Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 17:12:06 GMT
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. Holy hell, if you want your policy implemented so badly, DM our archivist, get it back and post the thread on your own terms. Seth is not going to post your own special policy.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 21, 2020 17:13:26 GMT
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. Holy hell, if you want your policy implemented so badly, DM our archivist, get it back and post the thread on your own terms. Seth is not going to post your own special policy. I guess you just hate community opinion.
|
|
miwo
Veteran Member
Posts: 597
| Likes: 585
|
Post by miwo on May 21, 2020 17:13:38 GMT
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. Kinda hilarious how he is the condescending one despite him clearly being the one who's being dense
|
|
XenVoltz
Veteran Member
Posts: 2,461
| Likes: 1,488
|
Post by XenVoltz on May 21, 2020 17:41:52 GMT
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. Holy hell, if you want your policy implemented so badly, DM our archivist, get it back and post the thread on your own terms. Seth is not going to post your own special policy. It is interesting how you use "you" and "your," but this policy is wanted by the majority of the community. Wilee isn't the only one pushing for this policy to be reinstated and I wouldn't really call it "special."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 17:50:51 GMT
Video Polaris Seltzeris I think the best thing to do to get this sorted ASAP is for Video to post the policy with a poll on it.
Seth said the other day suggestions are meant to be 'considered', we have a right as a community then to consider it. (sorry for the massive writing im on ubuntu and everything is tiny af)
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 21, 2020 17:53:00 GMT
Video Polaris Seltzeris I think the best thing to do to get this sorted ASAP is for Video to post the policy with a poll on it.
Seth said the other day suggestions are meant to be 'considered', we have a right as a community then to consider it.
(sorry for the massive writing im on ubuntu and everything is tiny af)
That isn't what we're asking. We want the original policy to be posted, without a poll, as a draft for an open amendment discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 17:55:36 GMT
Video Polaris Seltzeris I think the best thing to do to get this sorted ASAP is for Video to post the policy with a poll on it.
Seth said the other day suggestions are meant to be 'considered', we have a right as a community then to consider it.
(sorry for the massive writing im on ubuntu and everything is tiny af)
That isn't what we're asking. We want the original policy to be posted, without a poll, as a draft for an open amendment discussion. It'll get locked again though. If we create another thread about it we can push for it without all of the discussion being deleted. Then 1) the posts cannot be deleted which means people wont waste time posting discussion 2) it's open so it can be properly discussed
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 21, 2020 17:58:18 GMT
That isn't what we're asking. We want the original policy to be posted, without a poll, as a draft for an open amendment discussion. It'll get locked again though. If we create another thread about it we can push for it without all of the discussion being deleted. Then 1) the posts cannot be deleted which means people wont waste time posting discussion 2) it's open so it can be properly discussed Then another thread will be created if discussion is censored.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 18:33:39 GMT
It'll get locked again though. If we create another thread about it we can push for it without all of the discussion being deleted. Then 1) the posts cannot be deleted which means people wont waste time posting discussion 2) it's open so it can be properly discussed Then another thread will be created if discussion is censored. This is the last thing I'll say, since you guys clearly don't head my advice. Seth will not be posting the policy in its current version. I wouldn't either if I was in that position. Why would anyone in the right mind post a policy with a line that effectively de-legitimizes your power indefinitely. The fact that you're all surprised it got deleted is hilarious. If you want this policy to be put into place for "safety and longevity reasons", remove that line, and then try again. I'm sorry, but in its current state, it'd take a clueless owner to fall for it.
|
|
Darth
Veteran Member
Server Liaison
Posts: 2,534
| Likes: 1,826
|
Post by Darth on May 21, 2020 18:59:41 GMT
A Minecraft server will never be able to function as an absolute democracy, as there will have to be at least one person paying the bills and the power over the server naturally comes with that responsibility. So even if we reinstated the original policy, the owner wouldn’t technically have to adhere to it and it couldn’t be enforced short of a coup similar to what happened with infamas. Even if multiple people split the cost, the power would be split between those few people. It’s basically putting someone in jail but giving them the key.
I know people don’t want a dictatorship, but as long as anyone is paying the bills, that’s essentially what we have. Also, I doubt the executives would want to remove Seth anyways. Just wanted to point out the logistics of such a policy.
|
|
XenVoltz
Veteran Member
Posts: 2,461
| Likes: 1,488
|
Post by XenVoltz on May 21, 2020 19:08:37 GMT
Then another thread will be created if discussion is censored. This is the last thing I'll say, since you guys clearly don't head my advice. Seth will not be posting the policy in its current version. I wouldn't either if I was in that position. Why would anyone in the right mind post a policy with a line that effectively de-legitimizes your power indefinitely. The fact that you're all surprised it got deleted is hilarious. If you want this policy to be put into place for "safety and longevity reasons", remove that line, and then try again. I'm sorry, but in its current state, it'd take a clueless owner to fall for it. It is a good idea for someone else to post it and I'll be pushing for that since Seth won't. The policy does not "de-legitimize" his power. In away it is a system of checks and balances. Safety and longevity can only be obtained if we have a policy that addresses all aspects of ownership. Here is the part that speaks on voting out the owner: Scenario 2: "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down." Scenario 3: "The server has gone down due to a lack of funding. This does not include technical errors or temporary measures, but instead a permanent dissolution of the server." "In scenarios 2 and 3, a unanimous vote to remove the owner will need to be collected from the Executive Admin Officer, Security Officer, and Forum Owner/Manager. Each executive admin listed will have one week to respond to a vote. If they do not respond, their vote will be assumed a ‘yes’. After (and only after) a unanimous vote is received, a poll will be posted in the Super Admin Lounge with the title “Owner Voteoff.” If 80% of the poll agrees to get rid of the current owner, the owner spot will be vacated and Stage 1 will begin." The only part I don't agree with here is if an executive admin doesn't respond, it will be assumed as "yes." As Wild mentioned in an earlier post, the threshold for the owner's removal is extremely high. Again the majority of people want this owner policy reinstated. If Seth doesn't plan on allowing scenario 2 or 3 to happen, then it shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
miwo
Veteran Member
Posts: 597
| Likes: 585
|
Post by miwo on May 21, 2020 19:17:46 GMT
Then another thread will be created if discussion is censored. This is the last thing I'll say, since you guys clearly don't head my advice. Seth will not be posting the policy in its current version. I wouldn't either if I was in that position. Why would anyone in the right mind post a policy with a line that effectively de-legitimizes your power indefinitely. The fact that you're all surprised it got deleted is hilarious. If you want this policy to be put into place for "safety and longevity reasons", remove that line, and then try again. I'm sorry, but in its current state, it'd take a clueless owner to fall for it. Are you being dense on purpose? It has been stated throughout this thread continually that the policy will be posted and be up for revision. It has also been said countless times that the only thing that formally legitimizes Seth's position as owner is said Owner Policy, so to say it "de-legitimizes" his power indefinitely is honestly retarded, and I'm quite sure you're aware of this. More than once has it been said that it will be up for revision, so if you have such a big issue with "that line" of the policy, then mention it in the new thread instead of having a public hissy fit on the forums and making a clear fool out of yourself. Being obstinate does not make your point any stronger lmao. Also since you said Wilee had an agenda, I would also like to point out your clear opposition to this owner policy and the fact that you are completely against the will of the playerbase.
|
|
miwo
Veteran Member
Posts: 597
| Likes: 585
|
Post by miwo on May 21, 2020 19:19:40 GMT
Also, I doubt the executives would want to remove Seth anyways. Just wanted to point out the logistics of such a policy. The point of this line is to make it purposely hard to remove the sitting owner...
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 21, 2020 21:12:28 GMT
Then another thread will be created if discussion is censored. This is the last thing I'll say, since you guys clearly don't head my advice. Seth will not be posting the policy in its current version. I wouldn't either if I was in that position. Why would anyone in the right mind post a policy with a line that effectively de-legitimizes your power indefinitely. The fact that you're all surprised it got deleted is hilarious. If you want this policy to be put into place for "safety and longevity reasons", remove that line, and then try again. I'm sorry, but in its current state, it'd take a clueless owner to fall for it. How about we hear this through Seth's own words instead of yours? You're literally saying that the very thing which put Seth in power and legitimizes his position is de-legitimizing him, a contradicting non-problem that you literally made up out of nowhere. I am surprised it got deleted because it's what legitimizes his power. Go with the compromise I proposed of going off of a draft of it then modifying it instead of ignoring community votes.
|
|
mibbzz
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 9,109
| Likes: 12,246
|
Post by mibbzz on May 21, 2020 21:19:22 GMT
Then another thread will be created if discussion is censored. This is the last thing I'll say, since you guys clearly don't head my advice. Seth will not be posting the policy in its current version. I wouldn't either if I was in that position. Why would anyone in the right mind post a policy with a line that effectively de-legitimizes your power indefinitely. The fact that you're all surprised it got deleted is hilarious. If you want this policy to be put into place for "safety and longevity reasons", remove that line, and then try again. I'm sorry, but in its current state, it'd take a clueless owner to fall for it. The removal of the policy which made Seth owner in the first place is the only thing which de-legitimizes him as owner, if you want to go down that rabbit hole then the removal of that policy just means Windows is still the owner technically. That obviously isn't the case... because the community voted on a policy to vote for the owner... a policy which no longer exists in essence nullifying itself, and we keep going in that circle
|
|