Darth
Veteran Member
Server Liaison
Posts: 2,534
| Likes: 1,826
|
Post by Darth on Jan 23, 2020 3:41:42 GMT
That event will never happen again, for the benign reason that we will never have a transition from founder to owner, ever again. But Mark chose Windows as his successor without the ownership policy - which is the Founder --> Owner transition of power you mentioned. The ownership policy was drafted because Windows left without any notice, and we had no backup plan at the time. That policy was mainly a course of action if there was an emergency that prevented the owner from fulfilling their duties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 3:44:15 GMT
That event will never happen again, for the benign reason that we will never have a transition from founder to owner, ever again. But Mark chose Windows as his successor without the ownership policy - which is the Founder --> Owner transition of power you mentioned. The ownership policy was drafted because Windows left without any notice, and we had no backup plan at the time. That policy was mainly a course of action if there was an emergency that prevented the owner from fulfilling their duties. Correct, and thus, Seth should assume the same rights and powers associated with Windows, which was directly transferred from Mark. Why have an old policy in-place, that puts a great uncertainty on the next successor(s), when we can simply just appoint an aide-de-camp, such as Seth did. The position of “owner” shouldn’t be debatable.
|
|
Darth
Veteran Member
Server Liaison
Posts: 2,534
| Likes: 1,826
|
Post by Darth on Jan 23, 2020 3:50:12 GMT
But Mark chose Windows as his successor without the ownership policy - which is the Founder --> Owner transition of power you mentioned. The ownership policy was drafted because Windows left without any notice, and we had no backup plan at the time. That policy was mainly a course of action if there was an emergency that prevented the owner from fulfilling their duties. Correct, and thus, Seth should assume the same rights and powers associated with Windows, which was directly transferred from Mark. Why have an old policy in-plave, that puts a great uncertainty on the next successor(a), when we can simply just appoint an aide-de-camp, such as Seth did. The position of “owner” shouldn’t be debatable. I'd first like to say that I'm neutral about this topic. However, some people believe it is unfair to appoint an owner with the reasoning that the previous owner picked them. Obviously some people feel that is undemocratic. However, like you said, this same logic can be applied to the US - if the president is for some reason unable to fulfill their duties (removal from office, or otherwise prevented from carrying out their tasks) the line of succession is clear (Vice President --> Speaker of the House, and so on). However, what I mainly see happening is that you think the position of Owner should be permanent, and Wilee does not. Again, I'm neutral on this, but I'm interested in the logistics of how such policies would work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 3:59:21 GMT
Correct, and thus, Seth should assume the same rights and powers associated with Windows, which was directly transferred from Mark. Why have an old policy in-plave, that puts a great uncertainty on the next successor(a), when we can simply just appoint an aide-de-camp, such as Seth did. The position of “owner” shouldn’t be debatable. I'd first like to say that I'm neutral about this topic. However, some people believe it is unfair to appoint an owner with the reasoning that the previous owner picked them. Obviously some people feel that is undemocratic. However, like you said, this same logic can be applied to the US - if the president is for some reason unable to fulfill their duties (removal from office, or otherwise prevented from carrying out their tasks) the line of succession is clear (Vice President --> Speaker of the House, and so on). However, what I mainly see happening is that you think the position of Owner should be permanent, and Wilee does not. Again, I'm neutral on this, but I'm interested in the logistics of how such policies would work. Correct! In terms of policies, the one In referring to (succession), is used all across the globe, and is the one currently in-place here at TF. Federalist #51 (by James Madison) outlines the fear of control and dominance of factions. Fortunately, by understanding this document, and historical precedent, I can see right through Wilee’s motivations. God save the republic.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 4:00:18 GMT
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. "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." Seth was democratically elected both de jure and de facto. The ownership policy declared a legal election which went through successfully, and a legal election literally happened resulting in him becoming the owner. I can't tell what point you're trying to make here because all you're saying is that owner is permanent but the ownership policy doesn't contradict that, permanent doesn't mean Seth will stay the owner if he dies of a heart attack tomorrow it means if he doesn't die then he stays the owner. I really don't see how it is disagreeable that we should use the policy that has already been voted on and established to be there if that scenario literally happened. As for the quote, I was literally just quoting your exact sentence. You said "He's paying money to keep this community alive, and the users who aren't, shouldn't have any say whatsoever.", then I restated that as "it sure is great to hear you as an executive state that the users of this server should not have any say whatsoever", a simple restatement of what you literally said yourself. I don't see how stating what you actually said was you saying users should have a say or that it was falsely quoted? Feel free to explain how it is. "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." How can you say that it can't be democratic past a "founder-owner transfer" (which would've been the transition from Mark to Windows which really isn't relevant at this time) when that is literally what happened? Seth succeeded Windows through a democratic vote, and Windows was not the founder of this server, he succeeded Mark who was. Not sure who and what declared Robin to be the successor considering no policy holds that up, we already established precedent that the community strictly chooses the successor whether that is Robin or anybody really. Also can't tell how you're defining permanent anymore honestly. "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." I'm thinking about the future as one should be, I don't think it's smart and forward-thinking to drop any thinking for the future for what's working in the present because that puts this server in jeopardy at a later time. Also who said this removal was temporary? Was the policy just simply taken out of existence for fun and will be put back later? I have no idea what that suggests. Additionally, literally nobody this entire thread had stated anything about approval of the current administration, yet you continue bringing this up. I'm going to say that the ownership policy should be in play no matter who the owner is or what is going on, I have minimal reason or motive to support policies for bizarre political calculations or for entertainment. Again, refer back to past discussions on this for more information. "You seemed to “approve” of Mark, and thus, didn’t think twice about having him in power." I think if you count the amount of times Mark forum banned, permbanned, or suspended me it would add up to 30. The amount of fallouts me and other senior admins from back in the day have had with Mark in the past is pretty incredible. So that is historically inaccurate, but I'll admit that I didn't think twice about having him in power because he created the fucking server. We reshaped the way we thought about ownership once the ownership policy was instated and Seth was brought in, there is no reason to regress back to that especially considering Mark isn't coming back as the owner. "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." Sorry but I actually can't tell what this means. If you restate this in a better way it would be appreciated. "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." Thank you for the commending, but I don't do this for no reason, it's always worth taking important thoughts to heart if they are truly important.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 4:01:40 GMT
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. The legally binding ProBoards terms of service & privacy policy apply to all of us here right now. This means that if anybody cloned this forum and opened it elsewhere, not only would ProBoards themselves be able to take legal action in the form of sending a cease and desist and taking it down, literally anybody who has ever posted on this forum would be able to take legal action against them including me and you.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 4:05:10 GMT
Correct, and thus, Seth should assume the same rights and powers associated with Windows, which was directly transferred from Mark. Why have an old policy in-plave, that puts a great uncertainty on the next successor(a), when we can simply just appoint an aide-de-camp, such as Seth did. The position of “owner” shouldn’t be debatable. However, what I mainly see happening is that you think the position of Owner should be permanent, and Wilee does not. Again, I'm neutral on this, but I'm interested in the logistics of how such policies would work. I still can't tell what definition of "permanent" we're using here. If referring to literal term limits, absolutely nobody here is arguing for that. Owner is a permanent position, but additionally if the executives unanimously had very good reason to remove the owner with community backing as the ownership policy envisions then that should be able to happen, and also if the owner died then we need the system to replace them, this is for preventing the server from being put in jeopardy leading to its death. If you are interested in knowing how the ownership policy works, then refer to previous threads made on this because it's important for knowing why this was put in place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 4:07:05 GMT
As far as my knowledge extends, TotalFreedom’s forum itself is not actually entitled to any intellectual property laws. God save the TotalFreedom. The legally binding ProBoards terms of service & privacy policy apply to all of us here right now. This means that if anybody cloned this forum and opened it elsewhere, not only would ProBoards themselves be able to take legal action in the form of sending a cease and desist and taking it down, literally anybody who has ever posted on this forum would be able to take legal action against them including me and you. Please show me where proboards privacy policy prevents a user from almost (notice how I used the word almost) cloning a forums, and rebranding it under a similar domain. Additionally, don’t distract the people of TF from the real problem at hand. This hypothetical that I proposed seems to have provided you with a great sand-in-the-face tangent. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 4:10:14 GMT
But Mark chose Windows as his successor without the ownership policy - which is the Founder --> Owner transition of power you mentioned. The ownership policy was drafted because Windows left without any notice, and we had no backup plan at the time. That policy was mainly a course of action if there was an emergency that prevented the owner from fulfilling their duties. Correct, and thus, Seth should assume the same rights and powers associated with Windows, which was directly transferred from Mark. Why have an old policy in-place, that puts a great uncertainty on the next successor(s), when we can simply just appoint an aide-de-camp, such as Seth did. The position of “owner” shouldn’t be debatable. Nobody is arguing that Seth shouldn't have the same ownership abilities as Windows. Calling the policy "old" makes little sense, the conduct policy would be ancient if we're going in terms of time. I think there is good reason to have the old policy in place so that this community, which voted the policy to be in place and elected Seth with it, has the slightest bit of say over who owns them. I still have no clue why we're even needing to have this conversation right now; why did the policy have to be randomly removed with no announcement for the 2nd time? We already went through quite the fallout over this months ago in which we had to reinstate it, just keep the damn policy in place so that this server doesn't come crashing down if something bad were to happen to Seth, we don't need less democracy and more power struggles, that should be the opposite of the direction we're going in. I completely agree that it shouldn't be debatable. The policy that the community voted on and approved should be kept in place, and it was completely wrong to remove it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 4:10:17 GMT
However, what I mainly see happening is that you think the position of Owner should be permanent, and Wilee does not. Again, I'm neutral on this, but I'm interested in the logistics of how such policies would work. I still can't tell what definition of "permanent" we're using here. If referring to literal term limits, absolutely nobody here is arguing for that. Owner is a permanent position, but additionally if the executives unanimously had very good reason to remove the owner with community backing as the ownership policy envisions then that should be able to happen, and also if the owner died then we need the system to replace them, this is for preventing the server from being put in jeopardy leading to its death. If you are interested in knowing how the ownership policy works, then refer to previous threads made on this because it's important for knowing why this was put in place. No, allowing executives (a minority) to overtake an owner is absolutely mental! Again, imagine executives (appointed by Mark) trying to take down Mark because they have “reason to remove” him. Bonkers! Remember, anything applied to Seth, has to have a “what would happen to mark” counterargument accounted for. Proverbially speaking, and in terms of rights; Seth is Mark.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 4:12:20 GMT
The legally binding ProBoards terms of service & privacy policy apply to all of us here right now. This means that if anybody cloned this forum and opened it elsewhere, not only would ProBoards themselves be able to take legal action in the form of sending a cease and desist and taking it down, literally anybody who has ever posted on this forum would be able to take legal action against them including me and you. Please show me where proboards privacy policy prevents a user from almost (notice how I used the word almost) cloning a forums, and rebranding it under a similar domain. Additionally, don’t distract the people of TF from the real problem at hand. This hypothetical that I proposed seems to have provided you with a great sand-in-the-face tangent. Cheers. www.proboards.com/tos" "User Content" is any content, materials or information, not including Personal Information (as defined in ProBoards' Privacy Policy), that You upload or post to, or transmit, display, perform or distribute by means of, the Website, whether in connection with Your use of Services or otherwise. To clarify, You maintain full ownership of all your User Content posted to ProBoards. Because You own Your User Content, under the law, ProBoards requires a license from You before it can allow the User Content to be posted on the Website. For these reasons, the following provision is a necessary part of this Agreement: YOU HEREBY GRANT THE PROBOARDS PARTIES A PERPETUAL, FULLY PAID-UP, WORLDWIDE, SUBLICENSABLE, IRREVOCABLE, ASSIGNABLE LICENSE TO COPY, DISTRIBUTE, TRANSMIT, PUBLICLY DISPLAY OR PERFORM, EDIT, TRANSLATE, REFORMAT AND OTHERWISE USE USER CONTENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION OF THE WEBSITE, SERVICES OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR OR RELATED BUSINESS, IN ANY MEDIUM NOW EXISTING OR LATER DEVISED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION IN ADVERTISING AND PUBLICITY. YOU FURTHER AGREE THAT THE PROBOARDS PARTIES MAY PUBLISH OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR EXERCISE OF THE LICENSE GRANTED UNDER THIS SECTION. YOU AGREE TO WAIVE, AND HEREBY WAIVE, ANY CLAIMS ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THE EXERCISE BY THE PROBOARDS PARTIES OF THE RIGHTS GRANTED UNDER THIS SECTION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY CLAIMS RELATING TO YOUR RIGHTS OF PERSONAL PRIVACY AND PUBLICITY. YOU WILL NOT BE COMPENSATED FOR ANY EXERCISE OF THE LICENSE GRANTED UNDER THIS SECTION. You hereby represent and warrant that You own all rights, title and interest in and to User Content or are otherwise authorized to grant the rights provided the ProBoards Parties under this section. You further represent and warrant that all User Content fully complies with ProBoards' Community Guidelines. Further, You agree that all information sent to, or retrieved from, the ProBoards servers will comply with ProBoards' Developer Guidelines which is hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Agreement." Not sure how it is a distraction to say that this hypothetical is not realistic at all. It is not technologically realistic at all, and also illegal. Pretty pointless to go over this.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 23, 2020 4:15:53 GMT
I still can't tell what definition of "permanent" we're using here. If referring to literal term limits, absolutely nobody here is arguing for that. Owner is a permanent position, but additionally if the executives unanimously had very good reason to remove the owner with community backing as the ownership policy envisions then that should be able to happen, and also if the owner died then we need the system to replace them, this is for preventing the server from being put in jeopardy leading to its death. If you are interested in knowing how the ownership policy works, then refer to previous threads made on this because it's important for knowing why this was put in place. No, allowing executives (a minority) to overtake an owner is absolutely mental! Again, imagine executives (appointed by Mark) trying to take down Mark because they have “reason to remove” him. Bonkers! Remember, anything applied to Seth, has to have a “what would happen to mark” counterargument accounted for. Proverbially speaking, and in terms of rights; Seth is Mark. We elect executives way more often than we elect the owner. This means that the executives are more likely to represent the current will of the people, and unanimous consent of them is required. Even Finest's approval is required as he is the forum manager. I completely disagree that "what would happen to mark" counterarguments are necessary here, Mark created this server, Seth did not. Nobody in 2010 elected Mark to create this server. Since we're now bringing up the founding fathers, this is the equivalent of republicans bringing up the founding fathers in literally any legislative argument in an effort to shut down any productive or useful discussion. This is not helpful or relevant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 4:19:51 GMT
The tone of this post is meant to be calm and composed. You can't convey that very well in text. Okay, I haven't said a word but I'm going to say this: I'm the owner, not the president of this server. The entire reason why this policy was put in place, was because we were left with no one to turn to when Windows went MIA. This entire policy was created because no one knew what to do next. Darth, I know you are neutral on this, but I want to use a quote from you as an example: However, some people believe it is unfair to appoint an owner with the reasoning that the previous owner picked them. A lot of people see a lot of things as unfair, this world isn't fair. It's ruled by people who have the most money. Meanwhile, the poor keep getting poorer. Unless the .01% chance of success falls on to them, they will continue to be fucked the rest of their life. Now, back to this policy: People are seeing it as a joke. Now, I appointed Robin as the Co-Owner, because he is helpful in so many ways, and I trust him. When someone said "oh i think thats against the ownership policy! ! ! ! ! !! !" it pissed me off a bit. If Mark wanted to take ownership and give it back to windows, he very well could. Mark has moved on, he's said it so many times. I still respect him and I would transfer ownership on his behalf, because it's only right. Now, if you're going to try to enforce a policy on me that forbids me from doing things on what has now been my own server for about the past year now, you're sadly mistaken. This doesn't mean I'm going to grief my own server, or delete it, or any of that. Why would I do that? It just means that I'm not going to be restricted by a policy in anyway on how I handle ownership. The policy has had it's use, if I somehow get shot over $10 while I'm walking to school, it goes to Robin. Then Robin can do what he wants. The only one who is going to change that would be Mark himself. He clearly had no problem with it, as he's been online and posted multiple times. I'm not hating on Windows, he tried his absolute best, and I respect him for that. Full blown democracy on a Minecraft server doesn't work. However, what I mainly see happening is that you think the position of Owner should be permanent, and Wilee does not. Again, I'm neutral on this, but I'm interested in the logistics of how such policies would work. This is exactly what people have told me about this policy, which is why I removed it. I don't want people to think for a second you can just drop in and snap your fingers and a new person owns the server. I know the policy was for if I died, etc. etc. But I have a plan in case I die this time, that plan is that the server goes to Robin. If Robin doesn't want it, go dig in the recycle bin for the thread. But until that day, it has no control over anything, or who takes the server after me. I don't even want to acknowledge its mere existence anymore, which is ironic in every way, but it is what it is. I've done some sketchy shit, everyone has. No one is perfect I'm not going to argue over this anymore, because it generally gives me depression. (I would like to thank the G-Man for helping me save my breath too) TL;DR: In the past, we lacked a Co-Owner. So I made one. This renders the policy completely useless. If we had a Co-Owner in the past, it would of prevented the whole thing.
|
|