Jump to content
UnitedOperations

5.2 Rearrangement for clarity

Rearrangement of 5.2 (Clarity)  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. Rearrangement of 5.2 (Clarity)

    • Yes
      5
    • No
      26


Recommended Posts

Proposed changes for promoting clarity only. All clauses are still there. No major inclusions/exclusions.

 

 

 

Original Charter:

  • 5.2 - Regulars:
    • 5.2.1 - Regulars represent the core of the community. Regulars are players who wish to take part in the organization and administration of the community:
      • 5.2.1.1 - New Regulars are inducted by a successful one (1) week two-thirds (2/3) majority vote.
      • 5.2.1.2 - Rejected inductees will be notified and be given a reason for their rejection based on community consensus.
    • 5.2.2 - There are two (2) methods to initiate a vote for Regular status:
      • 5.2.2.1 - Self Selection: Any registered forum user may ask to be inducted as a Regular.
      • 5.2.2.2 - Appointment: Any Regular can appoint a player to be voted on as a Regular.
    • 5.2.3 - All applicants must be registered and active members of the Forums for a minimum of forty-five (45) days prior to application.
    • 5.2.4 - All applicants are expected to participate reasonable in Teamspeak activities prior to application.
    • 5.2.5 - Polls shall be created with a seven (7) day expiry enabled.
    • 5.2.6 - Polls shall have the "Public Poll" option disabled.
    • 5.2.7 - Operations of Regular removal must be decided by a two (2) week two-thirds (2/3) majority vote.
    • 5.2.8 - Any Regular may resign their position as a Regular by post in the UO Forum.
    • 5.2.9 - Regulars who have not logged into their forum account within ninety (90) days will be removed as Regulars.
Proposed Changes:
  • 5.2 - Regulars:
    • 5.2.1 - Regulars represent the core of the community. Regulars are players who wish to take part in the organization and administration of the community.
    • 5.2.2 - There are two (2) methods to initiate a vote for Regular status:
      • 5.2.2.1 - Self Selection: Any registered forum user may ask to be inducted as a Regular.
      • 5.2.2.2 - Appointment: Any Regular can appoint a player to be voted on as a Regular.
    • 5.2.3 - Requirements and procedures for Regular applicants:
      • 5.2.3.1 - All applicants must be registered and active members of the Forums for a minimum of forty-five (45) days prior to application.
      • 5.2.3.2 - All applicants are expected to participate reasonable in Teamspeak activities prior to application.
      • 5.2.3.3 - Polls shall be created with a seven (7) day expiry enabled.
      • 5.2.3.4 - Polls shall have the "Public Poll" option disabled.

         

    • 5.2.4 - Procedures for Regular removal and status renouncement:
      • ​5.2.4.1 - Any Regular may resign their position as a Regular by post in the UO Forum.
      • ​5.2.4.2 - ​Operations of Regular removal must be decided by a two (2) week two-thirds (2/3) majority vote.
      • ​5.2.4.3 - Regulars who have not logged into their forum account within ninety (90) days will be removed as Regulars.

This poll requires a 3/4 Vote and 2 Weeks.

Share this post


Link to post

Agree with Aquafresh. Preliminarily voting no until the OP is amended.

 

Additionally I'm normally against doing things to the charter that ruins the numbering of existing rules, but this restructuring feels worth it nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post

Do we really need more polls that havent been discussed prior.

Excellent point. There are WAY too few discussions before putting up polls, making poll after poll fall on silly technicalities or that have little reason to exist to start with.

Share this post


Link to post

Do we really need more polls that havent been discussed prior.

 

Voted no

There are no rules that specifies that polls must  to be discussed prior to be put for vote.

Share this post


Link to post

There are no rules that specifies that polls must  to be discussed prior to be put for vote.

No rule, but it'd certainly help. That super-power called "common sense" ought to make it clear that actually getting feedback on a proposition is good *before* putting it up for a vote :smile:

Share this post


Link to post

There are no rules that specifies that polls must  to be discussed prior to be put for vote.

I know my spelling and communication is not exactly brilliant over text but even i can tell i didn't hint, mention or even suggest it should be a rule.

 

The fact is the better made polls, are polls that people have known about prior to them being polled, so people can discuss publicly weather its a good idea and if it is. It give's the possibility of a group effort on working out  the kinks to make it a successful pull.

Especially when the lack of input into said suggestion's would be hindered by fuck up along the lines of missing out a key part of how our voting procedure works. AKA

 

5.2.1.1 - New Regulars are inducted by a successful one (1) week two-thirds (2/3) majority vote.

 

 

 

  • 1.1 - Maturity, Friendship, Fun, Professionalism, Respect, Cooperation, Teamwork and Courtesy are the core virtues in our community.

Teamwork is key to getting this kind of poll to work, in an efficient manner that people can agree on.

 

Please correct me if i am wrong.

Edited by Haribo

Share this post


Link to post

I know my spelling and communication is not exactly brilliant over text but even i can tell i didn't hint, mention or even suggest it should be a rule.

 

The fact is the better made polls, are polls that people have known about prior to them being polled, so people can discuss publicly weather its a good idea and if it is. It give's the possibility of a group effort on working out  the kinks to make it a successful pull.

Especially when the lack of input into said suggestion's would be hindered by fuck up along the lines of missing out a key part of how our voting procedure works. AKA

 

5.2.1.1 - New Regulars are inducted by a successful one (1) week two-thirds (2/3) majority vote.

 

 

 

  • 1.1 - Maturity, Friendship, Fun, Professionalism, Respect, Cooperation, Teamwork and Courtesy are the core virtues in our community.

Teamwork is key to getting this kind of poll to work, in an efficient manner that people can agree on.

 

Please correct me if i am wrong.

You are correct.  Some very basic grammatical errors could have been avoided if it was put up in the discussion forum first to iron out the kinks.

 

"

  • 5.2.3.2 - All applicants are expected to participate reasonable in Teamspeak activities prior to application.

What is to 'participate reasonable' even mean?

Share this post


Link to post

 

  • 5.2.3.2 - All applicants are expected to participate reasonable in Teamspeak activities prior to application.

What is to 'participate reasonable' even mean?

I believe it is a miss-wording. It should be 

 

 

 

  • 5.2.3.2 - All applicants are expected to participate in reasonable Teamspeak activities prior to application.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe it is a miss-wording. It should be 

Yeah I figured but my point was that to fix that mistake, a completely new poll would have to be made.  This sort of thing could be fixed by discussing it with others and getting it at least proof read first by a few friends if nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post

The poll is what it is now, if you vote yes then there are no set limit of votes required to have a poll pass, there are also basic grammatical errors that would be put into the charter.   A new poll would have to be made immediately to correct the mistakes that would be put in if this passes.


Discussion can be good at times but should not be a requirement for a poll, just because there has been no public discussion does not mean that this was a spur of the moment change without any discussion at all.  In this case a basic proof-reading or even run it by an officer to see whether this 're-arrangement for clarity' will change things as this poll will would have been beneficial

Share this post


Link to post

.

Edited by Rein

Share this post


Link to post

Still seems to be missing Rein.  It is there for removal but not for induction.

Share this post


Link to post

No rule, but it'd certainly help. That super-power called "common sense" ought to make it clear that actually getting feedback on a proposition is good *before* putting it up for a vote :smile:

I think it is so interesting how you claim the need for "common sense" on this thread, but when it comes to arguing that active participation from Officers in general on a different thread, then is not written anywhere on our rules (as you pointed out on the quote below). I could be wrong, but this may come across as double standard if you take into the consideration the inconsistencies.

 

 

There is NOTHING either for Regulars or PROs saying they have to be active within ArmA2 or specifically the primary server (...)

It is rather curious how things work around here - an interesting phenomena! Say what you mean, mean what you say.

Edited by Rein

Share this post


Link to post

Some key grammatical errors that would look silly if accepted.

It's all part of the original charter. It was simply rearranged. The intention of this poll was to rearrange (reference the title), not to change the clauses. Please read what's being proposed before complaining about the original grammar.

 

 

 

2.5 - Proposals shall require a minimum two-thirds (2/3) majority vote to be passed.

 

Even though the 2/3 is missing as stated by Aquafresh, it's already covered by 2.5 above.

Edited by Rein

Share this post


Link to post
It's all part of the original charter. It was simply rearranged. The intention of this poll was to rearrange (reference the title), not to change the clauses. Please read what's being proposed before complaining about the original grammar.

 

  • 5.2.3.2 - All applicants are expected to participate reasonable in Teamspeak activities prior to application.

Doesn't make sense to me. Several others have pointed it out. "In" should be before "reasonable" I believe.

Edited by Huska

Share this post


Link to post

 

  • 5.2.3.2 - All applicants are expected to participate reasonable in Teamspeak activities prior to application.

Doesn't make sense to me. Several others have pointed it out. "In" should be before "reasonable" I believe.

 

As much as it may sound retarded, it is still part of the original Charter. Again, the proposal was the re-organize it, not to change it. Did you and the others read before posting?

Edited by Rein

Share this post


Link to post

As much as it may sound retarded, it is still part of the original Charter. Again, the proposal was the re-organize it, not to change it. Did you and the others read before posting?

Guess I didn't see it in the original.

 

I just find things that are wrong with it. It also doesn't include the 2/3 majority for inducting Regulars. As I told you before on TS, it is beneficial for things like these to have discussions first.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe this should be publicly discussed on forum in separate thread before being put up here

to correct any problems or forgotten sentiments before publishing it on official poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...