|
Post by Alex on Mar 31, 2011 17:37:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 31, 2011 17:41:45 GMT -5
Asher tried this with a much more organized system and was immediately shot down
|
|
|
Post by SwimFellow on Mar 31, 2011 17:41:52 GMT -5
Wow!
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 31, 2011 17:42:28 GMT -5
Asher tried this with a much more organized system and was immediately shot down Isn't that pretty much what you just did?
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 31, 2011 17:48:39 GMT -5
Oh no I like it
|
|
Camoon
Star
[AWD:01020307]
Trust your pilot, respect your monkey.
Posts: 574
|
Post by Camoon on Mar 31, 2011 17:52:01 GMT -5
Asher tried this with a much more organized system and was immediately shot down Isn't that pretty much what you just did? LOL!! Zang got'd pwnd. I like it too. I don't like how you've set it out like a legal document. I FUCKING HATE BUREAUCRACY! But yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Mar 31, 2011 17:54:49 GMT -5
I like it, but, isn't 3 votes to much? Oh and also this: "or anything else that an average member would find offensive." I think that can be waay to broad =P. EDIT: oh, wait, I suppose you reduce its broadness using the "average member" part.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 31, 2011 17:55:15 GMT -5
Isn't that pretty much what you just did? LOL!! Zang got'd pwnd. I like it too. I don't like how you've set it out like a legal document. I FUCKING HATE BUREAUCRACY! But yeah. The whole point was to be official. Not saying "There will be admins, mods, and members all voting on the stuff that gets suggested and when it goes through we are all happy" NO!
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Mar 31, 2011 20:32:35 GMT -5
Holy crap that's awesome.
ALTHOUGH I don't think it's fair admins/mods get more "voting points". We're equals and as such, no one's point of view should be deemed more important than someone else's.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 31, 2011 23:17:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by UnfairBear on Apr 1, 2011 5:06:49 GMT -5
God, that's all very formal. Put some kittens on it or something.
Certain parts of it confused me. Like the voting part... It kinda needs more elaboration.
But yeah, a constitution could be something we should consider alright. That said, I dunno if we want to get TOO structured about everything. Maybe more like a list of rules or something? Bleh I dunno. Too much thinking in the last hour D:
|
|
|
Post by Bombmaniac on Apr 1, 2011 8:37:03 GMT -5
lol i remember writing that...7 hours...fun times
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Apr 1, 2011 9:04:41 GMT -5
Put some kittens on it or something. seconded.
|
|
|
Post by UnfairBear on Apr 1, 2011 9:42:33 GMT -5
Right. I have some other thoughts nao.
I think what you're saying at one point in that is that members should have the power to pass a 'bill' without getting the admins' go ahead. I don't think that's such a good idea.
I know we all want to be as democratic as possible, but even in democracies, the government has the final say on what gets passed and what doesn't, and that's for good reason. The admins know about certain things that will work and certain things that won't, how much work it'll take to get things done, etc. That's the whole point in having admins. They keep all the bureaucratic and complicated SHIRT in mind so that everybody else doesn't have to. So they should have the power to say "that's really not going to work" if they need to.
Also, it's not really fair to force the admins into changes that end up being a huge undertaking, cuz like, they have their own lives to live, they can't just be working on SPOTM all the time, ya know?
Now I'm not saying that admins/mods should just make all the decisions. Maybe giving admins and mods more votes will solve the problem and everything will be fine, but they have to be able to vote for everything. Maybe if it comes down to it and everyone want an idea to go ahead but admins are against it there should be a like 50% vote of the admin/mod team in order to be able to veto it.
The whole system for this would need to be figured out, and it's definitely worth figuring out. Keep in mind though, admins and mods are members too, and they shouldn't be denied a vote.
|
|
|
Post by UnfairBear on Apr 1, 2011 9:47:31 GMT -5
Wait, this shouldn't be here at all! Hurfdurf modify.
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Apr 1, 2011 10:33:13 GMT -5
I think you're definitely onto something, but like jean said - It kind of negates the point of even having a group running the forum. Mods and Admins would pretty much just be technical support.
A step toward transparency is good, but on the same token there needs to be a happy medium.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Apr 1, 2011 12:06:04 GMT -5
The problem with Jean's idea is that things would end up beig vetoed solely because the staff doesn't have enough time. If it cones to that, we simply need more staff. You can't stop people from doing something simply because you don't have enough time
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Apr 1, 2011 13:31:46 GMT -5
That was the point of my poll.
Most people agree on adding new people to the staff. I'm gonna make a thread about it.
|
|
|
Post by UnfairBear on Apr 1, 2011 14:10:57 GMT -5
I agree completely, Zang. I don't think there'll be that many things that call for the admins and only the admins to use their time, but if it ever comes to it and it's something very time consuming, it's not fair to make them do it. It was more of an example. But yeah, we do need more staff so more stuff gets done, I agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Apr 1, 2011 14:17:12 GMT -5
I'm not trying to say the members can just pass something instantaneously. Members vote, and if the majority wants it passed, it will then be observed by the Administrative and Moderation branch. I will revise it as to better explain it. EDIT: It has been revised: bit.ly/gSwP96
|
|