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


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


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


  • 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


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Found 34 results

  1. I submit the below modified charter text for consideration of the community. It is the compiled result of the sections posted to regular discussion for comment and feedback, given the lack of any push-back or negative comment i propose to push all the changes in one poll. The changes are primarily effect the layout and organisation of the text rather then altering the contents, there are a few typo corrections and some numbered lines have been moved to section descriptions rather then rule lines as they were not rules per say. Some items have been moved to more appropriate sections. The current charter text can be found here https://wiki.unitedoperations.net/wiki/United_Operations_Charter This poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting 2 weeks
  2. The UOAF leadership would like to set up a UOAF Office to improve and expand flight simulation experiences within United Operations as well as create depth and ensure continuity. Currently UOAF has many office resources including a team of delegates, a Discord private channel, a Wiki subgroup, and TeamSpeak moderation within the UOAF - BMS & DCS channels. We have a dedicated UOAF server that leadership and some select delegates have access to. We are planning on asking a number of UOAF roster members to apply for Regularship to help support UOAF and these members would be the foundation of the office’s staff. Within an office, we would spread some of the event planning to more people to reduce the growing workload. We would host more official events and pickups and add some more formal structure to ensure continuity if and when the current leadership changes. The key services the UOAF Office will offer to the community are as follows: Manage UOAF servers for community use Promote and moderate flight simulation events Organize fight simulation participation Manage training material on the UO wiki The primary objectives of the UOAF Office are as follows: 1. Refined focus a. BMS - primary focus b. DCS - support grassroots organization c. Other - support grassroots organization 2. Distribute workload a. Assign event and pickup fragging duties to UOAF Office delegates b. Trust UOAF Office delegates with using the dedicated UOAF server c. Develop and improve the UOAF Wiki How UOAF wants to accomplish its objectives: 1. Consolidate and update existing UOAF SOPs 2. Assemble a team of delegates: a. Mission Fraggers to create, promote and coordinate events and pickup flights. b. Game Moderators to host events, pickup flights, and training sessions. c. Content Experts to consolidate and update UOAF knowledge base in Wiki d. Instructor Pilots (IPs) to improve the quality of our members. 3. Encourage and support UOAF roster members to apply for Regularship at UO This poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting two weeks, ending 2017-03-23. ​This poll was put up at Regular Request.
  3. Proposed Charter Definition Intent - Removal of Forums as a uniquely defined source where this applies. This poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting 2 weeks.
  4. Proposed Charter Definition Intent - Removal of Forum and Teamspeak as uniquely defined sources where this rule applies. This poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting 2 weeks.
  5. Proposed Charter Definition Intent - Removal of Forum, Teamspeak and GameServers as uniquely defined sources where this rule applies. This poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting 2 weeks.
  6. Proposed Charter Definition Intent - Removal of the forum as the primary location of documentation to be maintained. This poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting 2 weeks.
  7. Proposed: Reasoning: "Competence" accurately reflects our expectations without implying a paid job. This poll is put up at regular Request. This poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting 2 weeks.
  8. Proposed Change This Poll is put up at Regular Request. This Poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting two weeks.
  9. Changed to: This poll has been posted at Regular Request. This poll requires a 3/4 Vote and 2 Weeks.
  10. Shall be modified thus: With the rationale that inducted (where referring to a Regular as an individual) is antithetical to a removal discussion, and therefore constitutes ambiguous and contradictory language. Likewise, existing: shall be modified to: For the same reasons above. This poll has been put up at Regular Request. This poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting 2 weeks.
  11. This poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting two weeks.
  12. This Poll requires a 3/4 vote and 2 weeks. This poll is put up at Regular Request.
  13. Changed to: It should be apparent that the fun we have at this tactical gaming community should be derived from those exact values as listed above. It is a minor change but way too often in the past has the word "fun" been used to justify or excuse actions that are at odds with or borderline breaking our SOP and rules. This small change will hopefully help avoid such defense in the future while clarifying that these are above all the values of our community and it is on these values and principles we base our mentality on which we approach our gaming sessions with. This poll requires a 3/4 Vote and 2 Weeks.
  14. At present Addons and Modifications has very little to do with the core of the community and is not needing to be defined by the Charter. While this is a core function of ArmA and how the GSO office works, it should not be defined in the Charter, but by SOP. Since this is a request to Move/Migrate, this will be treated as a "VOTED CHANGE" and the affected SOP can not be changed unless it is voted as with any changes to the existing Charter. This is a process to simplify the Charter and remove extraneous parts that are not related to the community at large, only to the minutiae of an office. This SOP will be moved to http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/page/index.html/_/required-reading/gso/ Subsection http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/page/index.html/_/required-reading/gso/addons-content-additon-sops-r240 [PERSONAL] - This is not an intent to change how addons and modifications are used within the community but to separate a non community issue or definition from the Charter into it's appropriate location. This Poll Requires a 3/4 Vote and 2 Weeks.
  15. to: 4.0 Rules: Operations to add or amended rules must pass with a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote lasting two (2) weeks. We submit to the following rules in order to benefit the community at large: 4.1 - Cheating and hacking shall result in immediate and permanent removal from our community. 4.2 - The chain of command shall be respected during games. 4.3 - Players shall not intentionally team kill or otherwise disrupt game play. 4.4 - Player shall not engage in Forum/TeamSpeak spamming or otherwise disruptive behavior. 4.5 - Players shall respect each other and act accordingly. 4.6 - The rules of this community, the provisions so outlined in this document and the Standard Operating Procedures shall inform player conduct expectations. 4.7 - The rules of this community shall be applied equally across all mediums and services including, the Forums, TeamSpeak, and Game Servers. 4.8 - All operations of government must be publicly displayed. Any Regular may request and shall be entitled to any and all information regarding administrative operations. 4.9 - Sobriety will be required by individuals in leadership positions: both within the game and within the community’s offices. 4.10 - Players on the ARMA series servers must affirm that they possess certain tactical knowledge, skills and abilities essential to the soldier as furnished or endorsed by the United Operations Training Center in a Tactical Guide before being granted access to server connection details. Players must perform on the servers in accordance to the aforementioned. Those unable to perform will be removed from the server, advised to revisit the Tactical Guide, reaffirm their knowledge, skills and abilities and are permitted back on the server. Repeat offenders will be banned until they meet qualification criteria under the discretion of the United Operations Training Center. 2. Orders to Offices In addition to the charter amendment this poll issues several standing orders: If UOTC is unable to furnish a tactical guide by the completion date, Hellhound's Guide will be used as a substitute until UOTC can furnish it's own materials If the Basic Soldering Course is not prepared by the completion date, UOTC must be prepared to qualify banned individuals in an alternative fashion of their own discretion. The web server officers must modify the welcome guide and server rules page to require all players to manually affirm that they possess the KSAs as defined in the tactical guide, including a link to said guide. GM SOPs and best practices must reflect the new KSA requirement by the completion of this poll This poll requires a 3/4 vote and 2 weeks.
  16. Information Specifics, Intent of Changes "2 - Operations are the standard method of community involvement in the decision making process and can be enacted across all aspects of the community." [EXISTING] This section is Unchanged - save for a Colon to a period. "2.1 - Standard Operations - All Operations are considered a Standard Operation, unless otherwise modified." [NEW] Establishes existing Standard Operations, as the basis for all Operations in future unless specifically defined. This is the definition of a Standard Operation, and establishes that all votes are Standard Operations unless specifically modified from the following definition. This is the base template for all operations within the community, and gives a framework for exceptions to be defined later or existing (reg/officer/addon/etc.) [PERSONAL] While already existing as the norm, this needed to be defined as a category, to work with later Operation Types, to be defined as their own categories. "2.1.1 -- Regulars are granted one (1) vote in Operations, additional titles gain no additional voting allotment/value." [EXISTING 2.3 and 2.4] Merged and Condensed 2.3 defined regulars as having 1 vote - (UNCHANGED) 2.4 defined officers as having no additional voting power [EXPANDED] Officers was a singular title, this expansion defines regulars as being the ONLY voting power within the community "2.1.2 -- Operations last for seven (7) days, and require a two-third's (2/3) majority to pass." [EXISTING 2.5 and 2.6] Merged and Condensed 2.5 Condensed with no change in meaning. 2.6 Condensed with no change in meaning. "2.1.3 -- Operation are presented as an anonymous request, excluding Regular/Officer Proposals." [EXITING 2.8] Voted Charter Change Modified [CONDENSED] Meaning is unchanged. [PERSONAL] With this formatting change, Regular/Officer Polls are a different type of poll as defined in 2.1, they would gain their own section within operations at a later time, should this pass. Those individual restrictions would then be migrated into the appropriate sections should they exist, but in another poll. Due to this being a Voted Change, it needs to exist within this format/structure change until the vote is completed and further organization can be conducted. (The intent is to not change meaning) "2.1.4 -- Votes shall be counted in an Automated/Anonymous method." [EXITING 2.7] Modified wording with no intended change in procedure, prior wording was "forum software" specific. [EXPANDED] Automated/Anonymous, defined to mean that no individual will be counting votes and seeing whom voted for what. "2.1.5 -- Failed Operations may not be resubmitted until (2) two weeks from it's scheduled conclusion." [EXISTING 2.9] Meaning Unchanged/Clarified based upon Procedure. [EXPANDED] Modified wording, Canceled or closed polls have always been an issue, this expands to define that a poll's normal expiration date is the benchmark for when a failed vote may be considered, ended. [PERSONAL] This change in wording does allow for polls to be closed, where requested. While not my favorite option, it grants a poll requestor to remove the proposal. This change while not my personal view on being required, will address issues we have had with "too much drama" surrounding polls for topics that are either no longer valid, or for nominations that no longer are valid. Letting a poll run to it's completion when the topic may have been exhausted and invalidated based on a Ban or other such manner only let such issues linger and become more toxic to the community. This is hopefully a compromise to allow for things that "need" to be closed, to happen and not drag a topic on for longer than is required. Polls still need to run their full length, and may not be decided "early" as spelled out in the new 2.1.2 (unless modified by a specific poll type) [PERSONAL] While I did not intend to change meanings, some of these wording adjustments have made modifications. I would urge you to read my notes and provide feedback if there are concerns with this wording proposal. This poll requires a 3/4 vote and 2 Weeks.
  17. This poll requires a 3/4 vote and 2 weeks.
  18. Proposed Changes This Poll requires a 3/4 Vote and 2 Weeks.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  • Create New...