Exclude Executives from Owner Vote-Off

@wild1145#5284 i think you are the one not understanding. I am in full agreement with OPs proposal if no other changes were to be made. Its not an "excuse" to raise the fact that there is always a possibility for an owner to go rogue, and thus to dismiss this and tell people to "own it" is ludicrous. You are taking this personally when its not.

Quote

@wild1145#5285 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

No it's not a moot point wtf. You are not challenging anything we say by making a fallacious argument essentially saying that it's silly for us to now suddenly wish for certain changes.
If policies were shit before, then they are still shit.

To somehow misconstrue this into being meant as some sort of personal insult or grudge against you is ridiculous. Again, I am in complete agreement with OP in the current context. However, I also see some better alternatives, which is why I listed them in my comment above. We arent arguing your recent "changes" change anything (wtf does that even mean?). If we want a policy amended, then we want it amended. Period.

is this what i look like when i argue on the forum? damm i need a life

Vouch

@Miwojedk#5287 I'm sorry if I take this personally, but at the end of the day it really is and people either need to own that fact, or they're just kidding themselves... As I've said in my other posts here, this thread is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a change I made to reverse a policy change that happened under Seth, which I thought was wrong. Imagine if this change goes through and every time I make a thread that 1 admin disagrees with, the entire vote off process starts. It would fucking destroy this server, because during that time, there is no owner, I get to just sit here doing absolutely nothing, or be accused of tampering / fucking with the results...

I take it personally because quite frankly, this entire thread is. The sooner people realise that the better...

@Miwojedk#5288 It absolutely is, you're trying to make changes to a policy as a reaction to a change I made, that reversed the policy in question to the state whereby the ownership policy was introduced... I've reversed a change not made a new one... So it absolutely is in my view a moot point because we had exactly the same potential situation when this first was discussed, and somehow we all agreed to live with it, so why is it when I make the change to reverse it that's suddenly no longer acceptable...?

Actually, this post is in direct response to my changing of the executive policy... If you look at the times and some of the earlier responses, that's why this thread is made. So you are absolutely arguing here that my change to reverse a historic decision is suddenly not acceptable.

All I'm saying here is people need to actually think this through, because this does nothing but undermine my ability to do my job by enabling every man and his dog to vote me off every time I do ANYTHING on this server, which is a really fucking stupid place to be.

@wild1145#5330 You keep going in circles. I never agreed to “live” with any of your proposals in regards to the ownership policy and executives. There was literally a call-out thread where not a single comment was for your enacted changes. @zekurt said it best,

Quote

Changes that were implemented through a vote by the community should in turn be removed via a vote. If you're able to present plausible merit for removing it, the community vote will reflect that.

Again, the reason why I am against your changes is because it foster a crony enviroment wherein the owner now appoints the executives, whom are the ones who are going to decide whether or not to impeach (xd) the owner. Good luck to the server if they want a new owner, but the executives don’t, because they are loyal to said owner. Saying that you think it’s strange that the community now all of a sudden are against a policy, because it’s you who enacted/reversed it is silly. For a third time: you can change your mind. I don’t know which policies you are referring to then you say you “reversed” this change, but that doesn’t matter, because I am still against this policy.
There is nothing in this thread that you can point to that even hints at anything being meant as a personal attack against you, which is also why you just keep going in circles saying shit like

Quote

but at the end of the day it really is and people either need to own that fact, or they're just kidding themselves..
I take it personally because quite frankly, this entire thread is. The sooner people realise that the better…

Which is why I’ve pointed this out already on the thread. I already told you why I am against the change you’ve made, which is I why I see it as unfair and disingenuine to simply dismiss my argument to an insult. There is no reason to take these suggestions so personally, when all they aim for is for the betterment of TF.
I’ve outlined my reason for supporting this proposal in my first comment above:

Quote

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.

But I also gave three (better) alternatives to this proposal, whom you seemingly continue to ignore. And even if this suggestion was to have community support (seems like it’s 50/50 atm) and were to be implemented that certainly doesn’t entail that every Admin will make a vote-off thread for you everytime you make a some-what controversial decision. The only times a discussion for a vote-off thread has come up was due to blatant abuse or lack of commitment from the server owner, so to somehow argue that this suggestion is a slippery slope is honestly laughable.
If you don’t believe in your Admin team, then why do you have it?

why don't we just require people who object on an ownership vote off to give a valid reason and allow every admin to vote?

@square#5413 What's a valid reason?

@Miwojedk#5414 a reason that is valid

@square#5415 Every reason you give is invalid like yourself.

Locking this thread as the OP has withdrawn it. If you wish to continue this suggestion then a separate thread can be created.