Exclude Executives from Owner Vote-Off

If you can propose how you would re-word the policy, because right now Executives are a key aspect to the ownership policy, and to just exclude them ultimately means the policy can therefore never be invoked.

As with the other threads around the ownership policy. If there's no additional support / objections over the coming weeks I'll decline this due to the lack of general support.

Object

If a vote-off is started where everyone gets a vote, I damn well want my vote cast in that as well. Object.

Neutral - waiting to see more opinion.

Unless this paragraph in the ownership policy (https://forum.totalfreedom.me/d/1-ownership-policy) is amended I will

vouch.

Quote

In scenarios 2 and 3, a unanimous vote to remove the owner will need to be collected from all current full status (Not assistants / similar) executive admins on the server. Executive admin's are defined as per the Executive admin policy found here - https://forum.totalfreedom.me/d/6-executive-policy/ . Each executive admin listed will have one week to respond to a vote. If they do not respond, their vote will be assumed a ‘yes’. After (and only after) a unanimous vote is received, a poll will be posted in the Super Admin Lounge with the title “Owner Voteoff.” If 80% of the poll agrees to get rid of the current owner, the owner spot will be vacated and Stage 1 will begin.

Effectively, the executives (whom are now appointed by the owner), have to unanimously vote for an impeachment before the actual voting for removal can occur for Admins - meaning that the owner can appoint executives who won't go against the owner out of that reason.

For me to change my vote either of these things would have to happen:
A) Executives are no longer appointed by the owner
B) Executives aren't exclusive to the first impeachment vote (i.e we'll just have a solitary vote yes/no to remove the owner and anybody can propose this.) Thus Every Admin (including Executives) get a vote in the removal of the owner.
C) Somebody else than the owner chooses executives.

Frankly, I agree with miwo. I'm not saying you would ever do this Wild, but I can imagine a situation where an owner promotes executives who will all vote with the owner no matter the circumstance. Preventing the executives from voting in an ownership vote off is closer to leaning to away from the textbook corruption we have now than anything. Now, I hate to be the one to point this out but - it seems the people who have objected - one without an actual reason - are executives.

So, Vouch.

vouch literally to annoy the current execs

@xfilez#5263 We've literally had this scenario two months ago. And the owner prior to that just left out of nowhere. Two prime examples why this system is the most important benefactor for TF survival lol.

The reason I objected is because this suggestion is saying to bar Executives from voting at all as if they're not a part of the community?

"limit it to admins who aren't Executives" what kind of logic is that?

@elmon#5268 I see this as a superior to letting the executives vote whether or not to impeach the owner who will now be appointing them. I personally wouldn't want this, which is why I suggested three alternative scenarios.

I objected because if there's a community-wide vote, I, and the other executives, should be able to cast our vote as we are also part of the community.

I have objected or voiced concerns because while this sounds good. In reality it means every time I do something that upsets someone they will hold a vote off and the server will stall every time I sneeze.

If I didn't want to get voted off, I'd remove the ownership policy or that part of it if I'm being brutally honest. That's perfectly within my power technically speaking and while Mark might give the domain to someone else, it'd be a faff either way.

The reasons it was selected as executives was because they are a high bar of entry, and let me remind you all that at the time the ownership policy was written executives were appointed and not voted... This is no change different now to its original inception.

And for the record the "well I'm not saying you'd ever do this Ryan" line is sorta bullshit. You are saying exactly that you think I'd do this, otherwise you wouldn't be raising this suggestion... Just own it 😂

@wild1145#5277 No? Its definitely a valid concern considering we also trusted Seth to not go rogue. We certainly have credible reasons to be wary and to dismiss these arguments as nothing but personal quarrels with you is absurd.

@wild1145#5275

Quote

@wild1145#5275 and let me remind you all that at the time the ownership policy was written executives were appointed and not voted... This is no change different now to its original inception.

I dont see why this is even worth mentioning. "We cant make changes to new policy because it was already shit before" is not an argument.

@Miwojedk#5281 think you may have mis read. People are defending their decision here on the grounds of "well you'd never do that so it wouldn't affect you we trust you honest" which I'm saying is clearly not the case if that's the argument your making. I have no issue with people being concerned if go rogue, I'd rather they own it than hide behind excuses that's my point. Because ultimately it's a valid risk to consider. If it's actually a risk worth mitigating is an entirely different question and if what is proposed here is an appropriate mitigation is an entirely different question...

@Miwojedk#5283 because the entire argument so far is "Wild could appoint someone to stop him getting removed" which is exactly the way the original policy was introduced and such is a moot point to argue my recent change changes anything in any real way... If I really wanted I could circumvent whatever you do here, or simply decline this suggestion... I'm challenging what I believe to be a weak argument that has no real basis.