|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:50 pm
BillyB0B Next Dollar After really I think we need to just think about how many people we really need to empower. This guild is not a high traffic fast pased guild, where we are going to need to do a whole lot of mod kinda stuff. I think that a small group who are able to be online at various times to check up on things is all that is necessary I'd say that a group of 5 individuals is probably the highest with 3 being the smallest, for the best size of the council. Sounds good to me Me as well.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:05 pm
It appears I have missed quite a show while my internet has been down. A pity, but I suppose for the best as my temper would likely have simply made the entire issue worse. Anyway, on to more important issues, Next Dollar After ... I'd say that a group of 5 individuals is probably the highest with 3 being the smallest, for the best size of the council. I concur with this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:13 pm
ok, so does everyone agree with the council idea?
If so, does everyone agree with voting for them?
If so, does everyone agree that there should be no less than 3 but no more than 5?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:02 pm
But... order... bad. stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:08 pm
no, order good, coersive/oppressive order bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:49 pm
I agree with the council and numbers proposed.
And Dollar, you might want to put a comma after "no" or else it sounds like you are saying the exact opposite of what you mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:24 pm
Hell, i understood, and im in highschool with no ability to spelll or use gramar...
I think its a good idea, and we should have a vote of some kind, that being the more democratic thing to do... its not like we are faschist here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:04 am
I agree wit all three.
i asume we will open up a thred to dicuss options first and then after a while create a poll or just another thread to vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 4:09 pm
Well this seems to be the proposition so far:
-----
1. There should always be at least three council members.
2. The council members will be elected on a consensus model.
3. In addition to having moderator status, all of the council members will have access to the AnarchoAdmin.
4. If a majority of guild members have an issue with a particular council member, their modship will be revoked and a new person will be instituted in their place.
5. Upon revoking a particular character's modship, the remainder of the council will change the password to the AnarchoAdmin.
6. Utilizing any moderation function will be explicitly logged in a stickied, locked topic.
-----
Are there any disagreements or additions to be made before voting on this? If not, we can begin to immediately concense on this proposition and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:35 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:18 pm
oh, two things.
Should we set a max limit for the current size of the council, if at somepoint we decide that the council needs to be bigger we could then talk that over.
AND
should we set a max limit for the number of people an individual can nominate to the council?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:54 pm
I think you're right, and that we should set a max limit on the size of the council. That limit could then be adjusted for when the guild grows and a larger number becomes necessary.
I don't see any reason that there should be a max number of nominations, though. When you start doing stuff like that, you start to get into a lesser of two evils situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
