| Fish Tank Clan :: Forums :: Fish Tank Clan :: FT Community Clan |
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » |
| [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION] | ||
| This topic is now closed |
| Author | Post | ||
| alcosatz |
|
||
FT Classic Op
Registered Member #39
Joined: Fri Dec 02 2005, 10:30PMPosts: 1545 |
Here was the original voting system: -[link]- It was abolished (following its own rules), if I remember correctly. The main reason was because it was too complex. I was a little butthurt over that whole issue but I moved on. My memory is a bit hazy and we lost a bunch of forum posts, but I believe it was agreed upon that someone (Bubble Goose?) would draft the next system after the original one was abolished. Some type of adhoc system was used to ratify the new system and the transfer of one system to no system to a new system was completed. What I'm confused about it where the last system was abolished. The last I heard, we were discussing potential changes here: -[link]- I made a suggestion that someone nominate me for FT membership since I officially left years ago. I was thinking it would be a nice test to see if we could still remember how the old system worked. Unfortunately the old system had a required minimum of 12 votes for any proposal to pass. So here this thread sits, untouched for a week: -[link]- When I see this new system that Glitch is putting together then I have to wonder: gLiTch wrote ... VI. Any Nomination proposal must reach a super-majority of 2/3 yes votes in order to pass...with a minimum of 12 votes cast. Any Termination proposal must reach a super-majority of 4/5 yes votes in order to pass...with a minimum of 16 votes cast. How is keeping the 12 vote minimum really an improvement at this point? I'm OK with cutting corners where absolutely necessary, but this doesn't seem like it was considered at all. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Rusty |
|
||
FTS Server Op
Registered Member #159
Joined: Wed Mar 01 2006, 06:33PMPosts: 2682 |
[quote] Here was the original voting system: -[link]- It was abolished (following its own rules), if I remember correctly. The main reason was because it was too complex. I was a little butthurt over that whole issue but I moved on. My memory is a bit hazy and we lost a bunch of forum posts, but I believe it was agreed upon that someone (Bubble Goose?) would draft the next system after the original one was abolished. Some type of adhoc system was used to ratify the new system and the transfer of one system to no system to a new system was completed. What I'm confused about it where the last system was abolished. The last I heard, we were discussing potential changes here: -[link]- I made a suggestion that someone nominate me for FT membership since I officially left years ago. I was thinking it would be a nice test to see if we could still remember how the old system worked. Unfortunately the old system had a required minimum of 12 votes for any proposal to pass. So here this thread sits, untouched for a week: -[link]- When I see this new system that Glitch is putting together then I have to wonder: gLiTch wrote ... VI. Any Nomination proposal must reach a super-majority of 2/3 yes votes in order to pass...with a minimum of 12 votes cast. Any Termination proposal must reach a super-majority of 4/5 yes votes in order to pass...with a minimum of 16 votes cast. How is keeping the 12 vote minimum really an improvement at this point? I'm OK with cutting corners where absolutely necessary, but this doesn't seem like it was considered at all. [/quote1341950797] If the most votes we could get for alex was 10....maybe make that the minimum until there is more activity in the clan? |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| gLiTch |
|
||
Anal Assassin
Registered Member #455
Joined: Mon Oct 09 2006, 04:58AMPosts: 3848 |
[quote] Here was the original voting system: -[link]- It was abolished (following its own rules), if I remember correctly. The main reason was because it was too complex. I was a little butthurt over that whole issue but I moved on. My memory is a bit hazy and we lost a bunch of forum posts, but I believe it was agreed upon that someone (Bubble Goose?) would draft the next system after the original one was abolished. Some type of adhoc system was used to ratify the new system and the transfer of one system to no system to a new system was completed. What I'm confused about it where the last system was abolished. The last I heard, we were discussing potential changes here: -[link]- I made a suggestion that someone nominate me for FT membership since I officially left years ago. I was thinking it would be a nice test to see if we could still remember how the old system worked. Unfortunately the old system had a required minimum of 12 votes for any proposal to pass. So here this thread sits, untouched for a week: -[link]- When I see this new system that Glitch is putting together then I have to wonder: gLiTch wrote ... VI. Any Nomination proposal must reach a super-majority of 2/3 yes votes in order to pass...with a minimum of 12 votes cast. Any Termination proposal must reach a super-majority of 4/5 yes votes in order to pass...with a minimum of 16 votes cast. How is keeping the 12 vote minimum really an improvement at this point? I'm OK with cutting corners where absolutely necessary, but this doesn't seem like it was considered at all. [/quote1341955622] I counted 12 votes in that thread (including Knight's). We barely made it so I see your point. I am also glad we are discussing this out in the open...as you said, we always discussed this in a community kind of way. I felt 12 was doable...and it could go back to 12...but we can lower it to 8 or 9 maybe? And then amend it later on? And how do you feel about keeping the 2/3 super-majority of yes's? Would you rather use a simple-majority? I will lower the days back down to 6 as Knight previously stated. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| nostie |
|
||
Registered Member #185
Joined: Thu Mar 30 2006, 10:42PMPosts: 3167 |
I was going to mention I thought we should use simple majority, but I'm having second thoughts. I definitely think 12 and 16 are too many votes necessary, though. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| gLiTch |
|
||
|
Anal Assassin
Registered Member #455
Joined: Mon Oct 09 2006, 04:58AM Posts: 3848 |
I edited the original. Lowered the nomination/termination proposal time limit from 7 days to 6 days. Lowered the minimum votes of termination proposals to 14 down from 16. Lowered the minimum votes of Amendment proposals to 14 down from 16. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| alcosatz |
|
||
|
FT Classic Op
Registered Member #39
Joined: Fri Dec 02 2005, 10:30PM Posts: 1545 |
gLiTch wrote ... I counted 12 votes in that thread (including Knight's). We barely made it so I see your point. I am also glad we are discussing this out in the open...as you said, we always discussed this in a community kind of way. I felt 12 was doable...and it could go back to 12...but we can lower it to 8 or 9 maybe? And then amend it later on? And how do you feel about keeping the 2/3 super-majority of yes's? Would you rather use a simple-majority? I will lower the days back down to 6 as Knight previously stated. I'm not trying to bust your balls over this but please look at the first part of my last post. Was the old voting system ever abolished? If not then then I don't see how you can just replace it without a proposal. Assuming my nomination passed we should be able to rustle up the necessary 12 people to abolish and replace the old one. That said, I'm not entirely sure that the old one needs to be replaced with something that looks a lot like it. As far as minimum votes go in general, I'm not sure that a minimum number of votes beyond something extremely low, like 5 votes, is necessary. The minimum is there to prevent only one or two people from forcing a vote through while the rest of us are... not reading forums and voting no for stupid shit after 6-7 days? When the old clan was dying down (don't blame me, I was long gone!) no one seemed to realized that having a minimum number of 12 would be a problem if anyone ever tried to start it up again. Obviously the 12 vote minimum wasn't a problem when the old voting system went into effect. These two scenarios, a thriving clan with 30-50 members (I think the high water mark was over 50 back in 2006) or a clan that is being saved from the ash heap of history, don't require mutually exclusive solutions. Before I bring up my suggestion I want to mention something about this fraction stuff that you have mentioned (2/3 majority, 3/4 majority etc). It's very cool in theory, but annoying in practice. Having to tally up the total number of members is going to be a moving target, especially in the beginning when you've got multiple nomination votes opening and closing on a weekly basis will get old. What about a +3 yes requirement? Goose mentioned this a long time ago (not sure why we didn't use it, or why we changed away from it if we were using it--I can't remember). Couple the +3 requirement with something like a 5 vote minimum and it looks a lot different. Amend the rules so that new members are on one week of probation and cannot make proposals and you've got a pretty low inhibitor for proposals to pass as well as a speedbump to a sharp influx of players. What do you think? |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| doctorphate |
|
||
doctorphate
Registered Member #724
Joined: Wed May 30 2007, 03:50AMPosts: 699 |
alcosatz wrote ... gLiTch wrote ... I counted 12 votes in that thread (including Knight's). We barely made it so I see your point. I am also glad we are discussing this out in the open...as you said, we always discussed this in a community kind of way. I felt 12 was doable...and it could go back to 12...but we can lower it to 8 or 9 maybe? And then amend it later on? And how do you feel about keeping the 2/3 super-majority of yes's? Would you rather use a simple-majority? I will lower the days back down to 6 as Knight previously stated. I'm not trying to bust your balls over this but please look at the first part of my last post. Was the old voting system ever abolished? If not then then I don't see how you can just replace it without a proposal. Assuming my nomination passed we should be able to rustle up the necessary 12 people to abolish and replace the old one. That said, I'm not entirely sure that the old one needs to be replaced with something that looks a lot like it. As far as minimum votes go in general, I'm not sure that a minimum number of votes beyond something extremely low, like 5 votes, is necessary. The minimum is there to prevent only one or two people from forcing a vote through while the rest of us are... not reading forums and voting no for stupid shit after 6-7 days? When the old clan was dying down (don't blame me, I was long gone!) no one seemed to realized that having a minimum number of 12 would be a problem if anyone ever tried to start it up again. Obviously the 12 vote minimum wasn't a problem when the old voting system went into effect. These two scenarios, a thriving clan with 30-50 members (I think the high water mark was over 50 back in 2006) or a clan that is being saved from the ash heap of history, don't require mutually exclusive solutions. Before I bring up my suggestion I want to mention something about this fraction stuff that you have mentioned (2/3 majority, 3/4 majority etc). It's very cool in theory, but annoying in practice. Having to tally up the total number of members is going to be a moving target, especially in the beginning when you've got multiple nomination votes opening and closing on a weekly basis will get old. What about a +3 yes requirement? Goose mentioned this a long time ago (not sure why we didn't use it, or why we changed away from it if we were using it--I can't remember). Couple the +3 requirement with something like a 5 vote minimum and it looks a lot different. Amend the rules so that new members are on one week of probation and cannot make proposals and you've got a pretty low inhibitor for proposals to pass as well as a speedbump to a sharp influx of players. What do you think? I'm with you on that, I was wondering what poor sap was going to be doing the math on all those proposals. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| peacebypeice |
|
||
peacebypeice
Registered Member #925
Joined: Mon Nov 26 2007, 05:23AMPosts: 1452 |
alcosatz wrote ... gLiTch wrote ... I counted 12 votes in that thread (including Knight's). We barely made it so I see your point. I am also glad we are discussing this out in the open...as you said, we always discussed this in a community kind of way. I felt 12 was doable...and it could go back to 12...but we can lower it to 8 or 9 maybe? And then amend it later on? And how do you feel about keeping the 2/3 super-majority of yes's? Would you rather use a simple-majority? I will lower the days back down to 6 as Knight previously stated. I'm not trying to bust your balls over this but please look at the first part of my last post. Was the old voting system ever abolished? If not then then I don't see how you can just replace it without a proposal. Assuming my nomination passed we should be able to rustle up the necessary 12 people to abolish and replace the old one. That said, I'm not entirely sure that the old one needs to be replaced with something that looks a lot like it. As far as minimum votes go in general, I'm not sure that a minimum number of votes beyond something extremely low, like 5 votes, is necessary. The minimum is there to prevent only one or two people from forcing a vote through while the rest of us are... not reading forums and voting no for stupid shit after 6-7 days? When the old clan was dying down (don't blame me, I was long gone!) no one seemed to realized that having a minimum number of 12 would be a problem if anyone ever tried to start it up again. Obviously the 12 vote minimum wasn't a problem when the old voting system went into effect. These two scenarios, a thriving clan with 30-50 members (I think the high water mark was over 50 back in 2006) or a clan that is being saved from the ash heap of history, don't require mutually exclusive solutions. Before I bring up my suggestion I want to mention something about this fraction stuff that you have mentioned (2/3 majority, 3/4 majority etc). It's very cool in theory, but annoying in practice. Having to tally up the total number of members is going to be a moving target, especially in the beginning when you've got multiple nomination votes opening and closing on a weekly basis will get old. What about a +3 yes requirement? Goose mentioned this a long time ago (not sure why we didn't use it, or why we changed away from it if we were using it--I can't remember). Couple the +3 requirement with something like a 5 vote minimum and it looks a lot different. Amend the rules so that new members are on one week of probation and cannot make proposals and you've got a pretty low inhibitor for proposals to pass as well as a speedbump to a sharp influx of players. What do you think? I gotta admit, this actually sounds like a pretty good idea. I'm open for other opinions but at the moment, I like what Alex has there. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Madvillain |
|
||
Registered Member #445
Joined: Sun Oct 01 2006, 11:42PMPosts: 2233 |
alcosatz wrote ... I made a suggestion that someone nominate me for FT membership since I officially left years ago. I was thinking it would be a nice test to see if we could still remember how the old system worked. Unfortunately the old system had a required minimum of 12 votes for any proposal to pass. I didn't vote considering I felt it was a joke to ACTUALLY vote ... |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Madvillain |
|
||
|
Registered Member #445
Joined: Sun Oct 01 2006, 11:42PM Posts: 2233 |
Glas4d wrote ... gLiTch wrote ... Grounds for a Termination May include but is not limited too: - Disregard for rules and tarnishing of the FT image. - General disrespect or hate towards other members of FT, ANY sub-clan, or regulars. - Major abuse of admin powers whether on forums or in servers. - Game AND forum inactivity greater than two (2) months WITHOUT a "Leave the Light On" thread. I don't think what i bolded should be grounds for termination. Instead i think it should just be recommended. Its only grounds for termination, not termination itself so I think its not too bad I liked option 1 better, It always worked smoother in the past |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System
|
|