Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Impulse 9

4.3.6.4 - PRO Modification

Change 4.3.6.4 - PRO Modifications  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. Change 4.3.6.4 - PRO Modification to the charter?

    • Yes
      14
    • No
      19


Recommended Posts

ORIGINAL

  • 4.3.6.4 - Officer of Public Relations: These Officers are tasked with monitoring, improving and developing inter-community relationships, promoting and expanding the community base, and for promoting events.
PROPOSED
  • 4.3.6.4 - Officer of Public Relations: These Officers are tasked with monitoring, improving and developing intra and inter-community relationships, promoting and expanding the community base, and for promoting and running events.
REASONING
  • intra and inter-community relationships - There has been very little documented activity related to inter-community as of late. On the other hand, it would be beneficial to include intra-community development of relationships as well.
  • promoting and running events - PRO's are already running events and that should be added to properly reflect their current scope of their work. 
This poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting two weeks.

Share this post


Link to post

Pretty straightforward. Looks good.

Share this post


Link to post

So is it the intent that one needs to run an event to promote it? This actually sounds like they would no longer be able to promote events that are not run by them, such as UOAF events or Steel Beast events. Also what would happen if another community asks us to participate in there event? Or an event a regular wishes to host?

 

I am fine with the intra part, in fact felt that was pretty much assumed. I mean our events are not meant for outsiders only.

 

Voting no as its kinda gray for me.

Share this post


Link to post

So is it the intent that one needs to run an event to promote it? This actually sounds like they would no longer be able to promote events that are not run by them, such as UOAF events or Steel Beast events. Also what would happen if another community asks us to participate in there event? Or an event a regular wishes to host?

 

I am fine with the intra part, in fact felt that was pretty much assumed. I mean our events are not meant for outsiders only.

 

Voting no as its kinda gray for me.

How is it grey?

Share this post


Link to post

So is it the intent that one needs to run an event to promote it? This actually sounds like they would no longer be able to promote events that are not run by them, such as UOAF events or Steel Beast events. Also what would happen if another community asks us to participate in there event? Or an event a regular wishes to host?

 

I am fine with the intra part, in fact felt that was pretty much assumed. I mean our events are not meant for outsiders only.

 

Voting no as its kinda gray for me.

 

I'm not sure what your trying to say. The purpose of this poll is to include in writing the actions that the PRO has already been doing.

Edited by HeadShot

Share this post


Link to post

Abstaining until hearing what the PRO office actually has to say about this.

 

Isn't the purpose that the regulars govern the community and officers/delegates enforce the rules?

 

edit: clarification

Edited by HeadShot

Share this post


Link to post

Yes that is the purpose of the charter. Am I not allowed to wait? Isn't that why we have two weeks? I like the way it reads, but I want to hear what the officers who it directly affects is all. Feel free to read into any subversion you want.

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't the purpose that the regulars govern the community and officers/delegates enforce the rules?

The officers are tasked by the Charter, which they then can supplement with SOPs and the like.

Share this post


Link to post

Voting yes.

 

It's time that the Public Relations Office get serious about putting on events and running them. I'm really pointing at azzwort here. It's not appropriate to elaborate on our lack of events for this operation, but I plan on starting a discussion about their importance in this community, not only to promote ArmA activity, but also to sooth intra-community relations. This brings me to my next point:

 

I also like the formalization of intra-community relationships. The "Public Relations" office should take the lead in defusing tension in the community not by playing diplomat and messenger, but rather by putting on events, i.e. inspiring people to play a/the game together. Events foster unity in the community and demonstrate that together we can have fun despite some ultimately trivial disagreements on gameplay. This operation formalizes this important duty of the PRO, which in my opinion has been incredibly lacking in the last year and half.

 

Force 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure what your trying to say. The purpose of this poll is to include in writing the actions that the PRO has already been doing.

 

 

4.3.6.4 - Officer of Public Relations: These Officers are tasked with monitoring, improving and developing intra and inter-community relationships, promoting and expanding the community base, and for promoting and running events.

 

The use of the word "and" in the proposal determines that the PRO is to promote and run events is a single task / responsibility  as defined by the comma placement.  So when its said "promoting and running" it makes that they need to do both.  This is fine but it is also a limiter in the sense that if we are going out of our way to say they must do both we are limiting their responsibilities to just that. This could then lead to that they do not need to promote other events for the community since they are not running the event.  This could be anything and not limited too, UOAF events, Steel Beast events, and even events hosted by Regulars as they are not put on by the PRO's.

 

If it said, "and for promoting events, and running events."  This would break it into two separate tasks that can function seperate and independently from each other.

Share this post


Link to post

Abstaining until I see some PRO input, the fact that they would need to compose and then run the event without having the option to promote Regular and other events sounds iffy to me.

Share this post


Link to post

PRO take: I am 100% fine with the first bit of wording change (inter and intra community relations), this has been the case anyway for pretty much the entire life of this office. It should be changed.

 

The second bit of wording concerns me. Being present at events that I've helped promote is something I always try to do, and I generally like to have myself or impulse at events that are promoted when possible. However, codifying that general guideline into law is concerning and I feel may be used as a means of harming me or harming my office though rule-lawyer-esque interpretations. Further, there have been plenty of events, run by players like Kingslayer, AC, Yugo, and Headshot, that I have let the players who requested the event run their own show with only PRO oversite. There is no reason for me to run an event that another player has planned and prepped. It is, however my job to promote it. Which is what the current version of my office definition states.

 

I will be voting no, however I will most likely adapt the first change from this poll into the PRO SOPs regardless of poll result.

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but nowhere does it say that you need to be personally present at events you organize, just that you run them, how you delegate that and to whom is not prescribed.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to know what prompted this poll and who thought it was necessary. Why is it important? What change do you you think this will bring? Why now? Whoever wrote this has put zero effort in to trying to explain and sell this change. I don't like jumping off half-cocked and changing things wily nilly, and this whole thing screams half-assed.

 

Definite no.

Edited by Overlord

Share this post


Link to post

The second bit of wording concerns me. Being present at events that I've helped promote is something I always try to do, and I generally like to have myself or impulse at events that are promoted when possible. However, codifying that general guideline into law is concerning and I feel may be used as a means of harming me or harming my office though rule-lawyer-esque interpretations. Further, there have been plenty of events, run by players like Kingslayer, AC, Yugo, and Headshot, that I have let the players who requested the event run their own show with only PRO oversite. There is no reason for me to run an event that another player has planned and prepped. It is, however my job to promote it. Which is what the current version of my office definition states.

 

I will be voting no, howeverI will most likely adapt the first change from this poll into the PRO SOPs regardless of poll result.

Are you serious? When I tried proposing an Event Manager position in the past, you threw a tantrum fit because you said that running events was responsibility of the PRO. Go figure... Aren't you the one telling people how to run events anyway with your SOPs?

Edited by Rein

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but nowhere does it say that you need to be personally present at events you organize, just that you run them, how you delegate that and to whom is not prescribed.

 

This is exactly my point, it can be interpreted multiple ways. To me, part of running an event is being there, and for the record I'm fine with being there. I try to get time off from work on event days even. But, there are times when I am forced to delegate or I simply cannot make it, and real life comes first. I am simply concerned with the wording of this change, especially considering the recent uses of the specific wording of parts of the charter against other users. I'd rather save myself the headache.

 

 

Are you serious? When I tried proposing an Event Manager position in the past, you threw a tantrum fit because you said that running events was responsibility of the PRO. Go figure... 

 

and I still feel that way. Fact is, an "event manager position" is redundant, and I still will run events that I am spearheading the idea portion of, and players who provide event requests should run their own events. Why add the extra bureaucracy?

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

and I still feel that way. Fact is, an "event manager position" is redundant, and I still will run events that I am spearheading the idea portion of, and players who provide event requests should run their own events. Why add the extra bureaucracy?

 

Oh, ok. I thought that it was more in the sense of purview. I mean, how can you write SOPs for something that does no pertain to your office anyway?

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, ok. I thought that it was more in the sense of purview. I mean, how can you write SOPs for something that does no pertain to your office anyway?

 

I don't disagree, but this wording change is too specific, if it was something along the lines of "determines event staff", I would be much more inclined to vote yes. But the poll is already up.

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

I don't disagree, but thiswording change is too specific, if it was something along the lines of "determines event staff", I would be much more inclined to vote yes. But the poll is already up.

 

I think everyone would agree that's at SOP level. 

 

Nevertheless, fact still remains that you can't tell who's the event staff if you're not responsible for running events. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...