|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:24 am
Famicommie 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. 4-5 max right now I think would be fine. Quote: 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. you win
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 12:46 pm
Well this seems to be the proposition so far:
-----
1. There should always be at least three council members.
2. At this time, there shouldn't be a number of people on the council greater than five.
3. The council members will be elected on a consensus model.
4. In addition to having moderator status, all of the council members will have access to the AnarchoAdmin.
5. 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.
6. Upon revoking a particular character's modship, the remainder of the council will change the password to the AnarchoAdmin.
7. Utilizing any moderation function will be explicitly logged in a stickied, locked topic.
-----
Can we come to consensus on these terms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:22 pm
Famicommie Well this seems to be the proposition so far: ----- 1. There should always be at least three council members. 2. At this time, there shouldn't be a number of people on the council greater than five. 3. The council members will be elected on a consensus model. 4. In addition to having moderator status, all of the council members will have access to the AnarchoAdmin. 5. 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. 6. Upon revoking a particular character's modship, the remainder of the council will change the password to the AnarchoAdmin. 7. Utilizing any moderation function will be explicitly logged in a stickied, locked topic. ----- Can we come to consensus on these terms? I'd like to add that any non-emergency use of AnarchoAdmin first be voted upon, in the standard consensus model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:06 am
aufheben Famicommie Well this seems to be the proposition so far: ----- 1. There should always be at least three council members. 2. At this time, there shouldn't be a number of people on the council greater than five. 3. The council members will be elected on a consensus model. 4. In addition to having moderator status, all of the council members will have access to the AnarchoAdmin. 5. 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. 6. Upon revoking a particular character's modship, the remainder of the council will change the password to the AnarchoAdmin. 7. Utilizing any moderation function will be explicitly logged in a stickied, locked topic. ----- Can we come to consensus on these terms? I'd like to add that any non-emergency use of AnarchoAdmin first be voted upon, in the standard consensus model. could you state situations in which the anarchoadmin account would be used outside of an emergency? I think the mod powers cover evrything outside of changing ownership of the guild right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:09 pm
Next Dollar After aufheben Famicommie Well this seems to be the proposition so far: ----- 1. There should always be at least three council members. 2. At this time, there shouldn't be a number of people on the council greater than five. 3. The council members will be elected on a consensus model. 4. In addition to having moderator status, all of the council members will have access to the AnarchoAdmin. 5. 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. 6. Upon revoking a particular character's modship, the remainder of the council will change the password to the AnarchoAdmin. 7. Utilizing any moderation function will be explicitly logged in a stickied, locked topic. ----- Can we come to consensus on these terms? I'd like to add that any non-emergency use of AnarchoAdmin first be voted upon, in the standard consensus model. could you state situations in which the anarchoadmin account would be used outside of an emergency? I think the mod powers cover evrything outside of changing ownership of the guild right now. Well, in that case (as I'm not familiar with what the Admin can do as compared to Mods), the only thing that would apply is a non-emergency transfer of ownership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:21 pm
The differences between the administrator account and moderator accounts are as follows:
Only the Admin can change the Home page.
Only the Admin can give or revoke Mod status.
Just like the Admin, Mods can:
Invite users
Accept join requests
Ban users
Edit posts
Delete posts
Make stickied threads
Make announcement threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:08 pm
Famicommie The differences between the administrator account and moderator accounts are as follows: Only the Admin can change the Home page. Only the Admin can give or revoke Mod status. Just like the Admin, Mods can: Invite users Accept join requests Ban users Edit posts Delete posts Make stickied threads Make announcement threads Thanks. In that case, I'd like to suggest a consensus ruling on the use of any of those powers in any non-emergency situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
