|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 13, 2010 22:48:48 GMT -5
Okay, we can add that.
So, we move, announce, then ratify, in one week?
|
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Jan 14, 2010 18:25:30 GMT -5
Correct. I have added the one-week reminder to the second post of this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by V.I.R.O.S. on Jan 14, 2010 20:43:57 GMT -5
I think we should have it ratified by our members as well... we want to make sure the staff aren't the only ones that are big on this. If the members don't go for it, we shouldn't use it. It's really nice though, so I don't see why they wouldn't like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Jan 14, 2010 21:29:14 GMT -5
Article VII: RatificationThe simple majority vote of the Community, plus the simple majority vote of the entire Staff, shall be sufficient for the Ratification of this Constitution for the Official Dan-Ball Forums. As you can see, that is already included. (The Community is the name for all active non-Staff.) |
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 15, 2010 1:17:40 GMT -5
VIROS, you DID read the constitution, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by V.I.R.O.S. on Jan 15, 2010 23:09:35 GMT -5
Yes... it's just you were all talking like you guys were going to ratify and THEN move it. Just a reminder. >.>
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 16, 2010 2:28:14 GMT -5
Okay, we can add that. So, we move, announce, then ratify, in one week? You were saying? |
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Jan 16, 2010 12:09:56 GMT -5
5 Days Remaining!Qwerty, Viros, don't waste your time arguing. Instead, use it to come up with suggestions. Please and thank you. 
|
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jan 16, 2010 13:23:45 GMT -5
5 days remaining?
Since when does the staff board have time limits?
This constitution is in all ways pointless. Moderating a forum is in no way complicated enough to need a "Constitution." Moderating a forum can be simplified to this: Find a post breaking rules. Delete it. Warn the person who posted it.
Hiring/Firing can be simplified to this: Hire people who would be good for staff. Fire people who aren't good for staff.
Does that sound like it needs a constitution? This is just one giant thread of pure pointlessness and i have yet to see any benefit that will come from this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 16, 2010 16:53:17 GMT -5
It's not that simple. The history of the forums has proven that much. The question is who gets to do the hiring and firing. You also need to take into consideration multiple opinions: What if one person thinks someone deserves a 10% warning, another a permanent ban? Also, you can't have the high staff being the only ones getting a say.
If you want, you don't have to ratify it, but don't be so one-minded. You clearly haven't looked at it enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Jan 16, 2010 16:57:34 GMT -5
Exactly. GGoodie, if you think about it, you'll realize there's a lot of complicated, confusing things that could happen and have been happening throughout this site's history. The purpose of this Constitution is to reduce that confusion and ensure consistency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 16, 2010 17:34:51 GMT -5
Many, many times. If you think that this isn't gonna help anything, you really need to open your eyes and take a look around.
|
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jan 16, 2010 18:07:05 GMT -5
Lol wow. If someone thinks there should be a permanent ban vs a 10% warning they need to be fired.
Also, hiring/firing isn't really supposed to be something that happens constantly. It only hits problems when we hire to much like what we used to do.
And no, im normal that way i guess. I dont want to read a huge, waste of time post, and no community member would either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 16, 2010 18:26:10 GMT -5
Ggoodie, this has happened multiple times before. And they weren't fired. Because we didn't have much of a system for that.
And no, those aren't supposed to happen constantly. Things don't have to happen constantly to be mentioned in the constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jan 17, 2010 2:16:06 GMT -5
Firings and hirings should happen maybe once or twice a year. All you do is go into the profile and change the member rank.
There doesn't need to be a complicated system for this, it can pretty much be done like this:
Staff member becomes immature/inactive. High Staff decide the staff member isn't fit for job. Staff is fired.
There. Easy. I didn't even take up two lines and i already have described the system used on the average forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 17, 2010 2:55:47 GMT -5
5 days remaining? Since when does the staff board have time limits? This constitution is in all ways pointless. Moderating a forum is in no way complicated enough to need a "Constitution." Moderating a forum can be simplified to this: Find a post breaking rules. Delete it. Warn the person who posted it. Hiring/Firing can be simplified to this: Hire people who would be good for staff. Fire people who aren't good for staff. Does that sound like it needs a constitution? This is just one giant thread of pure pointlessness and i have yet to see any benefit that will come from this. Who gets to make the rules? Are the rules fair? Are there exceptions to the rules? What if the rules "get old"? Should those rules even be there? Are there better ways to word the rules? Are other rules needed? How do we make the rules? How do we ensure the rules aren't entirely unnecessary? Does evidence to an infraction get ignorantly deleted? Do all posts need deleted when they break any kind of rule? Should I delete a post that does belong in a different board? Does this post not actually break any rules? What if the warning is a mistake, as it sometimes is? What if the person wants to argue against the warning? What kind of warning should be given? Is the warning too light? Is the warning too heavy? Is the warning just right? Does anyone else agree with the warning? Who gets to make the warning? Who would be good for staff? What are qualifications for staff? Who gets to hire staff? Why should that person be trusted for hiring staff? Is that person actually good for staff, or does he only seem good? Who isn't such a good staff member? When do staff need cut? Why should the staff be cut? Does the staff member really need fired? Did he deserve to be fired? Are staff overreacting to the problem? At what point is staff considered inactive? Is your tolerance of immaturity as low as my tolerance of immaturity? Whose tolerance level becomes the deciding factor in firing someone? Are these questions rhetorical enough to make a point? Are they plenty enough to make a point? Do you really have a point? Are you even going to give it a chance before automatically dismissing it? Are all long things pointless? Are you simply wasting your own time? Are you worthy of being staff is moderating a forum is that simple, despite the reality of the situation presenting itself in the form of only a part of many, many questions?
Don't ratify the Constitution. There. Easy. |
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jan 17, 2010 3:07:59 GMT -5
To answer your giant question wall in short:
1: The rules have been made, are fair (or wouldn't have been made) and if anyone has a problem with the rules they can make a thread and we will discuss them.
2. If it breaks rules, screenshot it, then use good judgement to determine if it should remain or be deleted. Spam and flaming should get deleted, but double posts need to be merged.
3. If people want to question or debate a warning that has been given they can make a thread about it.
4. We dont need anymore staff. End of discussion.
5. Staff should be fired when they break rules (more than occasionally) or go very inactive. Make a thread about demoting staff and it will be discussed to ensure fairness.
6. You make a good point, but i think my point is better and probably will for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 18, 2010 15:07:37 GMT -5
Ggoodie, I will hereforth ignore any posts you make on the subject. I don't have time or patience to argue this. Your voice only counts as one vote, just like everyone else's. No point arguing about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jan 18, 2010 15:18:46 GMT -5
Well, we didn't used to run on the constitution, but it appears that we are now going to use the constitution setup to decide whether or not we should have the constitution. nice one.
And qwerty, are you a republican, by chance? No progress is ever made if someone doesn't listen to another persons opinion. Stop being such a dick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 18, 2010 16:29:28 GMT -5
I did listen to your opinion. Then I turned it down using the evidence of the history of the forums. Yet you still claim you are right.
Anyway, of course we are using the constitution setup to decide if we have a constitution. That's how it was done in the ACTUAL constitution, remember? Anyway, a simple vote seems fair. If more people like it than dislike it, it's put into effect. Plain and simple.
|
|
[M:7000]