Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 5:01:40 GMT
Going to bump this due to a lack of response. May 20, 2020 23:44:06 GMT -4 ?Polaris Seltzeris said: Going to bump this yet again as a solution has not been reached (I suggested one)... Someone's anxious... You see, the policy you proposed, has a clause that effectively allows Seth to be replaced if a bunch of people aren't happy with his performance. It doesn't take Elon Musk to see through this one, and it surely wont help your case that you for whatever reason have been constantly pressing this policy for the past year+. Remove the line that allows you to form a gang of people to remove the owner from power, and I can personally guarantee you this owner power transfer policy would've passed long ago. But no, you keep pushing for this demented version, as if any of us would truly be stupid enough, let alone Seth, to let you roll this policy into place. So, Mr. Wilee, will you remove that phrase? Or does that defeat the entire purpose? Warm Regards, An Active Player on Total Freedom
|
|
XenVoltz
Veteran Member
Posts: 2,461
| Likes: 1,488
|
Post by XenVoltz on May 21, 2020 5:07:56 GMT
Going to bump this due to a lack of response. May 20, 2020 23:44:06 GMT -4 ?Polaris Seltzeris said: Going to bump this yet again as a solution has not been reached (I suggested one)... Someone's anxious... You see, the policy you proposed, has a clause that effectively allows Seth to be replaced if a bunch of people aren't happy with his performance. It doesn't take Elon Musk to see through this one, and it surely wont help your case that you for whatever reason have been constantly pressing this policy for the past year+. Remove the line that allows you to form a gang of people to remove the owner from power, and I can personally guarantee you this owner power transfer policy would've passed long ago. But no, you keep pushing for this demented version, as if any of us would truly be stupid enough, let alone Seth, to let you roll this policy into place. So, Mr. Wilee, will you remove that phrase? Or does that defeat the entire purpose? Warm Regards, An Active Player on Total Freedom I truly don’t see any ill intentions from Wilee. It’s a simple policy that applies to not only Seth, but future possible owners. If we want this to be a “democracy,” then this policy is absolutely necessary. I don’t think anyone intends on voting Seth out as owner, there is no reason to. Is he the perfect owner? No, but the majority of people like him and he gets stuff done. Voting him out won’t simply be because a group of people don’t like him.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 21, 2020 5:09:17 GMT
Going to bump this due to a lack of response. Someone's anxious... You see, the policy you proposed, has a clause that effectively allows Seth to be replaced if a bunch of people aren't happy with his performance. It doesn't take Elon Musk to see through this one, and it surely wont help your case that you for whatever reason have been constantly pressing this policy for the past year+. Remove the line that allows you to form a gang of people to remove the owner from power, and I can personally guarantee you this owner power transfer policy would've passed long ago. But no, you keep pushing for this demented version, as if any of us would truly be stupid enough, let alone Seth, to let you roll this policy into place. So, Mr. Wilee, will you remove that phrase? Or does that defeat the entire purpose? Warm Regards, An Active Player on Total Freedom Maybe if you put aside the condescension and presumptuousness, you'd realize some facts: - The ownership policy was put in place in defense of Seth becoming owner, not in opposition to him becoming owner. - The ownership policy is what protects Seth's position as owner from power struggles. - The ownership policy is what protects the infrastructure we have in place and our community in case something were to happen to the owner. - I didn't propose this policy, mibbzz and Hockey did, it "doesn't take Elon Musk" to read through the threads in which the policy was conceptualized, voted on, and implemented by this community. - Nobody is trying to form a gang of people to remove Seth from power. - The policy already did pass long ago, what do you think this thread was about? A good percentage of this community voted the policy into existence then voted for Seth, and a 3/4 majority has voted on this thread as such as well. - I even proposed a compromise to Seth that he can post the original policy in a new thread AS A DRAFT and all of us, including him, can suggest amendments to the policy before he adds it back. - Calling provisions that protect this community "demented" is the dumbest thing I have heard all week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 5:21:13 GMT
Someone's anxious... You see, the policy you proposed, has a clause that effectively allows Seth to be replaced if a bunch of people aren't happy with his performance. It doesn't take Elon Musk to see through this one, and it surely wont help your case that you for whatever reason have been constantly pressing this policy for the past year+. Remove the line that allows you to form a gang of people to remove the owner from power, and I can personally guarantee you this owner power transfer policy would've passed long ago. But no, you keep pushing for this demented version, as if any of us would truly be stupid enough, let alone Seth, to let you roll this policy into place. So, Mr. Wilee, will you remove that phrase? Or does that defeat the entire purpose? Warm Regards, An Active Player on Total Freedom Maybe if you put aside the condescension and presumptuousness, you'd realize some facts: - The ownership policy was put in place in defense of Seth becoming owner, not in opposition to him becoming owner. - The ownership policy is what protects Seth's position as owner from power struggles. - The ownership policy is what protects the infrastructure we have in place and our community in case something were to happen to the owner. - I didn't propose this policy, mibbzz and Hockey did, it "doesn't take Elon Musk" to read through the threads in which the policy was conceptualized, voted on, and implemented by this community. - Nobody is trying to form a gang of people to remove Seth from power. - The policy already did pass long ago, what do you think this thread was about? A good percentage of this community voted the policy into existence then voted for Seth, and a 3/4 majority has voted on this thread as such as well. - I even proposed a compromise to Seth that he can post the original policy in a new thread AS A DRAFT and all of us, including him, can suggest amendments to the policy before he adds it back. - Calling provisions that protect this community "demented" is the dumbest thing I have heard all week. I know you're a good dancer, we've established that. Now, if you will, would you please answer the only question I asked you? I'll be copy and pasting this reply every time you fail to answer this question plain and simply: Will you remove that line? If it's truly about the safety and longevity of this community, you'd surely not mind removing the line that allows the owner to be removed if "people are unhappy" to get this policy passed asap. It's really just fun to debate with you because you're super into making suggestions for a server you haven't bothered to join since 2017. It's funny, I now get my daily dose of Irony from you, and not my father.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 21, 2020 5:24:18 GMT
Maybe if you put aside the condescension and presumptuousness, you'd realize some facts: - The ownership policy was put in place in defense of Seth becoming owner, not in opposition to him becoming owner. - The ownership policy is what protects Seth's position as owner from power struggles. - The ownership policy is what protects the infrastructure we have in place and our community in case something were to happen to the owner. - I didn't propose this policy, mibbzz and Hockey did, it "doesn't take Elon Musk" to read through the threads in which the policy was conceptualized, voted on, and implemented by this community. - Nobody is trying to form a gang of people to remove Seth from power. - The policy already did pass long ago, what do you think this thread was about? A good percentage of this community voted the policy into existence then voted for Seth, and a 3/4 majority has voted on this thread as such as well. - I even proposed a compromise to Seth that he can post the original policy in a new thread AS A DRAFT and all of us, including him, can suggest amendments to the policy before he adds it back. - Calling provisions that protect this community "demented" is the dumbest thing I have heard all week. I know you're a good dancer, we've established that. Now, if you will, would you please answer the only question I asked you? I'll be copy and pasting this reply every time you fail to answer this question plain and simply: Will you remove that line? If it's truly about the safety and longevity of this community, you'd surely not mind removing the line that allows the owner to be removed if "people are unhappy" to get this policy passed asap. It's not my call to remove that line, I'm not sure if you realized this yet but I proposed having a community discussion on a draft where changes can then be suggested, not "take out parts of the original policy and just shove it back in."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 5:34:36 GMT
I know you're a good dancer, we've established that. Now, if you will, would you please answer the only question I asked you? I'll be copy and pasting this reply every time you fail to answer this question plain and simply: Will you remove that line? If it's truly about the safety and longevity of this community, you'd surely not mind removing the line that allows the owner to be removed if "people are unhappy" to get this policy passed asap. It's not my call to remove that line, I'm not sure if you realized this yet but I proposed having a community discussion on a draft where changes can then be suggested, not "take out parts of the original policy and just shove it back in." Who's call is it then? You're the only one who's bothered to actively bump this policy.
|
|
XenVoltz
Veteran Member
Posts: 2,461
| Likes: 1,488
|
Post by XenVoltz on May 21, 2020 5:36:20 GMT
Will you remove that line? If it's truly about the safety and longevity of this community, you'd surely not mind removing the line that allows the owner to be removed if "people are unhappy" to get this policy passed asap. I'm not sure if Wilee even had anything to do with this line. IIRC the policy was written by mibbzz, Hockeyfan, and possibly a few others (I am not entirely sure). Now, if you want to bring up "safety and longevity of this community," then wouldn't this policy do that? If we have an owner that is absolutely terrible and gets nothing done, wouldn't it be a benefit to have said policy instead of scraping something up last minute to get the owner removed?
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 21, 2020 5:39:13 GMT
It's not my call to remove that line, I'm not sure if you realized this yet but I proposed having a community discussion on a draft where changes can then be suggested, not "take out parts of the original policy and just shove it back in." Who's call is it then? You're the only one who's bothered to actively bump this policy. Read what I'm actually typing please. I've said multiple times now that I think it should be an open community process on another thread to suggest any possible amendments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 5:53:23 GMT
Who's call is it then? You're the only one who's bothered to actively bump this policy. Read what I'm actually typing please. I've said multiple times now that I think it should be an open community process on another thread to suggest any possible amendments. You suggested any edits to this doc should be left up to the community. However, this is still not the case and merely a suggestion. Currently, who's call is it to amend this document? (x2)
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 21, 2020 5:59:55 GMT
Read what I'm actually typing please. I've said multiple times now that I think it should be an open community process on another thread to suggest any possible amendments. You suggested any edits to this doc should be left up to the community. However, this is still not the case and merely a suggestion. Currently, who's call is it to amend this document? (x2) Nobody's because a platform for discussion has not been created. I recommended to Seth to do such a thing.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 21, 2020 7:34:43 GMT
Going to bump this due to a lack of response. May 20, 2020 23:44:06 GMT -4 ?Polaris Seltzeris said: Going to bump this yet again as a solution has not been reached (I suggested one)... Someone's anxious... You see, the policy you proposed, has a clause that effectively allows Seth to be replaced if a bunch of people aren't happy with his performance. It doesn't take Elon Musk to see through this one, and it surely wont help your case that you for whatever reason have been constantly pressing this policy for the past year+. Remove the line that allows you to form a gang of people to remove the owner from power, and I can personally guarantee you this owner power transfer policy would've passed long ago. But no, you keep pushing for this demented version, as if any of us would truly be stupid enough, let alone Seth, to let you roll this policy into place. So, Mr. Wilee, will you remove that phrase? Or does that defeat the entire purpose? Warm Regards, An Active Player on Total Freedom It is literally the policy that bought Seth into power. So if you're saying it's null and void, that also suggests we don't have a legitimate owner to this server... Not sure we want to go down that rabbit hole. And for the record, I'd be bumping this thread as well, and I Think the results of the poll show there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with the current policy. The policy that we want restored was the one that before we had an owner, was agreed after a lot of work. I don't think it's much to ask that we restore that as the actual policy, and if amendments / changes want to be made, we discuss those also as a community, otherwise I will call into question the legitimacy of Seth as owner, if the policy that promoted him never existed...
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 21, 2020 7:36:50 GMT
May 20, 2020 23:44:06 GMT -4 ?Polaris Seltzeris said: Going to bump this yet again as a solution has not been reached (I suggested one)... Someone's anxious... You see, the policy you proposed, has a clause that effectively allows Seth to be replaced if a bunch of people aren't happy with his performance. It doesn't take Elon Musk to see through this one, and it surely wont help your case that you for whatever reason have been constantly pressing this policy for the past year+. Remove the line that allows you to form a gang of people to remove the owner from power, and I can personally guarantee you this owner power transfer policy would've passed long ago. But no, you keep pushing for this demented version, as if any of us would truly be stupid enough, let alone Seth, to let you roll this policy into place. So, Mr. Wilee, will you remove that phrase? Or does that defeat the entire purpose? Warm Regards, An Active Player on Total Freedom I truly don’t see any ill intentions from Wilee. It’s a simple policy that applies to not only Seth, but future possible owners. If we want this to be a “democracy,” then this policy is absolutely necessary. I don’t think anyone intends on voting Seth out as owner, there is no reason to. Is he the perfect owner? No, but the majority of people like him and he gets stuff done. Voting him out won’t simply be because a group of people don’t like him. Also the threshold for removing an owner was designed to be exceptionally high. Think it needed like 85% of the seniors to agree and all executives or something like that. It's designed to be used in exceptional circumstances where the entire admin team believe the owner is no longer fit to serve us, be that due to inactivity or not paying for the server or something like that... It's not likely to ever get used for popularity reasons...
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 21, 2020 7:45:18 GMT
Read what I'm actually typing please. I've said multiple times now that I think it should be an open community process on another thread to suggest any possible amendments. You suggested any edits to this doc should be left up to the community. However, this is still not the case and merely a suggestion. Currently, who's call is it to amend this document? (x2) It's down for all of us to discuss. If you want to make a change to the policy, then you should suggest it when Seth has restored it as we've asked him to... We're not going to discuss changing something that we can't actually see, that would just be a nonsense exercise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 17:08:17 GMT
You suggested any edits to this doc should be left up to the community. However, this is still not the case and merely a suggestion. Currently, who's call is it to amend this document? (x2) It's down for all of us to discuss. If you want to make a change to the policy, then you should suggest it when Seth has restored it as we've asked him to... We're not going to discuss changing something that we can't actually see, that would just be a nonsense exercise. What's a nonsense exercise to me is the fact that you and I both know Video has your copy archived, yet you are relying on Seth to restore your policy completely. We all play minecraft, but we're not blockheaded ffs. I understand you have an agenda to pass, but my god, try a little bit harder.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 21, 2020 17:10:26 GMT
It's down for all of us to discuss. If you want to make a change to the policy, then you should suggest it when Seth has restored it as we've asked him to... We're not going to discuss changing something that we can't actually see, that would just be a nonsense exercise. What's a nonsense exercise to me is the fact that you and I both know Video has your copy archived, yet you are relying on Seth to restore your policy completely. We all play minecraft, but we're not blockheaded ffs. Why would we restore it before anyone can see it? I understand you have an agenda to pass, but my god, try a little bit harder. Holy hell, read what we're actually typing please. We're asking for Seth to created a thread with that copy posted as a draft for the entire community to be able to post suggestions.
|
|