Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
krause

[Charter] Amendment to Section 5.1 [2011-10-04]

  

55 members have voted

  1. 1. Pass the Amendment to Section 5.1

    • Yes
      42
    • No
      13


Recommended Posts

Section 5.1 reads:

 

5.1 - Non-regulars:

 

5.1.1 - Non-regulars have no representation in operations of government, although they are free to express their opinions and are a valued part of the community.

 

I propose we change this as follows:

 

5.1 - Non-regulars:

 

5.1.1 - Non-regulars have no representation in operations of government, although they are free to express their opinions and are a valued part of the community.

5.1.2 - Non-regulars are gifted with but not guaranteed due process, protection of the charter or standard operating procedures. Non-regulars are guests who may be removed by the summary justice of other regulars and overseeing officers of respective areas if there are blatant violations of the charter rules, standard operating procedures or other clearly demonstrable reason. Blatant offenders may be summarily banned or otherwise disciplined without guaranteed instrument of redress. Summary instances of justice may be contested and overturned by a majority standard operation lasting seven (7) days. These operations function as standard operations as defined in the charter.

5.1.3 - Non-regulars are guaranteed no privileges or rights which are awarded to regulars, either in the charter or in standard operating procedures. Where privileges or rights are afforded, they are at the discretion of the regular or official authority.

 

This is in response to several UO regulars recently attempting to undermine the charter by suggesting, against the entire history of precedents and tradition at UO, that non-regulars who are offenders are somehow protected. There is no evidence to support this position - and dozens of individuals have been banned by officers up until this point without incident.

 

Non-regulars need to be on their best behavior while at UO, and regulars and officers need the ability to police their community. Without codifying this measure, which was already the law of the community, intruders may wreak havoc without recourse, as we have recently seen. Officers and regulars issuing bans have tried to be accommodating, but certain individuals need to be dealt with to preserve the integrity of our community (repeat offenders, griefers, mic spammers etc).

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not even going to bother fighting this, it appears to be the norm to ban people we don't like now.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I just hope to god that this isn't abused.

 

This system is the one we already have in place, except it even adds more security and checks against arbitrary actions by offering an option for any summary justice issue to be challenged by a standard operation. It also officially involves regulars into the policing process.

Share this post


Link to post

The intent of how the charter was written was this, but because of how it was phrased this is now an issue, this clarification should be voted in. Voting yes.

Share this post


Link to post

To those saying "I hope this isn't abused" and that "We just ban people we don't like", Please go review the past FOUR pages of ban's in the "Completed ban" section. See all those? Those are kicks and ban's processed by the GSO's on mostly non-regulars. Many of them asked for by you, ZZEZ. Under the current new "interpretation" which has been invented today for some random reason I don't even comprehend, we would have to *POLL ALL BANS AGAINST NON-REGULARS BEFORE THEY COULD BE BANNED BECAUSE THEY ARE PROTECTED BY THE JUSTICE SOPs*. Do you understand that? It means we could not ban anyone until it was polled.

 

This is strictly a codification of what we have been doing for over a year now. I completely and utterly lack comprehension on what you guys thought we were doing? I don't understand how this is any different?

 

 

Anyways. voted yes.

Share this post


Link to post

What does this mean?

"Contentious instances of summary justice may be resolved by a standard operation lasting seven (7) days."

Share this post


Link to post

I read that to be ... if a regular/officer puts up a written contention of any action taken on a non-regular, the decision is processed on the original action ... in no later than 7 days.

Share this post


Link to post

What does this mean?

"Contentious instances of summary justice may be resolved by a standard operation lasting seven (7) days."

 

Impulse bans a guy for a month.

 

You don't like it.

 

You go to and make a standard operation poll, and if it passes, said summary justice is repealed.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok I clarified that sentence. It has been changed from "Contentious instances of summary justice may be challenged by a standard operation lasting seven (7) days." to "Summary instances of justice may be contested and overturned by a majority standard operation lasting seven (7) days. "

Share this post


Link to post

 

This is in response to several UO regulars recently attempting to undermine the charter by suggesting, against the entire history of precedents and tradition at UO, that non-regulars who are offenders are somehow protected.

Nor was there anything stating otherwise regardless of implied unwritten past actions, but dont call people out for enforcing the Charter and SOP's as they stand currently. There was no undermining of the Charter, only enforcement of its actual wording.

 

There is no evidence to support this position - and dozens of individuals have been banned by officers up until this point without incident.

With offensives stemming from actions taking place on the game servers and then carrying over to the forums.

I dont know of one user account being removed from the forums that did not pertain to actions on the game server or that was a bot.

 

Non-regulars need to be on their best behavior while at UO, and regulars and officers need the ability to police their community. Without codifying this measure, which was already the law of the community, intruders may wreak havoc without recourse, as we have recently seen. Officers and regulars issuing bans have tried to be accommodating, but certain individuals need to be dealt with to preserve the integrity of our community (repeat offenders, griefers, mic spammers etc).

And I agree.

Share this post


Link to post

How about...

 

 

A Regular/Officer may object and reverse any action taken on a Member by posting a 7 day poll carried by a simple majority.

Share this post


Link to post

How about...

 

 

A Regular/Officer may object and reverse any action taken on a Member by posting a 7 day poll carried by a simple majority.

 

a "7 day poll with a simple majority" = is defined as a standard operation in the charter, and only regulars and officers may poll them. So it's redundant.

Share this post


Link to post

Non-regulars are gifted with but not guaranteed due process, protection of the charter or standard operating procedures.

 

This statement contradicts itself. What is it Krause? Either they are afforded due process or they are not afforded due process.

 

 

Exceptions already exists either for hackers or spammers as a class of individuals.

 

 

I am somewhat concerned Krause by the general encroachment of your perspective of non regulars; that they are afforded no due process within the community. This change would effectively entrench your perspective that non regulars are essentially irritants that must be dealt with accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post

Non-regulars are gifted with but not guaranteed due process, protection of the charter or standard operating procedures. This statement contradicts itself. What is it Krause? Either they are afforded due process or they are not afforded due process.

Exceptions already exists either for hackers or spammers as a class of individuals.

First, the statement itself is not a logical contradiction. Being gifted something does not imply a guarantee of ownership.

 

No, the significance of this statement implies if we think someone is acting maturely we can make exceptions for them, allow to appeal etc. For some, such as mic spammers, spam bots or other blatant griefers, we can dispose of them as we will.

 

This amendment assumes that the regulars and officers are wise enough to work with this distinction in mind ,and if their wisdom or expertise falters, it can be resolved with a standard operation (as specifically stipulated in the amendment)

Share this post


Link to post

My only concern with this is that non-regs will see this and take it that they have no protection against a reg that doesnt like them. I would suggest adding or changing

 

"Non-regulars are guests who may be removed by the summary justice of other regulars and overseeing officers of respective areas."

to

Non-regulars are guests who may be removed by the summary justice of other regulars and overseeing officers of respective areas if there are blatant violations of the rules/charter/sop or justifiable reason.

 

 

 

I dont want to see a clan mentality come out of this that any reg can perma ban a non-reg for personal reasons.

Share this post


Link to post

My only concern with this is that non-regs will see this and take it that they have no protection against a reg that doesnt like them. I would suggest adding or changing

 

"Non-regulars are guests who may be removed by the summary justice of other regulars and overseeing officers of respective areas."

to

Non-regulars are guests who may be removed by the summary justice of other regulars and overseeing officers of respective areas if there are blatant violations of the rules/charter/sop or justifiable reason.

 

 

 

I dont want to see a clan mentality come out of this that any reg can perma ban a non-reg for personal reasons.

 

I would be willing to add that, but don't you think if someone did that they would:

 

1. Have the ban repealed immediately by a popular vote

2. Come into very bad standing in this community, and possibly be polled to be removed.

 

I.e. if I decided one day that I am going to ban Scope, I think the ban would be repealed immediately and I would also possibly be removed as a regular/officer.

 

Also it stipulates in the charter (And also in this amendment "overseeing officers") that officers have ultimate control over their domains. A clearly ludicrous ban would be moderated.

Share this post


Link to post

Let me understand your logic. Instead of dealing with legitimate problems related to Hacking, Griefing, or Spamming and making specific exceptions for them, you are putting the onus on all non regulars to prove their maturity, which they will then earn an exception to the general rule and be entitled to an appeal?

 

 

First, the statement itself is not a logical contradiction. Being gifted something does not imply a guarantee of ownership.

 

No, the significance of this statement implies if we think someone is acting maturely we can make exceptions for them, allow to appeal etc. For some, such as mic spammers, spam bots or other blatant griefers, we can dispose of them as we will.

 

This amendment assumes that the regulars and officers are wise enough to work with this distinction in mind ,and if their wisdom or expertise falters, it can be resolved with a standard operation (as specifically stipulated in the amendment)

Share this post


Link to post

Let me understand your logic. Instead of dealing with legitimate problems related to Hacking, Griefing, or Spamming and making specific exceptions for them, you are putting the onus on all non regulars to prove their maturity, which they will then earn an exception to the general rule and be entitled to an appeal?

 

No, what I am implying is that we treat someone who TKed out of anger one night much differently than a mic spammer. The former receives some arbitrary and summary due process, the latter receives none. This is what has been in practice for well over a year - one need only look at the ban threads. I have permanently banned mic spammers and other intruders dozens of times - and it was never an issue (until now).

 

Impulse essentially came up with a ban scale based on repeat offenses and proportionality. This applies to most offenders. Blatant griefers may not be given this luxury. Should we, for instance, give due process to a bot which spams the forum? Clearly not. The reason regulars are guaranteed such a luxury is because they are owners in the community and they cannot have more serious discipline against them without a much larger onus of evidence presented.

Share this post


Link to post

Thats just it, in order to stay off the witch hunt fear, it should be worded in a way to let everyone know that it needs to be about breaking the rules and not just personal reasons. In the hopes of avoiding the 2 reasons you listed in the first place and thus being less drama and work.

Share this post


Link to post

I think on that sense your argument hinges upon the term "blatant", would a sub clause enumeration of "blatant" offences be amenable to provide context and clarification of what you are referring to?

 

That may resolve concerns by some over "I do not like this person " ban or a ban over general incompetence.

Share this post


Link to post

Thats just it, in order to stay off the witch hunt fear, it should be worded in a way to let everyone know that it needs to be about breaking the rules and not just personal reasons. In the hopes of avoiding the 2 reasons you listed in the first place and thus being less drama and work.

 

So be it. I have changed it but I do not want this amendment to change much more from this point on. The essential essence is:

 

A non-regular is violating the rules and is summarily banned. End of story, unless a regular takes exception to this, then creates a standard operation to repeal it.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...