Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nou

Modification of Charter 5.3.8 to Include Removal of Regularship Situation [2012-05-09]

Accept Modification  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Accept Modification

    • Yes
      2
    • No
      24


Recommended Posts

Currently there is no rule for how a regular who has been removed will be handled as an officer delegate. In no place does it say that a delegate will only be a regular, just that to be assigned initially as a delegate the person must be a regular.

 

Current amendment reads as follows:

 

5.3.8 - Officers may delegate their pre-existing duties and powers, as defined by the charter, to other regulars. Each office must maintain a clearly worded definition of delegated powers and a complete list of those who are tasked with them. Definitions and lists must be publicly viewable on the forum. Delegates may be voted out of their positions by a general operation (simple majority poll with a week duration). Delegates voted out of a position cannot be granted delegated powers again under that office unless voted upon by the community of regulars.

 

Change would read as follows:

 

5.3.8 - Officers may delegate their pre-existing duties and powers, as defined by the charter, to other regulars. Each office must maintain a clearly worded definition of delegated powers and a complete list of those who are tasked with them. Definitions and lists must be publicly viewable on the forum. Delegates may be voted out of their positions by a general operation (simple majority poll with a week duration). Delegates voted out of a position cannot be granted delegated powers again under that office unless voted upon by the community of regulars. Delegates will only remain delegates while they are regulars.
Edited by Hawkeye
autoclose

Share this post


Link to post

Unnecessary - the 1st line says "Officers may delegate their pre-existing duties and powers, as defined by the charter, to other regulars"

 

If powers may only be delegated to other regulars, and one is not a regular, it follows that office powers cannot be delegated to them.

 

Nothing will explode if this passes but it's essentially spam.

Share this post


Link to post

Spam from nou...no way. Also what happened to not voting on polls anymore nou. As soon as this went up it got a yes vote. But no that wasn't you right lol

 

Voting no, unneeded.

Share this post


Link to post

Well we do currently have this very situation. WEAPON X was delegated as an Instructor by UOTC while he was a Regular. Now he is a Member.

 

 

Now UOTC Officers can always remove Weapon as an Instructor any time they want but are they forced to?

Share this post


Link to post

UOTC has always allowed non-regs to help out intensely from planning, assisting to even running their own course I believe.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not sure about UOTC Thawk.

 

What about Forum Moderators. Do we want to force WSOs not not allow a Regular who is now a Member to give up being a Forum Moderator?

 

I do not know. I can make a case both ways.

Share this post


Link to post

Yea, with UOTC reg/non-reg definitely doesn't matter. I know a lot of people use UOTC as a bid for regularship in nomination polls and the reply is normally, well you can do that as a non-reg so you need a better reason, or along those lines. With Forum Mods and other delegated positions, I was under the impression that you had to be a regular to hold them, so a reg who becomes a member loses all other powers and positions, or in your wording, the WSO, or other position, would be forced to remove the delegate.

 

I do agree with that though, my way of thinking on this Hawkeye, is that if someone is removed from being a regular, it is either for inactivity or for negativity towards the community, we wouldn't want either type of person to still hold a position of power in the community as they would be AFK and useless, or pissed off and power tripping. I don't see much of a problem of someone losing their delegated position when getting regular removed as 99.9% of the time, they probably will contribute nothing, hence the removal. In the case of Weapon, being a non-reg, he can still instruct, hold classes and contribute entirely to UOTC.

Share this post


Link to post

Members can't hold classes for UOTC, they can provide the plan for and assist a course but can't run their own.

Share this post


Link to post

Members can't hold classes for UOTC, they can provide the plan for and assist a course but can't run their own.

 

I beg to differ, I wrote and ran 2 classes last month.

 

EDIT: Yup, I'm a moron. Member != Regular. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post

I think there are misconceptions in this thread - the act of delegation is an active and ongoing process, thus when someone loses regular status, they can no longer be delegated to, making this a moot amendment.

Share this post


Link to post

Thawk I think we have the same thought process. Most of the time this poll’s point is totally mute. Whatever caused the Regular to change status to Member would 99% of the time also compel the Officers to remove the said Member from trusted responsibilities. The real question this poll raises is whether we want to force the removal or leave it as an Officer prerogative. I trust our Officers to make the right decision after all the Officers have to work with the people they delegate. Who knows maybe that Member has a special skill set that we as a community need? That is why I voted no in this poll.

 

BloodBane611 ”the act of delegation is an active and ongoing process” makes sense as equally does the act of being delegated to perform a task at a task’s inception hence the reason for the clarification poll.

Share this post


Link to post

I think there are misconceptions in this thread - the act of delegation is an active and ongoing process, thus when someone loses regular status, they can no longer be delegated to, making this a moot amendment.

 

Like Hawkeye said, it can mean one or the other, a continuing process of delegation or a specific act and that status is then considered "given" to the person, not a condition of the person.

 

Seeing that removal of delegated powers is reliant right now on other specific conditions such as a vote it seems like the powers are given and not something that is otherwise conditional.

Share this post


Link to post

We do not have a common law system at UO.

 

Force

 

A common idea precedence is often just as useful as legal precedence when it comes to how people will interpret things in the future, especially when our only method of execution is through a voting process, and we do not have a judiciary or executive part to our community's rule.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...