concerned. The executive branch, and the legislative branch. Alike the US, we aren’t a de facto democracy. Alike, the US, the manor in which our executive WAS picked, was democratically motivated. However, unlike the US, now that our executive was picked, we the people are under the belief that he is permeant, and assumes the same role as the very person the power was “transferred” to in the first place. The very policy you’re arguing for, has the word “transfer” in it for a reason. Now, onto where I take offense to this. You made the incorrect, falsely quoted and (expected out-of-touch) assertion that I think the users should have “no say whatsoever”. Of course we should have a say, I clearly stated that. I just firmly believe that the position of executive is not up for debate, like you clearly think it is. Now onto the rebuttal: The likelihood of winning the lottery is 1 in 14 million. An estimated 52 million people die a year. I guess we should in fact trust your judgement instead of mine when picking lucky numbers. Additionally, you seem to express quite the urgency for a series of events that’s more extremely improbable then winning the lottery. Owners past the initial founder-owner transfer (as I outlined previously), can’t be democratic. The acting owner is permanent, and his successor, Robin, will be permanent as well. It’s quite apparent that your sense of urgency and stark disagreement to the temporary removal of this policy, suggests an immediate disapproval of the current administration. You seemed to “approve” of Mark, and thus, didn’t think twice about having him in power. Now that marks gone, a possibility for control, has emerged, and you won’t let it slip one bit. This event is less likely then winning the lottery, and thus, should be treated as such. Sure, we can’t be 100% certain, but we can’t be 100% certain about any fact of life. Whether that be two randomly oriented human beings dying in chronological fashion, or your intentions. It’s all simply ludicrous. On a side note, I enjoy arguing with you Wilee, nothing I say or you say, should be taken to heart. We’re simply filling the definition of a “refinery”, by logically debating policy, on a need-to basis. So I commend you, something you’ve yet to do, on putting up paragraphs on paragraphs, without fail. It takes dedication and prowess, and I admire that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 3:41:33 GMT
We got an archivist aka Video which we can get the back up from. If Seth even did delete everything off this forum, we can just create a new forum instead using proboards. Honestly, I would say go for it if Seth wants to. Not realistic because it has been suggested like 5 times and each time the community voted against it. Additionally, it would be illegal to move any content from this forum to a new one if we went that route (which would be important), and there are obvious system administration and reliability concerns that I am almost certain would come up with hosting a forum ourselves if we went that route. As far as my knowledge extends, TotalFreedom’s forum itself is not actually entitled to any intellectual property laws. God save the TotalFreedom.
|
|