Executives should not be exempt from inactivity removals

Vouch

Vouch

Changing vote to vouch.

Quote

↩  Charge they do other jobs that can sometimes keep them from getting ingame.

↩  characterslimits They can still be an executive (if they still do their job), but without the admin rank.

Quote

↩  characterslimits They can still be an executive (if they still do their job), but without the admin rank.

While technically true, as soon as an executive is removed from admin, they will be removed from executive status because really as far as I'm concerned it's a prerequisite for holding an executive position. While there are exceptions to the rule, generally speaking it's how I've managed executives to date.

I'll make a longer reply later when I am actually properly back on TF but the TLDR is no, I won't mandate executives be included in the activity policy because the activity policy itself was supposed to have changed already to better manage these things.

I Vouch. Since they're also admins, they should be included in the activity policy.

Gonna wait for ryans full response cuz it looks like he has something planned

Quote

↩ @'Ryan' because the activity policy itself was supposed to have changed already to better manage these things.

How will the updated version of the activity policy better manage executive in game activity? If you can outright veto this suggestion because the activity policy will be changed I assume it will fix this problem?

This is what Ryan said about it before. Tl;dr, execs are still expected to be active but aren't removed because the EAO can't do that. Ryan will use their activity as a factor in removing them.

Vouch.

Vouch execs have no rights

As the Executive Admin Officer, I believe in a square deal. Regardless of the title they hold, an admin should not be given special treatment when it comes to things like activity requirements.

Vouch.

↩ @'Ryan' Some roles like ECD or EMM don't really need in-game adminstrative powers. EAO and EBM should require a mimimum time as senior admin (If we ever need to appoint a new one). In my opinion, every purpose should have different activity requirements but I still haven't thought about the details.

↩  Tizz They technically don't but as I said I see it generally as a pre-req. Not to mention that if I've asked someone to take on a role that is non-admnistrative to help grow the server, why should they then be punished when they're too busy doing that role to come in game?

Likewise, why should some executives get admin access and some not? Why should we go "Thanks for giving up your time to organise events / engagement things or do some development or help manage our admins, but you know you were too busy doing that, so you can kiss your rank goodbye and don't let the door hit you on the way out".

If folks have an issue with the level of activity with an executive, follow the executive policy and follow the actual rules we have in place. I have seen no reason on this thread so far that I should punish executives for not being active in game when they're completing their other duties as are required by their executive position. That ignores the fact that I'd really like to go back to a time where executives had a prerequisite requirement of being a senior admin first and it actually being a "step-up" from a senior admin, which hasn't been possible for some time.

I will vouch as long as executives wouldn't lose their executive role along with their admin role if they are inactive, I myself have been wildly inactive in comparison to my fellow admins when it comes to ingame time, however I put a lot of time into my executive duties and I don't think that should go against me, since the more time i spend on that, the less time I have to actually be on the server (a lot of the work I am currently doing revolves around things not on the actual MC server)

Quote

↩ @'Ryan' If folks have an issue with the level of activity with an executive, follow the executive policy and follow the actual rules we have in place

All appointments and removals from executive status are at the sole responsibility of the server owner. Executive positions may be added and removed as the owner sees fit, and as appropriate additional executive roles may be created in order to fulfil the growing requirements of the server.

If the community feel an executive is not fulfilling their duties as an executive, their first port of call should be to raise this with the server owner, where a sensible discussion can be had.

The owner will where practical hold a formal application process for appointing new executives where the entire community will be encouraged to post feedback on the candidates whom are applying for the role(s) in question. Where this is not practical (As deemed by the owner) executives can be directly appointed.

I'm not going to lie here, you haven't had an amazing track record when it comes to executive removals. It took a stupidly long time for you to remove Darth and he wasn't even removed for inactivity despite being inactive as fuck. Lykhant likewise was not removed for inactivity despite also being inactive as fuck, who also resigned instead of being downright removed. Neither of those did those jobs in their final months of inactivity either. I don't see any point in vouching for this suggestion given your mind seems to be made up but I hope for some form of provisions to ensure something actually happens to inactive executives... because we have inactive executives right now..

↩  Luke I'll hold my hands up and say I should have removed Darth earlier than I did. Lykhant I was aware was inactive but had spoke with them and they had agreed to step down gracefully rather than being removed though I didn't chase it and it took quite a lot longer than I had expected.

With that said there is as per your quote there is the ability for the community to vote someone off if the proper process has been followed.

Not saying all of this is perfect but it's better than punishing admins for being inactive in game while completing other commitments.

vouch

On the grounds StevenNL2000 has picked up the owner role on the Freedom server, and this is where the suggestion I think primarily currently applies I'll leave it for him to make a final decision as it'll depend on how he intends to run the executive branch longer term.

I will say in some cases, the server just isn't setup for scenarios where Executives are not admins, so exceptions to this rule (If passed) may need to be made where we have executives actively fulfilling their duties as an executive, but not in game as an administrator and where some form of elevated privileges are required, but I don't think it's likely to be common as a scenario. There are also issues where some roles realistically need to hold admin level privileges currently due to limitations in how Flarum works (For example the EAO couldn't be a non-senior admin because Flarum can't allow me to share the EAO Role perms to a sub-board of the senior area without exposing all of it)

But yes, TLDR it's now Steven's decision and he can weigh up the pro's and con's

(Also bump for anyone else that wants to chime in on this)