Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'charter'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Categories

  • Live Missions
  • New/Updated
    • Rejected
    • MMO Review
  • Broken/Removed
    • Abandoned

Categories

  • Live Missions
  • New/Updated
    • MMO Review
    • Rejected
  • Broken/Removed

Forums

  • General Information
    • News, Announcements, & Events
    • General Discussions
    • Policy & Voting Discussions
    • Bans, Appeals, and Reviews
  • UOA3 - ArmA 3
    • ArmA 3 - Discussion
    • ArmA 3 - Editing
    • ArmA 3 - Training Center
  • UOAF - BMS & DCS
    • BMS & DCS - Discussion

Product Groups

  • Converted Subscriptions
  • Account Services
  • Software

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location


Interests

Found 40 results

  1. This poll requires a 3/4 vote and 2 weeks.
  2. Proposed Changes This Poll requires a 3/4 Vote and 2 Weeks.
  3. Proposed Changes What is this all about? It is imperative for us to maintain certain standards at United Operations. In light of recent events, we must set a quantitative way to limit undesirable behavior that hinders our development as a community and weakens its core values. This intent of motion is not to promote a witch hunt, but rather to establish a common ground for all of us, which will introduce a limitation on Regulars with aggravated offenses. Furthermore, this motion also provides us with a general cap that will help filter members of the community aspiring to become Regulars. The implementation of this motion will generate a greater sense of accountability to all members and Regulars of this community. This motion will work in a direct relationship with the SOPs of the Office responsible for issuing bans. What does this mean for Members who want to become Regulars? It is important for us to set a standard not only to Regulars, but also to all of those who wish to become Regulars in the future. The duties of a Regular is not for everyone, and those who wish to partake in the decision-making-process of our community should strive to convey their willingness to uphold the virtues of our community. Avoid being banned for violating our core values, protocols, rules of engagement, etc. Members do not have the luxury of being grandfathered if this motion passes, but don't give up all hope if you have been banned for seventy-two hours or more, Regulars can still nominate you. What does this mean for Regulars? The provision states that this is not retroactive. No one will be affected right away by these changes if it passes due to the fact that it is not retroactive. However, Regulars who have no regards to their actions, which has resulted in major disruptions bans that have been processed on the forums for the period of one week or more, will not have the luxury of continuing being banned without any repercussions. So, even though a Regular may have been banned for over a week, he won't be immediately affected unless he gets banned again, or if he manages to expunge/lift previous bans through polls or future SOPs in regards to bans to add some cushion. We are the ones who decided to take it a step further by becoming Regulars in order to have a say in the administration of our community. We did so at our own volition. And being part of a group means having mutual respect for each other, obeying the rules that we have created ourselves, and promoting the virtues that brings us together for our enjoyment online. With that said, sometimes we must say that enough is enough, and maybe some people should not be part of the decision-making-process of our community. The bottom line is: everyone is responsible for their own actions; we cannot blame others for what we do. What does this mean for Officers? Our current system entrusts all Officers with the possibility of escalating and deescalating bans. This will put a bit more pressure on them to process bans accordingly. More importantly, the GSO, who is responsible for the Standard Operating Procedures in regards to bans, will also play a very important role due to the fact that this provision does not restrict the way that their SOPs work, are created, changed, etc. With that said, the GSO will retain their full ability to modify their own SOPs in order to make adjustments to the way that bans work in general. This gives them total freedom to introduce/modify SOPs in the future to allow bans to expire after a certain period of time, expunge bans, etc. Remarks Upon reflecting on the ongoing problems of our community, I truly believe that this will be a positive step in the administration of United Operations. However, we must at least make small compromises in order to allow development to take place. As it currently stands, a Regular must do something so extraordinarily awful to be removed that we cannot really set any real standards due to the inconsistent way that we hold people accountable. In the same way that we currently remove Regulars who haven't been on the Forums for at least 90 days, we also have to do something about those who are somewhat active, but have no regards to our core values. This Poll requires a 3/4 Vote and 2 Weeks.
  4. This will formalize an informal process, and allow our more respected regulars who find themselves away from their computers (be it deployment, job shifts, what have you) for extended periods of time to return to their status without the harassment that may be found in a reapplication poll. It falls on us to not take advantage of this system, and individuals on LOA are still subject to being voted out. This poll requires a 3/4 vote over 2 weeks.
  5. to This broadens the SOP so general ineffectiveness is targeted over alcohol consumption. Someone who is too intoxicated to lead would be in violation of this SOP, as would someone who took a platoon leader slot without knowing how to make a plan, or a GM who goes in game once a month. This poll requires a 3/4 vote and 2 weeks.
  6. This does not stop a Member or UO Guest from taking a higher leadership role in game such as an Admin or Platoon CO, which could severely put the players in game at a loss of tactical-ism and realism. Having a CO or squad leader do so is in direct violation of server SOP "1.4 - Tactical and Simulation gaming, and the application of these concepts is the intent of this community." Personally I feel like this should be applied to everyone as not only Regulars can be intoxicated and take leadership roles and make important decisions for the server. Updated Charter Section would look like so: This Poll Requires a 3/4 Vote and 2 Weeks.
  7. The above changes were requested in the prior charter adjustment thread, and needed to be processed. I have been busy with real life matters and this has not been forgotten nor ignored, sorry for the delay. This poll requires a 3/4 Vote and 2 weeks.
  8. The intent behind these changes is not to create a new intent behind the community, but to remove wording that in many ways only leads to confusing terminology and a very non defined intent behind individual line items. This poll requires a 3/4 vote and 2 weeks.
  9. TO You may determine whether or not a game is supported (is a category) by hovering your mouse over the title: Important information: 1) Forum categories may be added or removed via operation, per Charter section 2.0. These operations require a seven day poll with 2/3rds majority to pass. 2) Forum categories may also be added or removed at the will of the Web Services Officer per their position, with exception to those categories which exist (or do not exist) as a result of an operation. I would furthermore like to propose this addition: A delegate’s activity is determined by the delegating Office, a delegate can also be removed pursuant to 5.3.8 An Officer’s activity is determined by the Regulars, if the Regulars feel an Officer is inactive they should remove that Officer from their position via 5.3.4 FAQ: Q: Why is 5.2.9.3 worded the way it is? A: I figure if a game is important enough to us to have an entire section of the forum dedicated to it then we must have Regulars for it, and if we have Regulars for it, then it is supported. The fact is that we do not have a single Regular at this time who was voted or grandfathered in by playing anything other than ArmA. This is an easy way to fully support new games. Q: Why even post this poll? A: We have Regulars who shouldn't be Regulars. They don't post, they don't play, we never see them even on TS3. However, they'll vote on polls. Ridiculous. Q: Why Reserve Regulars? A: It was either that, or remove the supported games requirement. I feel this is a better solution and trust you will as well. This poll requires a 3/4th vote to pass and lasts two weeks.
  10. To whom it may concern, In light of recent trends that have been observed, I decided to put forth this motion that calls for the creation of the Officer of the Game Moderator (GMO). It was no easy task to tailor this document and much discussion was brought to the table during the process. The document that calls for a referendum can be viewed here: https://dl.dropbox.c...or%20Office.pdf Please take some time to read through the document, for it highlights all intents and purposes behind this motion. Current Charter (December 10th 2012): Additions taking place: Note: With the acceptance of this motion, Impulse9 would automatically gain one seat as GMO considering that he already performs similar duties to the ones being proposed above.
  11. This is to change the charter rule 1.6 which reads: to: The reasons have been discussed in this thread: http://forums.united...er-rule-change/
  12. Saying thank you for a donation doesn't cost us anything and spreads goodwill. I propose we change the line to: The wording above may need to be altered slightly, but I hope you catch my drift. Discuss...
×
×
  • Create New...