AshazTGA
Veteran Member
Posts: 317
| Likes: 102
|
Post by AshazTGA on Jul 16, 2020 10:15:11 GMT
Should they try to stay in their rank, the Admin Officer will deal with them. How? Your entire system is redundant, confusing, and really horribly written. The one we have right now is perfect. Why are we voting to change something to a that of lesser quality? My system is only for no confidence situations, and it's just a draft too. The current one isn't even all that either, it's formatted badly. I'm bad at writing and that's just the skeleton of my system. EDIT: Also forgot to mention that the FIRST reply to the draft was about no confidence by TheHour. There was no response.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 16, 2020 10:15:33 GMT
The one we have right now is perfect I wouldn't call it perfect... It's got gaps in it that we really shouldn't have and didn't when it was drafted... I'd be 100% down for the originally agreed version being restored and then we start discussing changes to it but right now any discussion is pointless because we can't trust that someone (Whoever that might be) won't edit it without our permission.
|
|
fionn
Club 4000 Member
Admin Officer
elmon sucks
Posts: 6,157
| Likes: 4,775
|
Post by fionn on Jul 16, 2020 10:25:25 GMT
The one we have right now is perfect I wouldn't call it perfect... It's got gaps in it that we really shouldn't have and didn't when it was drafted... I'd be 100% down for the originally agreed version being restored and then we start discussing changes to it but right now any discussion is pointless because we can't trust that someone (Whoever that might be) won't edit it without our permission. I agree with you, but it wasn't exactly perfect on first release either. "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down" can be interpreted many different ways. My original interpretation was "has been grossly inactive OR neglected their duties and not stepped down." Some take it as "The owner has been grossly inactive AND neglected their duties and has not stepped down". I definitely think it should be reworded because it can lead to loop holes and this community often gets off on arguing based on semantics
|
|
AshazTGA
Veteran Member
Posts: 317
| Likes: 102
|
Post by AshazTGA on Jul 16, 2020 10:27:56 GMT
I wouldn't call it perfect... It's got gaps in it that we really shouldn't have and didn't when it was drafted... I'd be 100% down for the originally agreed version being restored and then we start discussing changes to it but right now any discussion is pointless because we can't trust that someone (Whoever that might be) won't edit it without our permission. I agree with you, but it wasn't exactly perfect on first release either. "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down" can be interpreted many different ways. My original interpretation was "has been grossly inactive OR neglected their duties and not stepped down." Some take it as "The owner has been grossly inactive AND neglected their duties and has not stepped down". I definitely think it should be reworded because it can lead to loop holes and this community often gets off on arguing based on semantics If the formatting can also be fixed a little bit as well as the gaps then we can close this thread and end discussion on it
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 16, 2020 11:27:57 GMT
I wouldn't call it perfect... It's got gaps in it that we really shouldn't have and didn't when it was drafted... I'd be 100% down for the originally agreed version being restored and then we start discussing changes to it but right now any discussion is pointless because we can't trust that someone (Whoever that might be) won't edit it without our permission. I agree with you, but it wasn't exactly perfect on first release either. "The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down" can be interpreted many different ways. My original interpretation was "has been grossly inactive OR neglected their duties and not stepped down." Some take it as "The owner has been grossly inactive AND neglected their duties and has not stepped down". I definitely think it should be reworded because it can lead to loop holes and this community often gets off on arguing based on semantics I agree, but my point is there is no point us changing it until we know who changes it without the communities consent and why... So far my argument is that was abusive behavior of a rogue member of staff and it should be investigated to identify who changed it and when, because that's not acceptable. We can debate how to re-word stuff, but if people keep changing it behind our backs it's a nonsense exercise.
|
|
AshazTGA
Veteran Member
Posts: 317
| Likes: 102
|
Post by AshazTGA on Jul 18, 2020 10:32:54 GMT
One thing we haven't thought about is the owner him/herself. Before stage 1 takes place, the owner should have a chance to explain everything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 10:52:56 GMT
I recall majority declaring make no change. So I'm not making any changes. Suggestion closed.
|
|