[EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 02:07AMEDITED
I previously said that I will be rewriting the membership voting process to make it a bit more modern and "revival" friendly. Bubble Goose will still get SUBSTANTIAL credit as this is significantly based off of his with a few major/minor tweaks. I encourage FT MEMBERS and ADMINS to comment a bit and discuss this. I personally feel this is a pretty solid and fair constitution. We want to gain new players and make it easier for the migration over to CS:GO.
Once this is officially made official (lol), it will go into effect IMMEDIATELY. It will count for CS:S until the complete migration over to CS:GO. The rules will continue to apply for CS:GO and hours spent on FT servers will only count for CS:GO (we can have a short grace period where both games count).
Without further adieu...
Fish Tank Voting System
___________________________________________________________ ______________________
Minimum Requirements for a Fish Tank Membership
Fish Tank prospects have TWO (2) options available to them...
You could either:
Achieve 30 server hours AND 100 active forum posts
Achieve 50 server hours AND 30 active forum posts
Active meaning posts in threads that are no older than TWO (2) weeks from the date of your initial post.
This is the BARE minimum to be considered a regular.
Returning Player Courtesy:
25 server hours AND 15 active forum posts
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.
Fish Tank Bill of Rights
I. The Fish Tank membership voting process is a Democracy. Voting is strongly encouraged...it is your Fish Tank right. Every member is allowed ONE (1) vote. You may NOT vote for someone else. No absentee votes will be allowed.
II. A simple "yes" or "no" vote should suffice. If you feel you need to give a reason explaining your vote or have any relative comments to add, PLEASE TRY TO USE ONE (1) POST and please keep it short and simple. Any additional posts that lead to a massive discussion and cluttered proposal thread will be deleted by a moderator. You can always go back and edit.
III. Only a Fish Tank member can start a Nomination/Termination proposal. Each member can only have ONE (1) Nomination and ONE (1) Termination going at any given time. The proposal must be started in the "Open Proposals" sub-forum in the FT Community Clan forum.
IV. It is the responsibility of the proposal starter to count the votes, publicly declare a pass or fail in a new thread, and close (not delete) the proposal thread. Edit and add "CLOSED" in parenthesis at the end of the title to signal a moderator. He/she will then move the thread to the appropriate forum which will be the "Closed Proposals" forum.
V. Nomination & Termination proposals will last for FIVE (5) days. Votes cast within those five days will officially be counted. Any votes cast AFTER the five day voting period will NOT be counted and will be disregarded.
VI. Any Nomination proposal must have a minimum of FIVE (5) votes cast and must have THREE (3) more "yes" votes than "no" votes. Any Termination proposal must also follow the same requirements.
VII. A proposal cannot be made requesting changes to any FT server's operation, admin list, mapcycle, etc... That is beyond the scope of the clan. Server operation is up to server owners and operators. Proposals that deal with the above aforementioned will be declared invalid and closed by moderators. Thread will be moved accordingly.
VIII. Returning player courtesy will START only after the returning player makes a thread declaring he/she is retuning to play, be active, and wants to rejoin FT. A forum moderator will add an Edit stating what the current hours/posts are and any subsequent number will go towards the total.
IX. Any new server that is run by an [FT] member and wishes for it to be associated/affiliated/inducted into the [FT] clan and community should be taken to a Vote and decided upon by the clan. If the server is accepted by way of a successful simple majority (more yes votes than no votes), the server should have the words 'Fish Tank' in the name/title as a recognition of the server's affiliation with the clan/community.
X. Any sub-clan that wants to be affiliated with the website must also go through a successful simple-majority (51%) vote. Old sub-clans such as F7L5, 9²5, and noFear will be grandfathered in. Rules to become part of said sub-clan will be dealt with by the sub-clan and they will have their own membership process. However, Fish Tank forum netiquette and respect must be upheld regardless otherwise affiliation will be terminated and sub-forums deleted.
XI. Amendments to this Constitution MUST be openly discussed first amongst the clan in the FT Community Clan forum. A member, preferably the one who started the discussion, must make an Amendment Proposal thread in the Open Proposals forum. It should have the official text of the proposed Amendment and no explanation as the discussion has already happened. It must have a minimum of 5 votes cast and have THREE (3) more yes votes than no votes. It will be officially open for FIVE (5) days. New Amendments go into effect immediately upon declaration of passing which will be stated in a new thread. Same thread closing procedures will occur. A moderator will add the new Amendment to this post immediately. Any Amendments passed during the time another proposal is open will NOT be counted towards said open proposal.
EDIT: Amendment XI would go into effect AFTER the OFFICIAL thread stating the Constitution. Amendment XI can still be discussed here.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
Knightrider, Tue Jul 10 2012, 02:38AM
For playtime, I was thinking along the lines of 30-50 hours of playtime. We want to get new members, but we also want them to be legit/serious. Forum posts can stay at 30, I believe that's what they were in the past.
1. I agree with option 1.
2. I disagree. While I understand that your intentions are to reduce clutter, if person A votes no and gives a reason, and person B responds by disagreeing with some good points, person A is going to want to have a rebuttal and it just wouldn't make sense if everyone kept editing their argument in the same post. It would cause confusion.
3. OK
4. OK
5. I disagree here. If we are trying to move people in quicker then we would want to use the current 6 day format.
6. OK
7. OK
8. OK
9. OK
10. OK
Knightrider, Tue Jul 10 2012, 02:38AM
gLiTch wrote ...
I previously said that I will be rewriting the membership voting process to make it a bit more modern and "revival" friendly. Bubble Goose will still get SUBSTANTIAL credit as this is significantly based off of his with a few major/minor tweaks. I encourage FT MEMBERS and ADMINS to comment a bit and discuss this. I personally feel this is a pretty solid and fair constitution. We want to gain new players and make it easier for the migration over to CS:GO.
Once this is officially made official (lol), it will go into effect IMMEDIATELY. It will count for CS:S until the complete migration over to CS:GO. The rules will continue to apply for CS:GO and hours spent on FT servers will only count for CS:GO (we can have a short grace period where both games count).
Without further adieu...
Fish Tank Membership Voting System
___________________________________________________________ ______________________
Minimum Requirements for a Fish Tank Membership
Option 1: 30 server hours AND 100 active forum posts
Option 2: 65 server hours AND 35 active forum posts
Active meaning posts in threads that are no older than TWO (2) weeks from the date of your initial post.
Returning Player Courtesy:
25 server hours AND 15 active forum posts
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.
Voting Constitution
1. The Fish Tank membership voting process is a Democracy. Voting is strongly encouraged...it is your Fish Tank right. Every member is allowed ONE (1) vote. You may NOT vote for someone else. No absentee votes will be allowed.
2. A simple "yes" or "no" vote should suffice. If you feel you need to give a reason explaining your vote or have any relative comments to add, USE ONE (1) POST and please keep it short and simple. Any additional posts will be deleted by a moderator. You can always go back and edit.
3. Only a Fish Tank member can start a Nomination/Termination proposal. Each member can only have ONE (1) proposal going at a time regardless if it is a Nomination or Termination. The proposal must be started in the "Open Proposals" sub-forum in the FT Community Clan forum.
4. It is the responsibility of the proposal starter to count the votes, publicly declare a pass or fail in a new thread, and close (not delete) the proposal thread. Edit and add "CLOSED" in parenthesis at the end of the title to signal a moderator. He/she will then move the thread to the appropriate forum which will be the "Closed Proposals" forum.
5. Nomination & Termination proposals will last for SEVEN (7) days. Votes cast within those seven days will officially be counted. Any votes cast AFTER the seven day voting period will NOT be counted and will be thrown out.
6. 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.
7. A proposal cannot be made requesting changes to any FT server's operation, admin list, mapcycle, etc... That is beyond the scope of the clan. Server operation is up to server owners and operators. Proposals that deal with the above aforementioned will be declared invalid and closed by moderators. Thread will be moved accordingly.
8. Returning player courtesy will START only after the returning player makes a thread declaring he/she is retuning to play, be active, and wants to rejoin FT. A forum moderator will add an Edit stating what the current hours/posts are and any subsequent number will go towards the total.
9. Any new server that is run by an [FT] member and wishes for it to be associated/affiliated/inducted into the [FT] clan and community should be taken to a Vote and decided upon by the clan. If the server is accepted by way of a successful 2/3 super-majority, the server should have the words 'Fish Tank' in the name/title as a recognition of the server's affiliation with the clan/community.
10. Any sub-clan that wants to be affiliated with the website must also go through a successful simple-majority (51%) vote. Old sub-clans such as F7L5, 9²5, and noFear will be grandfathered in. Rules to become part of said sub-clan will be dealt with by the sub-clan and they will have their own membership process. However, Fish Tank forum netiquette and respect must be upheld regardless otherwise affiliation will be terminated and sub-forums deleted.
I previously said that I will be rewriting the membership voting process to make it a bit more modern and "revival" friendly. Bubble Goose will still get SUBSTANTIAL credit as this is significantly based off of his with a few major/minor tweaks. I encourage FT MEMBERS and ADMINS to comment a bit and discuss this. I personally feel this is a pretty solid and fair constitution. We want to gain new players and make it easier for the migration over to CS:GO.
Once this is officially made official (lol), it will go into effect IMMEDIATELY. It will count for CS:S until the complete migration over to CS:GO. The rules will continue to apply for CS:GO and hours spent on FT servers will only count for CS:GO (we can have a short grace period where both games count).
Without further adieu...
Fish Tank Membership Voting System
___________________________________________________________ ______________________
Minimum Requirements for a Fish Tank Membership
Option 1: 30 server hours AND 100 active forum posts
Option 2: 65 server hours AND 35 active forum posts
Active meaning posts in threads that are no older than TWO (2) weeks from the date of your initial post.
Returning Player Courtesy:
25 server hours AND 15 active forum posts
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.
Voting Constitution
1. The Fish Tank membership voting process is a Democracy. Voting is strongly encouraged...it is your Fish Tank right. Every member is allowed ONE (1) vote. You may NOT vote for someone else. No absentee votes will be allowed.
2. A simple "yes" or "no" vote should suffice. If you feel you need to give a reason explaining your vote or have any relative comments to add, USE ONE (1) POST and please keep it short and simple. Any additional posts will be deleted by a moderator. You can always go back and edit.
3. Only a Fish Tank member can start a Nomination/Termination proposal. Each member can only have ONE (1) proposal going at a time regardless if it is a Nomination or Termination. The proposal must be started in the "Open Proposals" sub-forum in the FT Community Clan forum.
4. It is the responsibility of the proposal starter to count the votes, publicly declare a pass or fail in a new thread, and close (not delete) the proposal thread. Edit and add "CLOSED" in parenthesis at the end of the title to signal a moderator. He/she will then move the thread to the appropriate forum which will be the "Closed Proposals" forum.
5. Nomination & Termination proposals will last for SEVEN (7) days. Votes cast within those seven days will officially be counted. Any votes cast AFTER the seven day voting period will NOT be counted and will be thrown out.
6. 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.
7. A proposal cannot be made requesting changes to any FT server's operation, admin list, mapcycle, etc... That is beyond the scope of the clan. Server operation is up to server owners and operators. Proposals that deal with the above aforementioned will be declared invalid and closed by moderators. Thread will be moved accordingly.
8. Returning player courtesy will START only after the returning player makes a thread declaring he/she is retuning to play, be active, and wants to rejoin FT. A forum moderator will add an Edit stating what the current hours/posts are and any subsequent number will go towards the total.
9. Any new server that is run by an [FT] member and wishes for it to be associated/affiliated/inducted into the [FT] clan and community should be taken to a Vote and decided upon by the clan. If the server is accepted by way of a successful 2/3 super-majority, the server should have the words 'Fish Tank' in the name/title as a recognition of the server's affiliation with the clan/community.
10. Any sub-clan that wants to be affiliated with the website must also go through a successful simple-majority (51%) vote. Old sub-clans such as F7L5, 9²5, and noFear will be grandfathered in. Rules to become part of said sub-clan will be dealt with by the sub-clan and they will have their own membership process. However, Fish Tank forum netiquette and respect must be upheld regardless otherwise affiliation will be terminated and sub-forums deleted.
For playtime, I was thinking along the lines of 30-50 hours of playtime. We want to get new members, but we also want them to be legit/serious. Forum posts can stay at 30, I believe that's what they were in the past.
1. I agree with option 1.
2. I disagree. While I understand that your intentions are to reduce clutter, if person A votes no and gives a reason, and person B responds by disagreeing with some good points, person A is going to want to have a rebuttal and it just wouldn't make sense if everyone kept editing their argument in the same post. It would cause confusion.
3. OK
4. OK
5. I disagree here. If we are trying to move people in quicker then we would want to use the current 6 day format.
6. OK
7. OK
8. OK
9. OK
10. OK
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 02:39AM
Updated with Amendment 11.
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 02:39AM
Updated with Amendment 11.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
Knightrider, Tue Jul 10 2012, 02:43AM
You're talking about in the future once it is set in stone right? Because right now...Having 11 different possible threads, maybe more, not a good idea.
Knightrider, Tue Jul 10 2012, 02:43AM
gLiTch wrote ...
11. Amendments to this Constitution MUST be openly discussed first amongst the clan in the FT Community Clan forum. A member, preferably the one who started the discussion, must make an Amendment Proposal thread in the Open Proposals forum. It should have the official text of the proposed Amendment and no explanation as the discussion has already happened. It must have a minimum of 16 votes cast and reach a super-majority of 2/3 yes votes in order to pass. It will be officially open for SEVEN (7) days. New Amendments goes into effect immediately upon declaration of passing which will be stated in a new thread. Same thread closing procedures will occur. A moderator will add the new Amendment here immediately. Any Amendments passed during the time another proposal is open will NOT be counted towards said open proposal.
11. Amendments to this Constitution MUST be openly discussed first amongst the clan in the FT Community Clan forum. A member, preferably the one who started the discussion, must make an Amendment Proposal thread in the Open Proposals forum. It should have the official text of the proposed Amendment and no explanation as the discussion has already happened. It must have a minimum of 16 votes cast and reach a super-majority of 2/3 yes votes in order to pass. It will be officially open for SEVEN (7) days. New Amendments goes into effect immediately upon declaration of passing which will be stated in a new thread. Same thread closing procedures will occur. A moderator will add the new Amendment here immediately. Any Amendments passed during the time another proposal is open will NOT be counted towards said open proposal.
You're talking about in the future once it is set in stone right? Because right now...Having 11 different possible threads, maybe more, not a good idea.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 02:47AM
The reason i put down two options is because i figured we could cater to different types of people. I got the idea from the "dead server" era we just came out of. Vectorman's situation influenced me as he stuck around and was very active even though we had a dying clan with no servers. I consider him a strong, dedicated, and serious regular as i see him more than i see other members.
We can fiddle with the hours and posts but i just figured it was good to have options. Some might only be able to play a bit here and there but are very active on the forums i.e. at work or on the go. I figured they would be very much a part of this community as this IS a two part community. If im not mistaken Knight, you will be active on forums but not so much on the server come sometime soon.
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 02:47AM
The reason i put down two options is because i figured we could cater to different types of people. I got the idea from the "dead server" era we just came out of. Vectorman's situation influenced me as he stuck around and was very active even though we had a dying clan with no servers. I consider him a strong, dedicated, and serious regular as i see him more than i see other members.
We can fiddle with the hours and posts but i just figured it was good to have options. Some might only be able to play a bit here and there but are very active on the forums i.e. at work or on the go. I figured they would be very much a part of this community as this IS a two part community. If im not mistaken Knight, you will be active on forums but not so much on the server come sometime soon.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 02:48AM
Yes that is in the future lol. This whole thread is mainly an open discussion and will be deleted upon an agreement and restated in a new official thread.
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 02:48AM
Knightrider wrote ...
You're talking about in the future once it is set in stone right? Because right now...Having 11 different possible threads, maybe more, not a good idea.
gLiTch wrote ...
11. Amendments to this Constitution MUST be openly discussed first amongst the clan in the FT Community Clan forum. A member, preferably the one who started the discussion, must make an Amendment Proposal thread in the Open Proposals forum. It should have the official text of the proposed Amendment and no explanation as the discussion has already happened. It must have a minimum of 16 votes cast and reach a super-majority of 2/3 yes votes in order to pass. It will be officially open for SEVEN (7) days. New Amendments goes into effect immediately upon declaration of passing which will be stated in a new thread. Same thread closing procedures will occur. A moderator will add the new Amendment here immediately. Any Amendments passed during the time another proposal is open will NOT be counted towards said open proposal.
11. Amendments to this Constitution MUST be openly discussed first amongst the clan in the FT Community Clan forum. A member, preferably the one who started the discussion, must make an Amendment Proposal thread in the Open Proposals forum. It should have the official text of the proposed Amendment and no explanation as the discussion has already happened. It must have a minimum of 16 votes cast and reach a super-majority of 2/3 yes votes in order to pass. It will be officially open for SEVEN (7) days. New Amendments goes into effect immediately upon declaration of passing which will be stated in a new thread. Same thread closing procedures will occur. A moderator will add the new Amendment here immediately. Any Amendments passed during the time another proposal is open will NOT be counted towards said open proposal.
You're talking about in the future once it is set in stone right? Because right now...Having 11 different possible threads, maybe more, not a good idea.
Yes that is in the future lol. This whole thread is mainly an open discussion and will be deleted upon an agreement and restated in a new official thread.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
Knightrider, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:09AM
Right, and that's why the post count should be down because a lot of people are stubborn to post on the forums...I remember the 30 post requirement being a big deal. Obviously, most of our likeability of that person is in-game, because you get to hear their personality more through the mic (which I think is pretty crucial in voting you in.) The person between their chair and keyboard can lie a lot in the content of their posts.
Knightrider, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:09AM
gLiTch wrote ...
The reason i put down two options is because i figured we could cater to different types of people. I got the idea from the "dead server" era we just came out of. Vectorman gave me the idea as he stuck around and was very active even though we had a dying clan with no servers. I consider him a strong, dedicated, and serious regular as i see him more than i see other members.
We can fiddle with the hours and posts but i just figured it was good to have options. Some might only be able to play a bit here and there but are very active on the forums i.e. at work or on the go. I figured they were very much a part of this community as this IS a two part community. If im not mistaken Knight, you will be active on forums but not so much on the server come sometime soon.
The reason i put down two options is because i figured we could cater to different types of people. I got the idea from the "dead server" era we just came out of. Vectorman gave me the idea as he stuck around and was very active even though we had a dying clan with no servers. I consider him a strong, dedicated, and serious regular as i see him more than i see other members.
We can fiddle with the hours and posts but i just figured it was good to have options. Some might only be able to play a bit here and there but are very active on the forums i.e. at work or on the go. I figured they were very much a part of this community as this IS a two part community. If im not mistaken Knight, you will be active on forums but not so much on the server come sometime soon.
Right, and that's why the post count should be down because a lot of people are stubborn to post on the forums...I remember the 30 post requirement being a big deal. Obviously, most of our likeability of that person is in-game, because you get to hear their personality more through the mic (which I think is pretty crucial in voting you in.) The person between their chair and keyboard can lie a lot in the content of their posts.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:15AM
Ok so let me get this cleared up...lol..
You like the idea of options correct?
You agree with Option 1.
Option 2 should have 50 hours and somewhere around 25 posts or maybe less?
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:15AM
Knightrider wrote ...
Right, and that's why the post count should be down because a lot of people are stubborn to post on the forums...I remember the 30 post requirement being a big deal. Obviously, most of our likeability of that person is in-game, because you get to hear their personality more through the mic (which I think is pretty crucial in voting you in.) The person between their chair and keyboard can lie a lot in the content of their posts.
gLiTch wrote ...
The reason i put down two options is because i figured we could cater to different types of people. I got the idea from the "dead server" era we just came out of. Vectorman gave me the idea as he stuck around and was very active even though we had a dying clan with no servers. I consider him a strong, dedicated, and serious regular as i see him more than i see other members.
We can fiddle with the hours and posts but i just figured it was good to have options. Some might only be able to play a bit here and there but are very active on the forums i.e. at work or on the go. I figured they were very much a part of this community as this IS a two part community. If im not mistaken Knight, you will be active on forums but not so much on the server come sometime soon.
The reason i put down two options is because i figured we could cater to different types of people. I got the idea from the "dead server" era we just came out of. Vectorman gave me the idea as he stuck around and was very active even though we had a dying clan with no servers. I consider him a strong, dedicated, and serious regular as i see him more than i see other members.
We can fiddle with the hours and posts but i just figured it was good to have options. Some might only be able to play a bit here and there but are very active on the forums i.e. at work or on the go. I figured they were very much a part of this community as this IS a two part community. If im not mistaken Knight, you will be active on forums but not so much on the server come sometime soon.
Right, and that's why the post count should be down because a lot of people are stubborn to post on the forums...I remember the 30 post requirement being a big deal. Obviously, most of our likeability of that person is in-game, because you get to hear their personality more through the mic (which I think is pretty crucial in voting you in.) The person between their chair and keyboard can lie a lot in the content of their posts.
Ok so let me get this cleared up...lol..
You like the idea of options correct?
You agree with Option 1.
Option 2 should have 50 hours and somewhere around 25 posts or maybe less?
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
Knightrider, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:22AM
50 hours and 30 posts. I have halved the hour requirement, that is all.
Knightrider, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:22AM
50 hours and 30 posts. I have halved the hour requirement, that is all.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:23AM
Done.
And I encourage everyone to speak up and put forward any/all ideas for this.
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:23AM
Knightrider wrote ...
50 hours and 30 posts. I have halved the hour requirement, that is all.
50 hours and 30 posts. I have halved the hour requirement, that is all.
Done.
And I encourage everyone to speak up and put forward any/all ideas for this.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
Knightrider, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:23AM
Also, 37 views and me and Glitch are having a one-way conversation? Come on, guys.
Knightrider, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:23AM
Also, 37 views and me and Glitch are having a one-way conversation? Come on, guys.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:27AM
They are all in the Tank. Im ok with that =P
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:27AM
Knightrider wrote ...
Also, 37 views and me and Glitch are having a one-way conversation? Come on, guys.
Also, 37 views and me and Glitch are having a one-way conversation? Come on, guys.
They are all in the Tank. Im ok with that =P
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
peacebypeice, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:35AM
Sorry, ya been in the server quite a bit tonight. I think everything you have is good from what you two have discussed. 30 posts seems about right and 50 hours isn't overly demanding. It took me forever to post on the server so I think the 50 hours is more important, as Knight said.
Other than that, I think everything looks to be pretty solid. Good work writing/editing that Glitch.
peacebypeice, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:35AM
Sorry, ya been in the server quite a bit tonight. I think everything you have is good from what you two have discussed. 30 posts seems about right and 50 hours isn't overly demanding. It took me forever to post on the server so I think the 50 hours is more important, as Knight said.
Other than that, I think everything looks to be pretty solid. Good work writing/editing that Glitch.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
NoSkill, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:54AM
I vote no on voting on the new voting procedure and move to suspend the rules and just pass it.
NoSkill, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:54AM
I vote no on voting on the new voting procedure and move to suspend the rules and just pass it.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
NoSkill, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:57AM
Hang on I just read something about "General Disrespect" being grounds for termination... You might as well just rescind my membershit right now.
NoSkill, Tue Jul 10 2012, 03:57AM
Hang on I just read something about "General Disrespect" being grounds for termination... You might as well just rescind my membershit right now.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 04:08AM
lolwut?
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 04:08AM
NoSkill wrote ...
I vote no on voting on the new voting procedure and move to suspend the rules and just pass it.
I vote no on voting on the new voting procedure and move to suspend the rules and just pass it.
lolwut?
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 04:11AM
It was always part of the original rules...
General disrespect usually means being a complete asshole to everyone. And still..you gotta get a lot of people to agree which isnt easy.
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 04:11AM
NoSkill wrote ...
Hang on I just read something about "General Disrespect" being grounds for termination... You might as well just rescind my membershit right now.
Hang on I just read something about "General Disrespect" being grounds for termination... You might as well just rescind my membershit right now.
It was always part of the original rules...
General disrespect usually means being a complete asshole to everyone. And still..you gotta get a lot of people to agree which isnt easy.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
doctorphate, Tue Jul 10 2012, 11:45AM
I can pretty much agree with everything here, I like the older version with more hours required to join but this does work nicely to bring in new people.
Edit: I'm more inclined to pick the 50 hours option, i think thats more important than forum posts.
Also slightly offtopic but is 925 and F7L5 updating their requirements aswell?
doctorphate, Tue Jul 10 2012, 11:45AM
I can pretty much agree with everything here, I like the older version with more hours required to join but this does work nicely to bring in new people.
Edit: I'm more inclined to pick the 50 hours option, i think thats more important than forum posts.
Also slightly offtopic but is 925 and F7L5 updating their requirements aswell?
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
Rusty, Tue Jul 10 2012, 06:24PM
I cannot speak for 925, but f7l5 will be altering their requirements. Expect more later this week, with an official fts launch date!
Rusty, Tue Jul 10 2012, 06:24PM
doctorphate wrote ...
Also slightly offtopic but is 925 and F7L5 updating their requirements aswell?
Also slightly offtopic but is 925 and F7L5 updating their requirements aswell?
I cannot speak for 925, but f7l5 will be altering their requirements. Expect more later this week, with an official fts launch date!
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
Glas4d, Tue Jul 10 2012, 06:34PM
I don't think what i bolded should be grounds for termination. Instead i think it should just be recommended.
Glas4d, Tue Jul 10 2012, 06:34PM
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.
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.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
alcosatz, Tue Jul 10 2012, 06:48PM
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:
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.
alcosatz, Tue Jul 10 2012, 06:48PM
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.
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.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
Rusty, Tue Jul 10 2012, 08:07PM
[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:
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?
Rusty, Tue Jul 10 2012, 08:07PM
[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.
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?
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 09:29PM
[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:
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.
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 09:29PM
[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.
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.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
nostie, Tue Jul 10 2012, 09:36PM
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.
nostie, Tue Jul 10 2012, 09:36PM
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.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 09:36PM
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.
gLiTch, Tue Jul 10 2012, 09:36PM
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.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
alcosatz, Tue Jul 10 2012, 11:09PM
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?
alcosatz, Tue Jul 10 2012, 11:09PM
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 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?
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
doctorphate, Tue Jul 10 2012, 11:15PM
I'm with you on that, I was wondering what poor sap was going to be doing the math on all those proposals.
doctorphate, Tue Jul 10 2012, 11:15PM
alcosatz wrote ...
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?
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 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.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
peacebypeice, Wed Jul 11 2012, 03:16AM
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.
peacebypeice, Wed Jul 11 2012, 03:16AM
alcosatz wrote ...
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?
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 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.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
Madvillain, Wed Jul 11 2012, 11:04AM
I didn't vote considering I felt it was a joke to ACTUALLY vote ...
Madvillain, Wed Jul 11 2012, 11:04AM
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 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 ...
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
Madvillain, Wed Jul 11 2012, 11:56AM
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
Madvillain, Wed Jul 11 2012, 11:56AM
Glas4d wrote ...
I don't think what i bolded should be grounds for termination. Instead i think it should just be recommended.
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.
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
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
b4ndito, Wed Jul 11 2012, 01:55PM
I'm cool with the +3. That's the standard I got voted in on. I wouldn't mind seeing it a little more difficult to get in though; we're all saps and the majority of us will vote yes.
+5?
b4ndito, Wed Jul 11 2012, 01:55PM
I'm cool with the +3. That's the standard I got voted in on. I wouldn't mind seeing it a little more difficult to get in though; we're all saps and the majority of us will vote yes.
+5?
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Wed Jul 11 2012, 10:02PM
Ok to start off... this constitution is very similar to Gooses. In many cases, it is almost the same..just more thoroughly written and organized when compared to the original. My intent was not to replace or abolish the original system with one of my own.
Considering the clan was practically dead and we had maybe 15 people check the site weekly, i felt that taking down Gooses constitution and just starting from scratch would make it much easier and help it go along quicker. I felt that putting the thing to a vote to abolish it would have led to a failing vote as many people like it and would just "amend" it. This would have led to an amendment process to add and strip things out of it which could get seriously unorganized very fast and take much more time to complete. If it did pass and we did abolish it, we would be right where we are now.
This is an open discussion where everyone gets to inject their opinions and ideas. Personally i feel it is going very well as many of you have had good opinions. Alex, the +3 was not a bad idea and you are correct in the fact it was mentioned before and possibly used.
The fraction deciding is very very easy. Everyone makes it seems like people are gonna have to spend forever counting and doing math. 2/3 is no different then the original system of 67% that Goose had intended. Writing it as a fraction was just easier and looked more professional. If someone cannot figure out if there are 2/3 more yes votes then no votes, they shouldnt be in this clan to begin with....as i learned that shit when i was 9 years old. We could change the 4/5 one down to 2/3 as well.
Or we could just abolish the 2/3 and use the +3 or however many yes votes over no votes idea which I wouldnt argue with as that is a solid idea as well.
I felt that starting somewhat fresh considering this will be a clan of a new game, would have been easier and faster and less of a confusing predicament.
The Constitution I have written adds a few more Amendments to the original and as i said, are much more thorough.
Let's keep discussing this. Make a good draft, and then put it to an official vote in another thread.
gLiTch, Wed Jul 11 2012, 10:02PM
Ok to start off... this constitution is very similar to Gooses. In many cases, it is almost the same..just more thoroughly written and organized when compared to the original. My intent was not to replace or abolish the original system with one of my own.
Considering the clan was practically dead and we had maybe 15 people check the site weekly, i felt that taking down Gooses constitution and just starting from scratch would make it much easier and help it go along quicker. I felt that putting the thing to a vote to abolish it would have led to a failing vote as many people like it and would just "amend" it. This would have led to an amendment process to add and strip things out of it which could get seriously unorganized very fast and take much more time to complete. If it did pass and we did abolish it, we would be right where we are now.
This is an open discussion where everyone gets to inject their opinions and ideas. Personally i feel it is going very well as many of you have had good opinions. Alex, the +3 was not a bad idea and you are correct in the fact it was mentioned before and possibly used.
The fraction deciding is very very easy. Everyone makes it seems like people are gonna have to spend forever counting and doing math. 2/3 is no different then the original system of 67% that Goose had intended. Writing it as a fraction was just easier and looked more professional. If someone cannot figure out if there are 2/3 more yes votes then no votes, they shouldnt be in this clan to begin with....as i learned that shit when i was 9 years old. We could change the 4/5 one down to 2/3 as well.
Or we could just abolish the 2/3 and use the +3 or however many yes votes over no votes idea which I wouldnt argue with as that is a solid idea as well.
I felt that starting somewhat fresh considering this will be a clan of a new game, would have been easier and faster and less of a confusing predicament.
The Constitution I have written adds a few more Amendments to the original and as i said, are much more thorough.
Let's keep discussing this. Make a good draft, and then put it to an official vote in another thread.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
peacebypeice, Wed Jul 11 2012, 11:31PM
how many do we have agreeing with the +3 vote idea?
peacebypeice, Wed Jul 11 2012, 11:31PM
how many do we have agreeing with the +3 vote idea?
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
alcosatz, Thu Jul 12 2012, 02:07AM
I'm going to admit defeat concerning this new voting system.
My position has been this: cut corners only where necessary, otherwise stick to the rules as they exist. The only corner that I see that really needs to be cut is the 12 vote minimum in the Goose voting system.
So as far as I understand it, the Goose voting system is being nullified or already has been nullified by magical means, and FT membership is being modified by fiat since there is no current system.
This also means that my nomination by Knight was apparently for entertainment purposes only. I'll wait and see what you guys come up, and I'll apply later once all of the kinks are worked out.
I'm taking my name out of the "roaster" now.
alcosatz, Thu Jul 12 2012, 02:07AM
I'm going to admit defeat concerning this new voting system.
My position has been this: cut corners only where necessary, otherwise stick to the rules as they exist. The only corner that I see that really needs to be cut is the 12 vote minimum in the Goose voting system.
So as far as I understand it, the Goose voting system is being nullified or already has been nullified by magical means, and FT membership is being modified by fiat since there is no current system.
This also means that my nomination by Knight was apparently for entertainment purposes only. I'll wait and see what you guys come up, and I'll apply later once all of the kinks are worked out.
I'm taking my name out of the "roaster" now.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
Rusty, Thu Jul 12 2012, 03:59AM
In the end, what ever lies, if we all agree with a new system we should put a vote, using the old system, to nullify gooses the ratify glitches. I think that's what I'm getting.
Rusty, Thu Jul 12 2012, 03:59AM
In the end, what ever lies, if we all agree with a new system we should put a vote, using the old system, to nullify gooses the ratify glitches. I think that's what I'm getting.
Re: [EDITED] Fish Tank Constitution [NEED OPINIONS ON UPDATED VERSION]
gLiTch, Thu Jul 12 2012, 04:55AM
I forgot to make a thread about this...lol.
The problem with this is that using the old system, we may not be able to get enough votes to actually get the original nullified and mine ratified. I could try...but we barely got enough votes for Alex's nomination lol.
What do you think of the changes made? I will put this to a vote regardless and give it a shot once everyone comes to a consensus.
gLiTch, Thu Jul 12 2012, 04:55AM
Rusty wrote ...
In the end, what ever lies, if we all agree with a new system we should put a vote, using the old system, to nullify gooses the ratify glitches. I think that's what I'm getting.
In the end, what ever lies, if we all agree with a new system we should put a vote, using the old system, to nullify gooses the ratify glitches. I think that's what I'm getting.
I forgot to make a thread about this...lol.
The problem with this is that using the old system, we may not be able to get enough votes to actually get the original nullified and mine ratified. I could try...but we barely got enough votes for Alex's nomination lol.
What do you think of the changes made? I will put this to a vote regardless and give it a shot once everyone comes to a consensus.
Print this page