Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 22, 2020 7:45:10 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. I understand you have an agenda to pass, but my god, try a little bit harder. The issue is the policy was removed without consulting with the community. Nobody has a issue with changes to it if that's what's needed, but to remove the policy that we all spent a lot of time and effort writing is frankly unacceptable.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 22, 2020 7:47:03 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. I didn't know you spoke for Seth. I am hoping Seth isn't going to go down this route, because it would ultimately call into question his right to ownership of the server for one thing, and would call into question how good of an owner he is. He will loose more popularity by not posting it, than re-instating the policy and allowing us to have a discussion around what changes he feels need to be made.
|
|
miwo
Veteran Member
Posts: 597
| Likes: 585
|
Post by miwo on May 22, 2020 9:11:19 GMT
This is reminding me of the autistim from this thread totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/66027/vrs-voting-reward-system?page=1W1ze seems to have a recurring problem with his emotional stability whilst debating; telling the truth, and just reading in general. It's very apparent that he has completely stopped trying to sway us over with the nonsense that Seth wasn't elected due to this document. So you admit fault? What else is there to say other than you're wrong The fact that you perceive this as a "right vs. wrong" issue, and not as a crucial matter of sanctity and longevity for the continued growth of this server, continues to prove my point without me having to say a word. It's kinda hilarious of you to say this when on the previous page of this exact same thread you made this comment: You can call me by all the names in the book, but it doesn't change the fact that your fundamental argument is just flat out wrong. What else is there to say other than you're wrong? You've got our entire staff team puzzled. Who is this ominous "entire staff team"? I doubt anybody is losing sleep (besides you apparently) over why Wilee doesn't play on a MineCraft server, but still engages with the community. You keep talking in plurals, yet you have nowhere in this thread demonstrated who you are talking about, because we have already asserted that 4/5 of the server disagree with your viewpoint, which is also apparent by the fact that NONE in this thread have defended your objectively false viewpoints. Also, now that you seem to be acknowledging my posts, will you answer the one question on everyones mind that you've danced around the last 48 hours? No irony here. Lmao. And no, a fancy color and title will never, so help me god, excuse a players 3+ year unexplained activity hiatus. Why does a player have to be excused when they don't have any formal ranking on the server? Do you want operators to post inactivity notices now? Do you want to require operators to play on the server in order to access the forums? Literally everything you have spouted in this thread can be summarized by you being obstinate
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 22, 2020 10:12:55 GMT
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. Seth was legitimatized by the community, not by way of your document. You can call me by all the names in the book, but it doesn't change the fact that your fundamental argument is just flat out wrong. Seth is the owner, and as owner, he by definition owns the server. This is not a pure democracy, or else we'd have tyrants like you turn this server into TotalBullshit. Seth is not dead, nor incapacitated. Even if either of those two things became true, we have a working policy to fill the indefinite gap. Your justification for the urgency of this document makes absolutely no sense. Creating what ifs to legitimize a document that "coincidentally" has 3 lines about how it is in the majority faction of this communities power to demote Seth. In its current state, the document is a failed attempt. Come back stronger, we support you. Make a document that hides your agenda a bit better. As I've said before, we play Minecraft, but we aren't blockheaded for gods sake. It also surprises me you guys haven't created a post getting community feedback on it yet? You just want Seth to post it so it looks legitimate, even though it's about as legitimate as a 12 year old using his moms credit card to buy in-app purchases. P.S. It may help your case of legitimacy slightly if any of you have played the server since 2017. Warm regards, once more, Wize alphafoxtrot The entire process that had Seth put into ownership was a result of that policy being formalized at the time. This is not like any other server, as I've been told a number of times when I've made the similar argument. Mark believe it or not in many ways still 'Owns' TotalFreedom, he could pull the plug on Seth tomorrow if he wanted, and it's always been made clear that the server was to continue to be ran in the way that Mark required. Seth has been asked to RESTORE as post that he deleted / moved out of public sight. Not to endorse it, not to support it, to restore it because it should never have been removed in the first place. That's currently what's challenging his authority as server owner, and the longer this goes on the less support I would imagine he will get from the players and staff.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 22, 2020 10:16:13 GMT
Seth litterly said he is not gonna change it, at the end of the day it’s his server, if he wants to have it til he is dead, the so be it, can’t we just lock this Would kinda go against basically everything that we've been working towards for quite some time, and would seriously undermine his status as owner, and certainly doesn't look good in the view of public opinion. As has been stated, an overwhelming majority support this thread, and that needs to be taken into account.
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on May 22, 2020 11:25:49 GMT
I won't comment on whether there is some hidden agenda in the old policy, but OP and admin activity is not relevant to the topic of this thread. If you believe a coup is incoming, send the evidence to Internal Affairs.
|
|
mibbzz
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 9,109
| Likes: 12,246
|
Post by mibbzz on May 22, 2020 13:37:49 GMT
I won't comment on whether there is some hidden agenda in the old policy, but OP and admin activity is not relevant to the topic of this thread. If you believe a coup is incoming, send the evidence to Internal Affairs. And seeing as I was the one that wrote the old policy, let me be super clear in saying the entire point of the policy was to make Seth owner. I was in favour of Seth being owner at the time, I'm in favour of Seth being owner at the moment, and the old policy will not result in Seth being removed from owner. That's a stupid argument which simply isn't grounded in reality. The old policy was written after an actual situation where such a policy was needed, and was designed to cover multiple different possible scenarios, while keeping the threshold of removal extremely high. Anyone that thinks a more than 3 year old policy, which was designed to make Seth owner, has actually been a grand conspiracy from the start to remove him three years down the line is insane, and they can come speak to me and Hockey. We're the ones that spent hours discussing it with dozens of people, consulting people (like Seth himself I might add, he gave input and was in favour of the policy), and writing and rewriting it. We did that for the longevity of the server, and that's the same reason you have people arguing for it's reinstatement right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 16:27:06 GMT
I won't comment on whether there is some hidden agenda in the old policy, but OP and admin activity is not relevant to the topic of this thread. If you believe a coup is incoming, send the evidence to Internal Affairs. And seeing as I was the one that wrote the old policy, let me be super clear in saying the entire point of the policy was to make Seth owner. I was in favour of Seth being owner at the time, I'm in favour of Seth being owner at the moment, and the old policy will not result in Seth being removed from owner. That's a stupid argument which simply isn't grounded in reality. The old policy was written after an actual situation where such a policy was needed, and was designed to cover multiple different possible scenarios, while keeping the threshold of removal extremely high. Anyone that thinks a more than 3 year old policy, which was designed to make Seth owner, has actually been a grand conspiracy from the start to remove him three years down the line is insane, and they can come speak to me and Hockey. We're the ones that spent hours discussing it with dozens of people, consulting people (like Seth himself I might add, he gave input and was in favour of the policy), and writing and rewriting it. We did that for the longevity of the server, and that's the same reason you have people arguing for it's reinstatement right now. Alright, so if the purpose of having that policy is to replace this one, and to keep Seth in power, why include a clause allowing the majority to forcibly remove him from power? I mean, you guys seem to control 70% of the community at the moment. It'd be in your complete legal power to remove Seth, once this document passed. Bear in mind, we love that document, we just don't like that extremely convenient and suspicious line. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; If you care about that document for the reasons you stated, and to keep Seth in power, then why wont you remove that line? You can have that document that you "spent hours discussing it with dozens of people, consulting people (like Seth himself I might add, he gave input and was in favor of the policy), and writing and rewriting it", placed into effect in a nanosecond, albeit, immediately, if you remove that line. Yet, you refuse to do so. When pressed about it, you cite that this is a "community document". If this is the true case, why don't we vote on having that line in it or not?
|
|
XenVoltz
Veteran Member
Posts: 2,461
| Likes: 1,488
|
Post by XenVoltz on May 22, 2020 16:40:20 GMT
And seeing as I was the one that wrote the old policy, let me be super clear in saying the entire point of the policy was to make Seth owner. I was in favour of Seth being owner at the time, I'm in favour of Seth being owner at the moment, and the old policy will not result in Seth being removed from owner. That's a stupid argument which simply isn't grounded in reality. The old policy was written after an actual situation where such a policy was needed, and was designed to cover multiple different possible scenarios, while keeping the threshold of removal extremely high. Anyone that thinks a more than 3 year old policy, which was designed to make Seth owner, has actually been a grand conspiracy from the start to remove him three years down the line is insane, and they can come speak to me and Hockey. We're the ones that spent hours discussing it with dozens of people, consulting people (like Seth himself I might add, he gave input and was in favour of the policy), and writing and rewriting it. We did that for the longevity of the server, and that's the same reason you have people arguing for it's reinstatement right now. Alright, so if the purpose of having that policy is to replace this one, and to keep Seth in power, why include a clause allowing the majority to forcibly remove him from power? I mean, you guys seem to control 70% of the community at the moment. It'd be in your complete legal power to remove Seth, once this document passed. Bear in mind, we love that document, we just don't like that extremely convenient and suspicious line. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; If you care about that document for the reasons you stated, and to keep Seth in power, then why wont you remove that line? You can have that document that you "spent hours discussing it with dozens of people, consulting people (like Seth himself I might add, he gave input and was in favor of the policy), and writing and rewriting it", placed into effect in a nanosecond, albeit, immediately, if you remove that line. Yet, you refuse to do so. When pressed about it, you cite that this is a "community document". If this is the true case, why don't we vote on having that line in it or not?It seems debating with you is like debating with a wall. Wilee has already suggested on posting a thread with no poll and allow the community to suggest edits for the policy. The policy was still active for a bit before Seth removed it and no one was trying to vote him out then, so why would they try and do that now? Like I’ve said, the policy doesn’t apply to just Seth. As you mentioned before about “safety and longevity,” Seth isn’t going to be the owner of this server forever. That’s quite impossible. The policy will apply to him and possibly many owners to come, but right now no one is conspiring to remove Seth. Many executives have already said that they like Seth, some are his friends. And how do they control 70% of the community? 70% voted to reinstate the policy...at their own will.
|
|
Kash
Veteran Member
Yellow.
Posts: 1,781
| Likes: 1,694
|
Post by Kash on May 22, 2020 16:56:50 GMT
I mean, my personal definition of owner is the person that controls of all aspects of the server? I mean yes, there are things that should get community approval. But after all, as the owner, he likely should have the final call with situations.
If Seth ever has to step down from owner position for whatever reason, there should be notification to the community. And if anybody else wants to step up and take the position, ahhh now I see where the controversy is. How exactly to deal with that scenario that he does step down.
|
|
Video
Forum Admin
An op's rights activist
Posts: 5,585
| Likes: 5,893
IGN: VideoGameSmash12, videogamesm12
Old IGN: https://namemc.com/profile/VideoGameSmash12.2, https://namemc.com/profile/videogamesm12.1
Discord: Video#9801
Birthdate (MM/DD): 07/16
Timezone: UTC-07:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Video on May 22, 2020 17:11:07 GMT
I will not comment any further than I already have about this or that policy, so instead I'm just going to link the original policy so people stop asking me if I have a copy of it. Here.
|
|
miwo
Veteran Member
Posts: 597
| Likes: 585
|
Post by miwo on May 22, 2020 17:17:35 GMT
And seeing as I was the one that wrote the old policy, let me be super clear in saying the entire point of the policy was to make Seth owner. I was in favour of Seth being owner at the time, I'm in favour of Seth being owner at the moment, and the old policy will not result in Seth being removed from owner. That's a stupid argument which simply isn't grounded in reality. The old policy was written after an actual situation where such a policy was needed, and was designed to cover multiple different possible scenarios, while keeping the threshold of removal extremely high. Anyone that thinks a more than 3 year old policy, which was designed to make Seth owner, has actually been a grand conspiracy from the start to remove him three years down the line is insane, and they can come speak to me and Hockey. We're the ones that spent hours discussing it with dozens of people, consulting people (like Seth himself I might add, he gave input and was in favour of the policy), and writing and rewriting it. We did that for the longevity of the server, and that's the same reason you have people arguing for it's reinstatement right now. Bear in mind, we love that document, we just don't like that extremely convenient and suspicious line. Who are "we"? And seeing as I was the one that wrote the old policy, let me be super clear in saying the entire point of the policy was to make Seth owner. I was in favour of Seth being owner at the time, I'm in favour of Seth being owner at the moment, and the old policy will not result in Seth being removed from owner. That's a stupid argument which simply isn't grounded in reality. The old policy was written after an actual situation where such a policy was needed, and was designed to cover multiple different possible scenarios, while keeping the threshold of removal extremely high. Anyone that thinks a more than 3 year old policy, which was designed to make Seth owner, has actually been a grand conspiracy from the start to remove him three years down the line is insane, and they can come speak to me and Hockey. We're the ones that spent hours discussing it with dozens of people, consulting people (like Seth himself I might add, he gave input and was in favour of the policy), and writing and rewriting it. We did that for the longevity of the server, and that's the same reason you have people arguing for it's reinstatement right now. Alright, so if the purpose of having that policy is to replace this one, and to keep Seth in power, why include a clause allowing the majority to forcibly remove him from power? I mean, you guys seem to control 70% of the community at the moment. It'd be in your complete legal power to remove Seth, once this document passed. Bear in mind, we love that document, we just don't like that extremely convenient and suspicious line. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; If you care about that document for the reasons you stated, and to keep Seth in power, then why wont you remove that line? You can have that document that you "spent hours discussing it with dozens of people, consulting people (like Seth himself I might add, he gave input and was in favor of the policy), and writing and rewriting it", placed into effect in a nanosecond, albeit, immediately, if you remove that line. Yet, you refuse to do so. When pressed about it, you cite that this is a "community document". If this is the true case, why don't we vote on having that line in it or not?At no point have we insinuated that we want the policty back because of this little clause. If you were to actually read what has been said, then you would know that we would like the old owner policy to be up for revision, meaning you can argue for your cause against this clause at that point. If you have a majority, the "we" you speak of, then you would surely get it removed. "If this is the true case, why don't we vote on having that line in it or not?" What do you think we have talked about continuously throughout the entirety of this thread? You seem to be the human equivalent of a wall.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 22, 2020 21:02:06 GMT
And seeing as I was the one that wrote the old policy, let me be super clear in saying the entire point of the policy was to make Seth owner. I was in favour of Seth being owner at the time, I'm in favour of Seth being owner at the moment, and the old policy will not result in Seth being removed from owner. That's a stupid argument which simply isn't grounded in reality. The old policy was written after an actual situation where such a policy was needed, and was designed to cover multiple different possible scenarios, while keeping the threshold of removal extremely high. Anyone that thinks a more than 3 year old policy, which was designed to make Seth owner, has actually been a grand conspiracy from the start to remove him three years down the line is insane, and they can come speak to me and Hockey. We're the ones that spent hours discussing it with dozens of people, consulting people (like Seth himself I might add, he gave input and was in favour of the policy), and writing and rewriting it. We did that for the longevity of the server, and that's the same reason you have people arguing for it's reinstatement right now. Alright, so if the purpose of having that policy is to replace this one, and to keep Seth in power, why include a clause allowing the majority to forcibly remove him from power? I mean, you guys seem to control 70% of the community at the moment. It'd be in your complete legal power to remove Seth, once this document passed. Bear in mind, we love that document, we just don't like that extremely convenient and suspicious line. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; If you care about that document for the reasons you stated, and to keep Seth in power, then why wont you remove that line? You can have that document that you "spent hours discussing it with dozens of people, consulting people (like Seth himself I might add, he gave input and was in favor of the policy), and writing and rewriting it", placed into effect in a nanosecond, albeit, immediately, if you remove that line. Yet, you refuse to do so. When pressed about it, you cite that this is a "community document". If this is the true case, why don't we vote on having that line in it or not?The point here, and has been all along. The policy was removed, without just reasoning, and that is what we're not happy about. If Seth, You or anyone else wants to propose a change to the policy, nobody is saying that can't happen. We can't have that "Adult Conversation" until the damaging actions Seth took to remove the policy are reversed and it's restored to public viability. Once that's been done, I'll happily sit here and argue over specific lines of that policy until we both die of boredom. This thread is not the place for it, this thread is to restore the original policy, as it was stated and agreed by a significant majority of the community (Like I think it had something like a 95% acceptance rate). Regarding that line more generally, it required something like the entire executive branch to be in agreement to remove an owner, and I personally think it's not a bad safety net to have for any server especially one as 'Mature' as this one. We should be able to remove an owner if the community feels they are no longer serving the community or equally if they are being abusive or disruptive to the server... I can't see Seth fitting into any of those categories myself, and I personally wouldn't expect us to need to implement such a policy unless either Seth ran out of money, or decided to go 'Fuck Minecraft I'm off', which it sounds like neither of those are also likely scenarios. The point is that we're not here to discuss what we want to change, as I'm sure a lot of people will have an opinion on that, but to get us back to where we were however long ago it was we discussed it, so that we can actually then have that conversation. I won't discuss the details of that thread anymore on here, because it's frankly irreverent to this discussion.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 22, 2020 21:03:45 GMT
If Seth ever has to step down from owner position for whatever reason, there should be notification to the community. And if anybody else wants to step up and take the position, ahhh now I see where the controversy is. How exactly to deal with that scenario that he does step down. The policy was designed to cover pretty much every major conceivable eventuality, from stepping down gracefully to abandoning us to refusing to pay for server and just about anything in between. It's why the policy took so long to get to a stage where there was such wide acceptance of it, because this is a very heated topic and one a lot of people are very passionate about, which is great, but we need to make sure if Seth doesn't out-live Minecraft as a game, that we have ways in place to keep the server going for as long as it's seen suitable to do so.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 26, 2020 20:33:33 GMT
Any progress with this? Wary this is dragging on and on and on, and would rather this not end up as another pissing match...
|
|