Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
beta

[Charter Modification] Modify 5.2.8 to remove 72 hour resignation [2012-04-18]

  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. Approve change to 5.2.8?

    • Yes.
      36
    • No.
      18


Recommended Posts

I propose amending section 5.2.8 of the charter.

 

Current 5.2.8:

 

5.2.8 Any Regular may resign their position as a Regular by post in the UO Forum. The resignation takes effect in 72 hours unless said Regular retracts their resignation by post in the UO Forum.

 

New 5.2.8:

 

5.2.8 Any Regular may resign their position as a Regular by post in the UO Forum.

 

 

Essentially, I am proposing removing the 72 hour cooldown for regular removal.

 

I believe it is not beneficial to the community and is only promoting immature and reactionary resignations. Resigning your regularship should not be used as a means to show your distaste with members or practices of the community. It has been in the past used as leverage for arguing a point in either polls or community discussions and it is my opinion that this is against the intent of the amendment.

 

 

Anyone who has retained their regular status due to this clause WILL NOT have it removed, as clarification.

 

EDIT: I posted it without a poll because of the dreaded back-button-destroying-your-work fear. Added a poll.

Edited by Hawkeye
poll autoclose

Share this post


Link to post

Yes was for the original idea, but now I feel it is being used for political means. Regularship should be something important to people and if you are willing to just drop it on a dime, you probably shouldn't be a regular. To me if feels like respawn on the forums.

Share this post


Link to post

My thoughts exactly Boon.

Voted yes.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes was for the original idea, but now I feel it is being used for political means. Regularship should be something important to people and if you are willing to just drop it on a dime, you probably shouldn't be a regular. To me if feels like respawn on the forums.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes was for the original idea, but now I feel it is being used for political means. Regularship should be something important to people and if you are willing to just drop it on a dime, you probably shouldn't be a regular. To me if feels like respawn on the forums.

Would the problem not be, then, with the regulars themselves instead of the charter?

Share this post


Link to post

Yes seal and if they ask to step down as a regular they are removed and we do not have the chance of abuse. Thus the charter change.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, it was a pointless addition that only promotes childish antics and dramatic theater.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. As Boon said, Regularship should be something meaningful. The current 72 hour buffer, I feel, detracts from the severity that is a Regular resignation.

Share this post


Link to post

I always saw the 72 hour thing as giving us time to talk it out for a while in the thread before the resignation goes through, and be able to talk it out before the one resigning would no longer be able to see the thread.

Share this post


Link to post

I always saw the 72 hour thing as giving us time to talk it out for a while in the thread before the resignation goes through, and be able to talk it out before the one resigning would no longer be able to see the thread.

 

Same deal for me, are you guys forgetting that you are dealing with human beings who sometimes have bad days and do rash things based on misunderstandings?

Share this post


Link to post

Same deal for me, are you guys forgetting that you are dealing with human beings who sometimes have bad days and do rash things based on misunderstandings?

 

Pretty immature in any argument to go "Well fine I'm resigning!" and then a few hours later, "Only joking!"

 

If you do something stupid live with it, doesn't stop you playing here.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think anybody has done that, what has happened is people have gotten very angry, very annoyed and have specifically meant to leave as a regular. Then over the next 72 hours, the person calms down but more importantly, is given support by other Regulars and then sees it was a mistake. I think the 72 hours serves as a very good "emotional" buffer.

Share this post


Link to post

Same deal for me, are you guys forgetting that you are dealing with human beings who sometimes have bad days and do rash things based on misunderstandings?

 

Yes. However, resigning as a Regular solves nothing. Ergo, don't resign as a Regular unless you intend to. That and, most Regulars that resign, decide they're going to withdraw that resignation within minutes and decide, "Oh I'll do it at the last moment," as if to appear dramatic.

 

I would be willing to compromise, I think six to twelve hours is a sufficient buffer.

 

Changing my vote from a "Yes" to an "Abstain" for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think anybody has done that, what has happened is people have gotten very angry, very annoyed and have specifically meant to leave as a regular. Then over the next 72 hours, the person calms down but more importantly, is given support by other Regulars and then sees it was a mistake. I think the 72 hours serves as a very good "emotional" buffer.

 

If you say in real life out of being emotional "I'm going to fucking kill you" Its something that should be taken Seriously. It can get you into some serious shit. There isn't a 72 hour buffer where everyone goes "Hmm I think he was mad or something" If you say something Serious like "I'm going to quit The UO Community Remove me from Regularship" I feel that you have made a very serious decision and should not ever be said "To make a point". People need to put a censor between their hands and the Keyboard. Just like people need a Censor for their mouths.

 

Yes from me.

Share this post


Link to post

If you say in real life out of being emotional "I'm going to fucking kill you" Its something that should be taken Seriously. It can get you into some serious shit. There isn't a 72 hour buffer where everyone goes "Hmm I think he was mad or something" If you say something Serious like "I'm going to quit The UO Community Remove me from Regularship" I feel that you have made a very serious decision and should not ever be said "To make a point". People need to put a censor between their hands and the Keyboard. Just like people need a Censor for their mouths.

 

...

 

This is how I am viewing it.

 

Yeah, it's the internet. Still doesn't mean you should get into such a hissy fit/rage/whatever that you say and do stupid shit. If you do, there are consequences. It may sound harsh but ... if you are the type of person who will quit their regularship over an argument on the forums or whatever, you probably shouldn't be a regular to begin with. There will be discussions. People will not agree with everything you have to say. You need to know how to deal with this and not incite eachother.

Share this post


Link to post

Removing this clause won't remove the drama from regularship, it will just move it to a different venue. The problem is the PEOPLE, not the system.

 

This is just treating a symptom while the disease rages on.

Share this post


Link to post

I authored Charter 5.2.8 and 5.3.9. Please allow me to defend the concept.

 

At the time I noticed in the sometimes superheated UO forums Regulars and Officers make the decision to resign that in retrospect I believed they regretted. Chiefboats and tiggr both posted they wished such a provision was in place for them. I am by no means perfect and do not expect my fellow Regulars to be either. It is worthwhile to protect fellow Regulars from rash moves just as in the field of Arma we would lay down grazing fire :wink:

 

It is worth checking the facts. In the 8 months this measure went into effect (2012-08-02) till this poll was posted (2012-04-04) there appears to have been 7 resignations with 2 changing their mind. (see below). I would contend that does not rise to the standard of “promoting immature and reactionary resignations”.

 

I firmly believe in the case of any Regular or Officer resigning for the purpose of creating drama only to conveniently have a “change of heart” it is our duty as Regulars to put up a poll for their Regular removal. I do not believe it would be a hard poll to pass!

 

Let us protect our fellow Regulars who are only guilty of a bad move and instead punish those whom deserve our ire.

 

Please vote no to preserve this safety check.

 

Resignations

2011-09-20, Trapdoor (rescinded)

2011-09-26, Fusionpoo

2011-09-26, Jaynus

2011-12-05, Rambo2

2011-02-02, Hund

2012-03-03, Sickly (rescinded)

2012-03-12, Fansadox

2012-04-03, Rich (pending, not counted)

 

nb.

It is like the safety on a gun. You could make the argument anyone who accidental shot off their foot deserved it… but wouldn’t you prefer having a safety. 5.2.8 and 5.3.9 protects a rash move and punishes the deliberate move.

Share this post


Link to post

Voting no.

 

People make stupid choices at times. If they're going to change their mind about it later then, in this case, they'll just put up another regular-ship poll.

 

In that case, it's a waste of time for everyone involved, as everyone has to vote and debate about whether that person can come back for whatever assine reason and blah blah blah.

 

So what if it might be a political move, who cares? Let's look up at that list; The only one who could vaguely be considered a political move is Sickly, and even then that was him being disatisified with the community he was representing. Nothing "I don't want this, wah!" about it. Nothing political. But even if it was, does it matter? The only thing that tag ultimately represents* is you being able to vote. They're giving up their vote over something? Welp. "You" win.

 

*(You can still represent the community, etc etc, without the tag. Don't take this as anything else, I mean what you can only do with it.)

 

 

 

This will make a change that is just more of a effort from everyone else if these so called many changes occur over something that actually doesn't exist.

 

How nice.

Share this post


Link to post

Hawkeye, it was made with the best intention, and usually to prevent valued members from quiting, but it feels like its now just used the same as someone standing on a building and yelling they are going to jump.

 

I supported it at the start (mainly because of Jay lol) but now it doesn't seem worth the extra drama it brings.

Share this post


Link to post

What extra drama did it bring?only two cases so far of this clause being used.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...