|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:00 pm
Famicommie Proposition 1: ----- 1. There should be between three and five council members. This is open for change if the guild grows to a point where more council members are necessary. 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. 7. Any non-emergency use of mod or admin powers will first be voted upon in the standard consensus model with the exception of accepting join requests. ----- This poll will run for five days. This thread is dedicated to the matters of running the guild. Since this guild is owned collectively, every member in good standing has an equal input into how it's taken care of. It works like this: suppose you have an idea on something in the guild that should be changed or implemented. If there's nothing else being discussed on guild maintenance at the moment, then you're free to make a proposition. Over the course of five days from the suggestion, everyone in the guild will go over what they like about the proposition and what they would like to change about the proposition. Once the five days are up, the proposition goes to a vote. The very first post of this thread will be changed to a poll (yes, this post) and people will have five days to cast their vote. This way, all propositions are settled after ten days and then the next one can be started. Ideally, you should check this thread for updates everytime you access the guild. Note: If you have an idea but another proposition is in the process of its discussion, make a quick post asking to be next in line for submitting an idea. Once the dust clears, you have the green light. Famicommie The first issue being discussed is having a guild council to handle the modly matters of accepting invites, stickying topics, etc. Up until this point in time, it was being discussed here: http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/guilds/viewtopic.php?t=196840&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0So far the proposition looks like this: ----- 1. There should be between three and five 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. 7. Any non-emergency use of mod or admin powers will first be voted upon in the standard consensus model. ----- I'd like to request a quick change to part 7, that being the power to accept join requests be exempt from needing consensus first. In my opinion, anyone who wants to be a part of this guild should be allowed in as soon as possible. New members help a guild grow, and they help it stay active by fostering discussion and whatnot. Sometimes, we'll get several join requests in a day, and waiting for consensus over the internet is a painfully long process. We've got five days to get this proposition in passing shape, folks. Next Dollar After I agree on your change to part 7. and besides that it sounds great. I say we use it. Also I would like to suggest that we use a post here or perhaps another thread to store agreed upon proposals for archival purposes. I think it would be a good idea to have things like this stored somewhere for refrence. Famicommie Damn good plan. I should've reserved the second post for archival purposes. No big deal, we can just append the archives to the end of the first post. And yeah, if Aufheben doesn't mind the change to part seven, then it's a damn fine proposal. tenehuini i think the initial proposition is fine but i think the folowing chainges should be made. i agree with the amendment to part 7 and i also think that Part 1 should be able to be changed if the guild grows. aufheben Famicommie Damn good plan. I should've reserved the second post for archival purposes. No big deal, we can just append the archives to the end of the first post. And yeah, if Aufheben doesn't mind the change to part seven, then it's a damn fine proposal. Not at all. Thumbs up. Famicommie ----- 1. There should be between three and five council members. This is open for change if the guild grows to a point where more council members are necessary. 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. 7. Any non-emergency use of mod or admin powers will first be voted upon in the standard consensus model with the exception of accepting join requests. -- Oh man is this looking beautiful. Next Dollar After so umm it's the 15th, should this be going to vote then? cause um it looks good. Famicommie Yeah, it should. I'll be putting it up in a bit. I meant to do it last night, but stuff came up, y'know? Next Dollar After so, umm I noticed that someone voted no to prop. 1, I was wondering if they would like to come forward and explain why? Since no one has put forth any negative comments throughout the entire prosess of creating prop. 1. kthx aufheben Next Dollar After so, umm I noticed that someone voted no to prop. 1, I was wondering if they would like to come forward and explain why? Since no one has put forth any negative comments throughout the entire prosess of creating prop. 1. kthx Well, someone did. Who was it? Famicommie Keep in mind that as I've personally accepted everyone who's applied (in addition to the hijacking of the AnarchoMod account), there may be some secretively antagonistic individual(s) out there. aufheben Famicommie Keep in mind that as I've personally accepted everyone who's applied (in addition to the hijacking of the AnarchoMod account), there may be some secretively antagonistic individual(s) out there. szulikk It seems all fine and dandy to me. tenehuini i voted yes, but what does happen if a proposition gets denied? does it just get thrown out or does it get reworded or somthing else? Next Dollar After tenehuini i voted yes, but what does happen if a proposition gets denied? does it just get thrown out or does it get reworded or somthing else? I think that by the time that a proposition gets voted on most of the problems anyone had with it would be ironed out. However if it gets voted on and denied, i would think that it would be back to the drawing board. Famicommie The poll has ended and the proposition has passed. I guess that means the next order of business will be selecting the council members. I'll archive this discussion and get the next thing rolling sometime tomorrow between classes. Next Dollar After since I am going to be out of town for the next 3 days and don't know if I will be able to get computer access I would just like to say that I nominate Famicommie, Kasikaree, and Obach Stove to this council. Final Vote: 9 yes 1 no Proposition 1 passed. ----- 1. There should be between three and five council members. This is open for change if the guild grows to a point where more council members are necessary. 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. 7. Any non-emergency use of mod or admin powers will first be voted upon in the standard consensus model with the exception of accepting join requests. --
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 6:31 am
Famicommie Quote: This thread is dedicated to the matters of running the guild. Since this guild is owned collectively, every member in good standing has an equal input into how it's taken care of. It works like this: suppose you have an idea on something in the guild that should be changed or implemented. If there's nothing else being discussed on guild maintenance at the moment, then you're free to make a proposition. Over the course of five days from the suggestion, everyone in the guild will go over what they like about the proposition and what they would like to change about the proposition. Once the five days are up, the proposition goes to a vote. The very first post of this thread will be changed to a poll (yes, this post) and people will have five days to cast their vote. This way, all propositions are settled after ten days and then the next one can be started. Ideally, you should check this thread for updates everytime you access the guild. Note: If you have an idea but another proposition is in the process of its discussion, make a quick post asking to be next in line for submitting an idea. Once the dust clears, you have the green light. Ah, now on to the next order of business. Who do we want on our council? I say instead of doing the poll thing this time around, we just discuss it for ten days. Remember, we want between three and five people. It's based upon these guidelines: 1. There should be between three and five council members. This is open for change if the guild grows to a point where more council members are necessary. 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. 7. Any non-emergency use of mod or admin powers will first be voted upon in the standard consensus model with the exception of accepting join requests. Next Dollar After since I am going to be out of town for the next 3 days and don't know if I will be able to get computer access I would just like to say that I nominate Famicommie, Kasikaree, and Obach Stove to this council. Famicommie People nominated thus far: kasaikiree Obach Stove Famicommie Next Dollar After I want to nominate Next Dollar After. He's intelligent, dedicated, and frequently around. Aufheben Why are we nominating council members when we've got a no-vote up there? I thought we were working on a consensus model? Famicommie Right: people are nominated, and then we reach consensus on them as qualifying as council members. The nominations aspect is really more of a formality. That whole "no vote" for this proposition thing is just an idea. If everyone wants to do some sort of vote instead, that'd be fine. Next Dollar After aufheben Why are we nominating council members when we've got a no-vote up there? I thought we were working on a consensus model? How else are we going to discuss who is on the council than to start puttin forward who we would like to see on it? We put forth some names, discuss problems we have for them and stand up for those we like. If the people nominated have no problem being on the council and after the ten days are selected then they become members of the council. aufheben Famicommie Right: people are nominated, and then we reach consensus on them as qualifying as council members. The nominations aspect is really more of a formality. That whole "no vote" for this proposition thing is just an idea. If everyone wants to do some sort of vote instead, that'd be fine. No, no. That's not what I was saying. Somebody voted No on Prop 1. It didn't pass. We don't have a council to elect people into until we pass a proposition that puts one in place. Next Dollar After aufheben Famicommie Right: people are nominated, and then we reach consensus on them as qualifying as council members. The nominations aspect is really more of a formality. That whole "no vote" for this proposition thing is just an idea. If everyone wants to do some sort of vote instead, that'd be fine. No, no. That's not what I was saying. Somebody voted No on Prop 1. It didn't pass. We don't have a council to elect people into until we pass a proposition that puts one in place. the problem is that irl the individual who voted no would have come forward with their issues with the proposition and we could work to to make changes that would that individual feel better. Since that individual does not wish to come forward and add anything productive to the discussion I don't see why we should allow ourselves to be stopped an anonymous voice that could very well be from someone who opposes us anyways. aufheben Next Dollar After aufheben Famicommie Right: people are nominated, and then we reach consensus on them as qualifying as council members. The nominations aspect is really more of a formality. That whole "no vote" for this proposition thing is just an idea. If everyone wants to do some sort of vote instead, that'd be fine. No, no. That's not what I was saying. Somebody voted No on Prop 1. It didn't pass. We don't have a council to elect people into until we pass a proposition that puts one in place. the problem is that irl the individual who voted no would have come forward with their issues with the proposition and we could work to to make changes that would that individual feel better. Since that individual does not wish to come forward and add anything productive to the discussion I don't see why we should allow ourselves to be stopped an anonymous voice that could very well be from someone who opposes us anyways. That's the inherent danger of the anonymous poll system of voting utilized, and why I suggested changing our modus operandi to vote-by-post. Whether or not the nay-voter stated their reasoning, their vote still exists, and we have to consider whether or not we want to step across that line and turn this into a majority rule, rather than consensus system. Next Dollar After aufheben Next Dollar After aufheben Famicommie Right: people are nominated, and then we reach consensus on them as qualifying as council members. The nominations aspect is really more of a formality. That whole "no vote" for this proposition thing is just an idea. If everyone wants to do some sort of vote instead, that'd be fine. No, no. That's not what I was saying. Somebody voted No on Prop 1. It didn't pass. We don't have a council to elect people into until we pass a proposition that puts one in place. the problem is that irl the individual who voted no would have come forward with their issues with the proposition and we could work to to make changes that would that individual feel better. Since that individual does not wish to come forward and add anything productive to the discussion I don't see why we should allow ourselves to be stopped an anonymous voice that could very well be from someone who opposes us anyways. That's the inherent danger of the anonymous poll system of voting utilized, and why I suggested changing our modus operandi to vote-by-post. Whether or not the nay-voter stated their reasoning, their vote still exists, and we have to consider whether or not we want to step across that line and turn this into a majority rule, rather than consensus system. I've discussed situations like in this IRL, about the weaknesses of the concensus model. In situations like this it is possible for one person to stop all progress from occuring. I think it is up to the rest of the community to then realize that their continued progess does not have to hinge on that one persons views, and while they should include that individual they must realize that also can't just stop dead if there is obviously no chance for recconciliation on the issue. This is obviously the case here since that individual was asked to explain their stance on proposition one and why they voted against it. Since they seem to not wish to do so, I really don't see why we should avoid moving in the direction the rest of the guild wishes to go. aufheben Next Dollar After aufheben Next Dollar After aufheben Famicommie Right: people are nominated, and then we reach consensus on them as qualifying as council members. The nominations aspect is really more of a formality. That whole "no vote" for this proposition thing is just an idea. If everyone wants to do some sort of vote instead, that'd be fine. No, no. That's not what I was saying. Somebody voted No on Prop 1. It didn't pass. We don't have a council to elect people into until we pass a proposition that puts one in place. the problem is that irl the individual who voted no would have come forward with their issues with the proposition and we could work to to make changes that would that individual feel better. Since that individual does not wish to come forward and add anything productive to the discussion I don't see why we should allow ourselves to be stopped an anonymous voice that could very well be from someone who opposes us anyways. That's the inherent danger of the anonymous poll system of voting utilized, and why I suggested changing our modus operandi to vote-by-post. Whether or not the nay-voter stated their reasoning, their vote still exists, and we have to consider whether or not we want to step across that line and turn this into a majority rule, rather than consensus system. I've discussed situations like in this IRL, about the weaknesses of the concensus model. In situations like this it is possible for one person to stop all progress from occuring. I think it is up to the rest of the community to then realize that their continued progess does not have to hinge on that one persons views, and while they should include that individual they must realize that also can't just stop dead if there is obviously no chance for recconciliation on the issue. This is obviously the case here since that individual was asked to explain their stance on proposition one and why they voted against it. Since they seem to not wish to do so, I really don't see why we should avoid moving in the direction the rest of the guild wishes to go. Fair enough, but I think this is still grounds for us reconsidering the poll as our method of voting. An anonymous system like this can lead to nothing but problems if the votes are more even on future proposals. Next Dollar After umm so do people I dunno, want to move forward at all? I say that we just go forward with the council, and the next proposition can be discussion of the decisiion making process, and we can bastardize concensus so as to work on the net. How's that sound to everyone? Cmon people, you want this guild to work you gotta be active in it. aufheben Next Dollar After umm so do people I dunno, want to move forward at all? I say that we just go forward with the council, and the next proposition can be discussion of the decisiion making process, and we can bastardize concensus so as to work on the net. How's that sound to everyone? Cmon people, you want this guild to work you gotta be active in it. I'm game with putting the Council in place, so long as we table this decision-making process ASAP. Famicommie Sorry, been busy. Everyone who's thus far been nominated has been given moderator status. Before closing this up and discussing how threads are accepted, I wanted to make one more quick nomination (provided no one minds): Aufheben. He's active, he's well versed in Anarchism, and is always civil even though he's occasionally confrontational (a sin that I know I'm just as guilty of). Next Dollar After that's fine by me. I guess since Aufheben is the only other person that's been vocal... If he agrees, then I guess we can move on to discussing a new system for coming to agreements on issues. Aufheben Sure, I'm game. Let's get going. Council Established: kasaikiree Obach Stove Famicommie Next Dollar After Aufheben
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:55 am
Famicommie Sorry it's taken me so long to do this, I've been insanely busy lately. Y'know, ANY of you other folks with moderator powers can feel free to do this administrative bullshit if you want to keep things going. Anyways, Aufheben wants to discuss the process of accepting propositions. Take the floor, champ. aufheben I do? I have no idea what's going on… But while I've got the floor, I have some ideas: Anybody who wishes to present a proposal may do so by starting a thread about it (as I've done here). Voting on proposals should be done via post instead of poll, so we don't have the issue of people not standing up for their opinions (or just manipulating our poll and potentially delaying resolution as we wait for consensus). That, and I think we need to do something about ED-P. But that debate is in the link I provided above. Famicommie]I don't really like the whole concept of just starting a thread to do proposals. The best results come out when the group is focused on one thing at a time. It's not as efficient as your method, but I believe that the quality of the resulting discussion among all of us will be much greater.
So far as the voting itself is concerned, I'm not going to say much one way or the other at the moment. I'm feeling kinda sleepy.[/quote]
[quote="tenehuini i think that this would work best if there was a stickied thred were people make propositions but no debate will take place untill the proposition is adressed in the guild afairs thread. this way there is a place were people can make propositions but the guild can focus on one issue at a time. Next Dollar After I think it works just fine the way it was originally set up where someone would just post that they wanted to put forth the next propsition. Also if we could please keep this from being sidetracked. Auf ********* had problems with our previous model for taking votes, so if we can work on that issue for now, that would be wonderful. Famicommie Striving for consensus wouldn't necessarily work. If some troll decides to come along and block consensus, even by a post-vote system, we're stuck. We have to keep in mind that this is the intarweb, and some people get kicks out of doing s**t that they know they won't/can't be held accountable for. For these reasons, I suggest that we work on a direct democracy process with a necessary 80% approval. So far as voting by post or by poll, a more anonymous poll system seems to be fairer. I'm willing to bet the bank that everyone here has held a grudge against someone for reasons that they now feel were petty. Behind every avatar, there's a real person. Supposing that one individual has issues with a particularly popular project and doesn't want to miff the other guild members by voicing their dissent, then they're still provided an outlet. This guild is, at best, a microcosm of an Anarchist society (and hardly even that). When dealing with such small numbers, one person might have to take a stand by themselves. Instead of making them publicly ostracize themselves, they can at least tell us that there's someone with a problem with something. So I say: Direct Democracy Poll system. Next Dollar After I think that that's pretty ok by me. I do feel that there should be some kind of accountability for your vote however. Changes can not be made so that everyone feels like their voice is heard, if they are not willing to raise their voice. I'm coming off a huge migraine so don't ask me how to do this. aufheben I don't think an 80% majority is any better than a 51% majority. If we're going to be anarchists here, we're going to be anarchists - and that means consensus, or else the majority is going to rule over the minority in every case. The issue of accountability can cover the issue, however. If we do vote-by-post, we can decide that all votes must also be accompanied by a justification. I doubt trolls would go to the effort of constructing a valid argument just to mess with our decision-making process. And hell, if they do, then there's a chance they might have a good point we should consider. tenehuini I agree with aufheben on this i think if someone objects to an idea they should just say so, yes this way people will know who is disagreeing but at least the pearson will have a say in the matter but if a poll is used and the majorety decision is acepted then the people with the disagreeing opinion would have no say in the matter at all. a posible compromise is that in a vote there are the options for, for against and also an option to hold a forum about the issue and decide using a consensus moddel and an open vote SoViEtTaNkT34 Well proposal system works well, we use it in NCS all the time. What concerns me though is that you dont want people to debate them, for if they are debated upon then there is room for the proposal to grow with other opnions and views. This makes the proposal more than just one persons view it makes it many. Next Dollar After maybe you could explain to me how exactly that's a bad thing. Famicommie Actually, we DO want people to debate on things. Tenehuini was suggesting that we have a thread that acts as a sort of queue or admissions line with future proposals in it, so that the ENTIRE guild focuses on one issue at a time. It's not a bad idea. I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and I have to admit that Aufheben's system as laid out in the last post he made has some pretty compelling points. I'm going to do a turn around, simply because most of my reasoning was based on the idea that someone might not speak up do to popularity. Part of being an Anarchist is maturity, though (not in the stodgy old meaning of less fun and more work, but in the idea that each action we take wisens us). It's a pretty difficult thing to say, but it might really be better to do vote by posts with entire consensus. I probably spent a few hours straight trying to debunk the notion that a troll with a well constructed argument could have a valid point. I can't be stubborn about it anymore though. Today I'll sleep on it before I post my final convictions, but I'm leaning way towards the system suggested by Auf. aufheben Awesome. Do we have any objections? aufheben I think it's already been done, if nobody's objected. Or do we need to formalize this? Famicommie Nah, it's done. Someone has to archive it in the archives thread, is all. Is there any other official monkey business to take care of at the moment? If not, I'd like to reattempt the earlier suggestion of having guild affiliations with groups to encourage an exchange of ideas. tenehuini we should probably write up something specific because at the moment it is preaty vauge and it helps alot to have a set of dot points rather than haning to work through a whole conversation aufheben How's this for clarification: Anybody who wishes to present a proposal may do so by starting a thread about it. Proposal threads shall begin with the phrase "Proposal:" to differentiate them from other threads. The next GULAG moderator to log in should sticky any unstickied Proposal threads. Voting on proposals shall be done via post instead of poll, so we don't have the issue of people not standing up for their opinions (or just manipulating polls and potentially delaying resolution as we wait for consensus). It should be advised that those voting in such a way should also provide justification, so that other GULAG members will be able to take that line of thinking into consideration in forming or revising their own point of view. All decision-making is finalized with consensus (except in the case of disciplinary actions, which operate on consensus-1). Consensus is determined on 7-day cycles. Should a seven-day cycle pass with everybody in agreement one way or another, then the proposal is passed or denied as appropriate for that case. Proposals will remain open for debate until consensus is reached during a seven-day period. Once a proposal is decided upon, its contents shall be archived by the next GULAG moderator to log in, and its results added to the sticked Policies thread (which will need to be created). tenehuini sounds good to me except for the part about the person who is being punnished having no say in the matter, but thats just a personal preference and would probably turn out to be an unreasonable one aufheben The above proposal does not state that they would have no say in the matter. Apockreatr I don't think its that they wont have any say at all, They will have a chance to make their case. But the last thing we need is to come across a situation where everyone wants person X expelled from the guild except X themself. aufheben Therein lies the problem. When dealing with disciplinary actions in an anarchist society, it takes a lot to bring a group to that level of response. When it does get that far, it's probably because the person in question has made it a point to be disruptive and obstructionist. Constructing the disciplinary process to be consensus-1 permits the person in question to state their case and defense, but makes no room for obstructionism. However, all the person in question has to do to prevent disciplinary action is find one person besides themselves to support them, and the debate will continue. tenehuini thats why i said i thought it was unreasonable, i have my own beleafs about the best way to run tryal tipe situations but i highly dought that they would work in this situation. but yeah i have no problem with what we have. Apockreatr What we have seems like the best posible method. If someone gets a better idea later on they can just put it up as a proposal. aufheben Asking again to make sure: do we have any "nays," and if so, why? I'd like to close this debate within the next few days, one way or another. Famicommie Meh, I'm down. I've already made my case about having only one proposal being hammered on at a time, but I'm willing to drop that point since I seem to be in a one man minority. Next Dollar After nah, I think working on one thing at a time is a pretty good idea. aufheben But if proposal debates are separated into individual stickied threads, would it really be a problem? Famicommie To me it constitutes a small problem. I think that if we're all focused on a single issue at any single point in time we'll have better insights into it than if we were simultaneously discussing three things (even if in different threads). aufheben How can we incorporate that as a guild policy, then? Apockreatr Perhaps we could have one stickied thread where the proposal itself is made (Ill refer to this as the Suggestions thread.) When We're ready to discuss the proposal, (i.e. when the last proposal is hammered out) a mod makes a sticky for the next proposal in the suggestions thread, and detatchs the old proposals sticky. Just a thought, I think largely based of former ideas in this thread. tenehuini i agree with that but i think that the sugestions thread should stay stickid and all of the issues can be kept in here, also i think it would make sence to modify the posts so that the discusion of the sugestion that was brought up in that thread replaces the sugestion, this would make it easier to track where we are up to and have all propositions and already discussed in the same place. also see my other post earlier in the thread on the same issue. Famicommie Pretty much what I was thinking. Have a queue thread where proposals are submitted and dealt with on a first come-first served basis and a thread dedicated to discussing the current proposal. Apockreatr Either way works. I still kinda like the single proposal to a thread bit though. Then the first post is the initial proposal, and every other post is disscusion. And since I said just unsticky the finished proposal, instead of deleting it, you could always go back and look over it, or re-open discussion. aufheben Would you mind writing that into the proposal? I'm not quite sure of how to word it to get it to work the way you're suggesting. Famicommie 1. Any issue or policy change that any guild member wishes to discuss can be submitted via post to a queue thread [aptly] *titled: Undiscussed Proposals. 2. Only one proposal will be discussed at a time, in a thread [aptly] *titled: Current Proposal. 3. Proposals will be selected from the queue thread on a first-come/first-served basis. 4. Emergencies can be prioritized over less necessary guild proposals, but all reachable guild council members must consense that the situation in question is an emergency. Is that at all coherent? I've been up now for about 24 hours, and only got a few hours of sleep the last time I managed to get any at all. Supposing that it's lucid enough, is it possible to incorporate those points at all into the proposal? Feel free to use more poetic language, and anyone can see about modifying what they don't like in it. *I don't really give too much of a s**t what the actual titles are. Not feeling creative at the moment, to be honest. aufheben Ok, so the proposal now looks like this: Any issue or policy change that any guild member wishes to discuss can be submitted via post to a stickied queue thread titled: Undiscussed Proposals. Only one proposal will be discussed at a time, in a stickied thread titled: Current Proposal. Proposals will be selected for debate in Current Proposal from the queue thread on a first-come/first-served basis. Emergencies can be prioritized over less necessary guild proposals, but all reachable guild council members must agree by consensus that the situation in question is an emergency. Voting on proposals shall be done via post instead of poll, so we don't have the issue of people not standing up for their opinions (or just manipulating polls and potentially delaying resolution as we wait for consensus). It should be advised that those voting in such a way should also provide justification, so that other GULAG members will be able to take that line of thinking into consideration in forming or revising their own point of view. All decision-making is finalized with consensus (except in the case of disciplinary actions, which operate on consensus-1). Consensus is determined on 7-day cycles. Should a seven-day cycle pass with everybody in agreement one way or another, then the proposal is passed or denied as appropriate for that case. Proposals will remain open for debate until consensus is reached during a seven-day period. Once a proposal is decided upon, its contents shall be archived (in the stickied Guild Archives thread) by the next GULAG council member to log in, and its results added to the sticked Policies thread. Apockreatr I'll also drink to it... Or anything. Apockreatr I think it's been a week already. Does this pass aufheben Yep. Was going to post it yesterday, but I got food poisoning and that nixxed that idea. Doing it...now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
