zeseryu
Veteran Member
Admin Officer
ops rights activist
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by zeseryu on Jun 9, 2020 8:17:48 GMT
This suggestion is to have some sort of required "change log" for each executive, with proof backing their accomplishments.
Why should we have this? There's a couple of reasons I can think of.
1. It holds our executives accountable for their actions.
To be quite honest with you guys, our track record of previous executives hasn't exactly been great. The change log would tell us exactly what an executive does, ensuring quality and no malpractice in their work.
2. Transparency.
Many of our players actually wonder what our executives do. Having a change log allows for executives to portray their actions. Executives are voted on, and hold some of the highest authority on the server. We want to make sure we elected the right-guy. We don't want our executives to become complacent and a "lame duck."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally think there's no downfall for having a change log for each executive. We're voted in by the people, and the least we could do was actually communicate what we're actually doing.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jun 9, 2020 8:38:12 GMT
I would support this with the only catch being that we need to be able to accommodate different 'Reporting' Styles as it were.
The different executive roles all have very different responsibilities, and we need to remember that with whatever way we introduce to handle this 'Changelog' or 'Reporting' because not all executives are equal in that regard.
|
|
zeseryu
Veteran Member
Admin Officer
ops rights activist
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by zeseryu on Jun 9, 2020 8:41:46 GMT
I would support this with the only catch being that we need to be able to accommodate different 'Reporting' Styles as it were. The different executive roles all have very different responsibilities, and we need to remember that with whatever way we introduce to handle this 'Changelog' or 'Reporting' because not all executives are equal in that regard. Completely agree, I imagine my day to day tasks are extremely different from the Server Liason and ECD. In my idea the change log would be made by the executive themselves, and updated as each task is done. How they actually portray their actions completed is up to them, as long as they actually do it. |
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jun 9, 2020 9:04:32 GMT
I would support this with the only catch being that we need to be able to accommodate different 'Reporting' Styles as it were. The different executive roles all have very different responsibilities, and we need to remember that with whatever way we introduce to handle this 'Changelog' or 'Reporting' because not all executives are equal in that regard. Completely agree, I imagine my day to day tasks are extremely different from the Server Liason and ECD. In my idea the change log would be made by the executive themselves, and updated as each task is done. How they actually portray their actions completed is up to them, as long as they actually do it. Cool, yeah as long as it's sorta understood in the process that day jobs are different, and actually different people will have different activity requirements that's cool. If it's understood and left to those holding the position to 'Sell themselves' that would be good. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jun 9, 2020 15:12:17 GMT
Pretty much file this under "should've already existed a long time ago". Executives shouldn't be doing nothing.
|
|
97
Veteran Member
RIP Telnet
Posts: 889
| Likes: 679
|
Post by 97 on Jun 9, 2020 15:55:38 GMT
Why has this never existed? I would like to know.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jun 9, 2020 16:19:05 GMT
Why has this never existed? I would like to know. It sort of always has, but it's been more around public opinion. There was never a need for more 'Formal' reporting of the activities an executive does, in the same way there arguably isn't for any admin rank. You could login to the server and just play on the server and never administrate and it'd be hard to prove otherwise at the moment. |
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jun 9, 2020 16:27:03 GMT
Why has this never existed? I would like to know. It sort of always has, but it's been more around public opinion. There was never a need for more 'Formal' reporting of the activities an executive does, in the same way there arguably isn't for any admin rank. You could login to the server and just play on the server and never administrate and it'd be hard to prove otherwise at the moment. I mean we have a punishment log which can kinda track whether or not you're administrating - to an extent. |
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jun 9, 2020 16:29:27 GMT
It sort of always has, but it's been more around public opinion. There was never a need for more 'Formal' reporting of the activities an executive does, in the same way there arguably isn't for any admin rank. You could login to the server and just play on the server and never administrate and it'd be hard to prove otherwise at the moment. I mean we have a punishment log which can kinda track whether or not you're administrating - to an extent. "But there were no rule breakers on when I'm on" is a pretty easy line. But yeah, I get the point. I think it's just the way things have been, if that's right or wrong is a different discussion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 21:08:19 GMT
I'm all for this!
I think transparency is key in this community... especially bearing its track-record in mind.
I'm assuming this would also apply to IA as well?
|
|
zeseryu
Veteran Member
Admin Officer
ops rights activist
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by zeseryu on Jun 10, 2020 0:00:11 GMT
I'm all for this! I think transparency is key in this community... especially bearing its track-record in mind. I'm assuming this would also apply to IA as well? I don't really think its necessary to apply it to IA. IA doesnt hold an executive position and all reports filed to them are confidential. Any general info the IA feels comfortable to share is already being shared. Would be pretty pointless to see [redacted] reported [redacted] for [redacted] - handled 6/9/2020 |
|
miwo
Veteran Member
Posts: 597
| Likes: 585
|
Post by miwo on Jun 10, 2020 19:10:32 GMT
Why not also have their title up for reelection every 3-6-12 months. If you are unsatisfied with the progress of an exec, then you can just vote them out at that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jun 10, 2020 20:14:28 GMT
Why not also have their title up for reelection every 3-6-12 months. If you are unsatisfied with the progress of an exec, then you can just vote them out at that time. I had a suggestion (https://totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/62655/elect-executives) with had 90% of the community supporting it, and while most of the suggestion is no longer relevant or has already been implemented, the major provision which we didn't implement was quarterly recurring elections for executive positions. Right now they are permanent (though technically, a vote-off has always been in the realm of possibility after inFAmas was removed), but in that suggestion it detailed how positions would be divided up into 3 quarters, and in each interval a position would have an election whether or not there was already an incumbent. I would support implementing this. Since the executive policy is currently being written, it's something to consider. zeseryu |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2020 20:28:34 GMT
Why not also have their title up for reelection every 3-6-12 months. If you are unsatisfied with the progress of an exec, then you can just vote them out at that time. I had a suggestion (https://totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/62655/elect-executives) with had 90% of the community supporting it, and while most of the suggestion is no longer relevant or has already been implemented, the major provision which we didn't implement was quarterly recurring elections for executive positions. Right now they are permanent (though technically, a vote-off has always been in the realm of possibility after inFAmas was removed), but in that suggestion it detailed how positions would be divided up into 3 quarters, and in each interval a position would have an election whether or not there was already an incumbent. I would support implementing this. Since the executive policy is currently being written, it's something to consider. zeseryu While I agree that Executives should only be in power if the majority of the community supports them, implementing a vote too often would push an incumbent executive to avoid taking risks that may benefit the server, for fear of re-election. What we absolutely do not want is an Executive putting the fear of re-election over their duty as an executive. Your system implements a vote way too often. My suggestion would be to have an election every 6 months instead. This would give the incumbent Executive time to perform his duties as a constituent and as a delegate towards this community. Furthermore, in our real world of politics, there's a reason why the House is up for re-election every 2 years, and is the sole proprietor of tax bills, as opposed to the senate being up for re-election every 6 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jun 10, 2020 20:36:24 GMT
I had a suggestion (https://totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/62655/elect-executives) with had 90% of the community supporting it, and while most of the suggestion is no longer relevant or has already been implemented, the major provision which we didn't implement was quarterly recurring elections for executive positions. Right now they are permanent (though technically, a vote-off has always been in the realm of possibility after inFAmas was removed), but in that suggestion it detailed how positions would be divided up into 3 quarters, and in each interval a position would have an election whether or not there was already an incumbent. I would support implementing this. Since the executive policy is currently being written, it's something to consider. zeseryu While I agree that Executives should only be in power if the majority of the community supports them, implementing a vote too often would push an incumbent executive to avoid taking risks that may benefit the server, for fear of re-election. What we absolutely do not want is an Executive putting the fear of re-election over their duty as an executive. Your system implements a vote way too often. My suggestion would be to have an election every 6 months instead. This would give the incumbent Executive time to perform his duties as a constituent and as a delegate towards this community. Furthermore, in our real world of politics, there's a reason why the House is up for re-election every 2 years, and is the sole proprietor of tax bills, as opposed to the senate being up for re-election every 6 years. I have no problem with changing the interval, it was just a proposal, even 6 months is better than nothing. Although, your comparison with Congress is pretty dumb considering Congress is one of the worst legislative bodies on Earth. |
|
