Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 13, 2020 11:30:03 GMT
so lets reinstate the actual ownership policy? it has? Not really... Seth made changes to it before re-instating it. There are subtle but pretty key differences between this policy and the original one we wrote as a community.
|
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jul 13, 2020 12:10:42 GMT
Not really... Seth made changes to it before re-instating it. There are subtle but pretty key differences between this policy and the original one we wrote as a community. It is effectively the exact same. No key differences. These were the only changes: prnt.sc/tgvj54
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 13, 2020 12:12:12 GMT
Not really... Seth made changes to it before re-instating it. There are subtle but pretty key differences between this policy and the original one we wrote as a community. It is effectively the exact same. No key differences. These were the only changes: prnt.sc/tgvj54Actually it's a major change... The point of the original was to be able to instigate a vote of no confidence if it was believed an active owner was not operating the server in the interests of the community. Seth added a requirement for inactivity which defeated the point of the original policy...
|
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jul 13, 2020 12:16:28 GMT
It is effectively the exact same. No key differences. These were the only changes: prnt.sc/tgvj54Actually it's a major change... The point of the original was to be able to instigate a vote of no confidence if it was believed an active owner was not operating the server in the interests of the community. Seth added a requirement for inactivity which defeated the point of the original policy... No the original wording was "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down." which means it was always about inactivity
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 13, 2020 12:37:01 GMT
Actually it's a major change... The point of the original was to be able to instigate a vote of no confidence if it was believed an active owner was not operating the server in the interests of the community. Seth added a requirement for inactivity which defeated the point of the original policy... No the original wording was "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down." which means it was always about inactivity But now an owner can be active and neglect their duties and we can't remove them. The former wording allowed for any of those 3 situations to happen in order to trigger the ownership policy being enacted...
|
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jul 13, 2020 12:56:06 GMT
No the original wording was "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down." which means it was always about inactivity But now an owner can be active and neglect their duties and we can't remove them. The former wording allowed for any of those 3 situations to happen in order to trigger the ownership policy being enacted... It didn't because the wording used the word "and" which means all three conditions had to be met in order for that scenario to be enacted.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 13, 2020 13:06:24 GMT
But now an owner can be active and neglect their duties and we can't remove them. The former wording allowed for any of those 3 situations to happen in order to trigger the ownership policy being enacted... It didn't because the wording used the word "and" which means all three conditions had to be met in order for that scenario to be enacted. I think we're reading this in two different ways... How I read it, and I understand was the intention was something like this. "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down" So if the owner has not stepped down but they have been grossly inactive and / or neglected their duties that could be enacted. -- Also, I'm just pointing it out, because at no point were these changes approved by the community, Seth made the change and 'Snuck' it in with the reversal back to this policy. Personally I've stopped caring because it's clear people won't actually listen to me, but I'm highlighting that the ownership policy currently in place is not the one that we asked to be reversed to and I think the community should keep that in mind...
|
|
mibbzz
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 9,109
| Likes: 12,246
|
Post by mibbzz on Jul 14, 2020 0:47:08 GMT
Actually it's a major change... The point of the original was to be able to instigate a vote of no confidence if it was believed an active owner was not operating the server in the interests of the community. Seth added a requirement for inactivity which defeated the point of the original policy... No the original wording was "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down." which means it was always about inactivity I'm the one that wrote the fucking policy and you are wrong. Wild is correct. End of discussion. Figure out what you're talking about before spewing random bullshit lmao
|
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jul 14, 2020 8:03:49 GMT
No the original wording was "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down." which means it was always about inactivity I'm the one that wrote the fucking policy and you are wrong. Wild is correct. End of discussion. Figure out what you're talking about before spewing random bullshit lmao Maybe my grammar's just shit then (very likely) but from what I thought if it was an either/or situation better wording would have been "the owner has been grossly inactive or neglected their duites, and has not stepped down." Again I'm not the greatest at this shit so I could be wrong
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 8:43:24 GMT
It didn't because the wording used the word "and" which means all three conditions had to be met in order for that scenario to be enacted. I think we're reading this in two different ways... How I read it, and I understand was the intention was something like this. "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down" So if the owner has not stepped down but they have been grossly inactive and / or neglected their duties that could be enacted. -- Also, I'm just pointing it out, because at no point were these changes approved by the community, Seth made the change and 'Snuck' it in with the reversal back to this policy. Personally I've stopped caring because it's clear people won't actually listen to me, but I'm highlighting that the ownership policy currently in place is not the one that we asked to be reversed to and I think the community should keep that in mind... lol i never touched it. i literally copy and pasted the original one and put it back. if its changed then whoever sent me the original one modified it.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 14, 2020 8:46:55 GMT
I think we're reading this in two different ways... How I read it, and I understand was the intention was something like this. "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down" So if the owner has not stepped down but they have been grossly inactive and / or neglected their duties that could be enacted. -- Also, I'm just pointing it out, because at no point were these changes approved by the community, Seth made the change and 'Snuck' it in with the reversal back to this policy. Personally I've stopped caring because it's clear people won't actually listen to me, but I'm highlighting that the ownership policy currently in place is not the one that we asked to be reversed to and I think the community should keep that in mind... lol i never touched it. i literally copy and pasted the original one and put it back. if its changed then whoever sent me the original one modified it. All I'm saying is that the thread that was linked to is not the same as the one that's now in the 'Official one'... There's even a diff on this thread that shows you what the changes are, and you even told us you were making changes to it before you would re-instate it because you didn't like the idea of a no confidence vote... I'm not saying I agree / disagree with the fact it's been changed, I'm just highlighting it given this topic has once again come up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 8:49:21 GMT
lol i never touched it. i literally copy and pasted the original one and put it back. if its changed then whoever sent me the original one modified it. All I'm saying is that the thread that was linked to is not the same as the one that's now in the 'Official one'... There's even a diff on this thread that shows you what the changes are, and you even told us you were making changes to it before you would re-instate it because you didn't like the idea of a no confidence vote... I'm not saying I agree / disagree with the fact it's been changed, I'm just highlighting it given this topic has once again come up. that was for the last one I did. and instead of just changing it I decided to remake it.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 14, 2020 8:54:08 GMT
All I'm saying is that the thread that was linked to is not the same as the one that's now in the 'Official one'... There's even a diff on this thread that shows you what the changes are, and you even told us you were making changes to it before you would re-instate it because you didn't like the idea of a no confidence vote... I'm not saying I agree / disagree with the fact it's been changed, I'm just highlighting it given this topic has once again come up. that was for the last one I did. and instead of just changing it I decided to remake it. It's possible I mis-remembered you saying you would change it, but unfortunately the policy you did put in place wasn't the original one, it was raised back when you did it but I for one decided I couldn't be bothered trying to push for the actual policy. Again, how do you explain this point: It is effectively the exact same. No key differences. These were the only changes: prnt.sc/tgvj54When you follow the link, it's clearly different to that of the one that we originally wrote. You said from the start you didn't like the idea of a vote of no confidence, and somehow that managed to vanish from the formal final policy... Apologies if I've assumed it's you changing it when someone else has, but that raised the bigger question of why do we have a rogue executive changing policies at that point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 8:58:29 GMT
that was for the last one I did. and instead of just changing it I decided to remake it. It's possible I mis-remembered you saying you would change it, but unfortunately the policy you did put in place wasn't the original one, it was raised back when you did it but I for one decided I couldn't be bothered trying to push for the actual policy. Again, how do you explain this point: It is effectively the exact same. No key differences. These were the only changes: prnt.sc/tgvj54When you follow the link, it's clearly different to that of the one that we originally wrote. You said from the start you didn't like the idea of a vote of no confidence, and somehow that managed to vanish from the formal final policy... Apologies if I've assumed it's you changing it when someone else has, but that raised the bigger question of why do we have a rogue executive changing policies at that point. According to the git change thing a vote of no confidence never existed in it, only the addition of some activity requirement and includes all executives (with the exclusion of assistants) which makes sense. I dont know who did it, but the changes seem fine to me
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 14, 2020 9:12:34 GMT
It's possible I mis-remembered you saying you would change it, but unfortunately the policy you did put in place wasn't the original one, it was raised back when you did it but I for one decided I couldn't be bothered trying to push for the actual policy. Again, how do you explain this point: When you follow the link, it's clearly different to that of the one that we originally wrote. You said from the start you didn't like the idea of a vote of no confidence, and somehow that managed to vanish from the formal final policy... Apologies if I've assumed it's you changing it when someone else has, but that raised the bigger question of why do we have a rogue executive changing policies at that point. According to the git change thing a vote of no confidence never existed in it, only the addition of some activity requirement and includes all executives (with the exclusion of assistants) which makes sense. I dont know who did it, but the changes seem fine to me My point is why was there a change... Those have been there since you posted in the thread about it. Again, it has nothing to do with the suggestion here, but it's highlighting that this policy STILL has not been put how it should be. And Scenario 2 is what I was referring to, that is nothing to do with activity, it's about the community feeling the owner is not doing their job... Again, it's nothing to do with this thread, but I'm just highlighting it. If you say you didn't change it I can't prove you did, but I Can prove that it's not the policy that we wrote originally, and the policy that put you into the ownership position.
|
|