Our Ownership Policy is Shit

Vouch for Proposal 1 - but I'd like the execs to be appointed by the community, with the watch by a council (and no, not the OP council). This is because Wild made the owner be able to appoint executives, so that the execs weren't pressured in by the community. If we had a council monitoring it, researching deep into the candidates, it would be better for TF imo.

I have moved the 2 threads into this one because it was unnecessary to have it separate.

The part I omitted from the original thread is this

Quote

Since Flarum is shit I moved it to Strawpoll. I've given people the option of multiple votes, so that no complications/bias is inherent in the vote. if you wish to object to all proposals, then simply choose both of those options.

http://www.strawpoll.me/42450158

Feel free to call me a dickhead.

I would highly prefer the vote take place here rather than strawpoll, as it's not reliable.

Executives will continue to be put in to place by me, and that's not negotiable. The way it was running before was adding additional complexity and bureaucracy into a process for the sake of bureaucracy. I simply reverted our policies back to a stage where executives could be appointed based on the roles I need people to complete on my behalf.

I think it's also important that folks actually bother to read the ownership policy, because in reality it doesn't matter what the outcome of this thread is because there is only 2 actual scenarios whereby the executives have any power in the ownership policy in the first place which is:

Quote

Scenario 2

The owner has been grossly inactive, neglected their duties, and has not stepped down.

Scenario 3

The server has gone down due to a lack of funding. This does not include technical errors or temporary measures, but instead a permanent dissolution of the server.

In both of those scenarios (Which are the only ways an owner can be removed without me resigning) it really shouldn't make any difference who the executives are, because in scenario 3 I've ran with the donation money to the Bahamas and won't be coming back either way, and likewise in scenario 2... In either of those cases I wouldn't even be here on the server to care about being an owner, and neither would anyone else.

What this proposal actually does in banning executives from having the triggering vote is that we'll end up with a load more drama and issues when every man and his dog mus-understands the point of the ownership policy, and tries to vote me off because I banned them, suspended them, made a policy change like the executive one people don't like.

I will also re-iterate, the fact you've used this sentence:

Quote

@Miwojedk#5429 Thus, this is a blatant corruption issue that should be amended.

Is quite frankly as far as I'm concerned, a personal attack on my leadership of this server, because when we wrote this policy which the community agreed and that was discussed at length (Ownership policy for clarity) this wasn't corruption then, so why is my un-doing something that should frankly never have been done in the first place, now corrupt.

Please, if you're going to actually accuse me of being corrupt, damn well say own it, if not stop making such claims and attacking the way I'm running this server, because it really is I feel quite unfair.

@Ashaz#5432 the council in this example would serve no purpose different to that which executives are intended to hold... We'd be back here in a few weeks arguing how to appoint people to it.

At the end of the day, I'm the server owner and if I'm going to need to delegate things to others then I need to be able to actually do that. Otherwise I'll find other ways to achieve effectively the same thing which I can assure you would only end up further making this argument a moot point in the first place.

@Miwojedk#5436 Your post literally (as I explained) makes it very clear that's what you are saying.

I will take it personally because your telling me that despite being voted in by the staff here, I'm not good enough to be able to do the job I've been appointed to do.

Read your post and put yourself in my shoes. Let me tell you with posts like these it's a really shit place to be, and shows how a lot of the server don't really care about anyone but themselves.

I am against proposal 1 as I don't think it is necessary and ultimately doesn't resolve the problem - the ownership policy would not require future owners (which by the way I don't think we'll see any time soon) to elect executives. I trust Wild to appoint executives especially considering, in my mind, the role of the executives is to do the stuff Wild would otherwise have to do.

Proposal 2 is problematic to me because I don't want to see a single admin (or even a small group of admins) who have taken exception to something Wild has done attempting to replace Wild - that just seems like a problem waiting to happen. At an push I might consider allowing a supermajority of senior admins (not sure the exact number) to begin a vote-off in lieu of the unanimous agreement of executives - but I'm not too happy with this either.

Ultimately I think the ownership policy is not designed to be easy to activate. It is not supposed to be an easy thing to do. It is not supposed to be activated every time something unpopular happens. It is there for an exceptional circumstance that would cause most servers to cease to exist. I am concerned that if either suggestion goes through in full, we could see attempts to initiate the ownership policy for matters that don't fall under the scenarios.

Just for clarification, is this how Mark ran things when he was owner?

@redeastwood#5441 No, Mark appointed his own executives as he saw fit, and there was no ownership policy during his time as owner, he selected Windows as his successor with no community involvement. The community were only empowered to make suggestions, not mandate change.

Quote

@Miwojedk#5439 It’s frankly quite sad if you actually take these threads so close to heart that you think we’re insulting you. I choose to believe that you don’t, and that you’re simply obfuscating. Feel free to tell me otherwise, but so far I, nor anybody else, have attacked you, nor intended to “insult” or “accuse” you of anything. Saying “this is a blatant corruption issue that should be amended.” is in noway an insult, and the only way you could see it is if you purposefully misconstrue it as such.

You're making a suggestion, where you literally state that my selecting the executives which could remove me is "Corruption"... I'm not sure how I can't take that personally? Given I've put a lot of time, effort and more recently money into this server since I joined in 2012, it is genuinely upsetting when people actively try to undermine my decisions, and justify it while then twisting my words to suggest that I'm not doing the best I can do here, with quite frankly my hands tied behind my back because the community keep trying to run this server instead of me, and that's something I've made clear from day 1 would not happen.

Quote

@Miwojedk#5439 Just because you’re not here doesn’t negate the fact that plenty of people have already made clear that they’d be willing to take up the mantle as owner of the server. I don’t get why you think it’s a valid concern (or point therof) that the owner (not you specifically, I can’t believe I have to make this so clear), would “run with the money to the Bahamas. So yes, this is actually something that would be a nessecity in the future. And no, neither of these proposals would trigger any “drama”, and I can simply point to the past use of the ownership policy.

The ownership policy historically has only actually ever been invokved during one scenario:

Quote

Scenario 3

The server has gone down due to a lack of funding. This does not include technical errors or temporary measures, but instead a permanent dissolution of the server.

So would you also suggest if we're basing everything off of past usage, that we remove scenario 1 and 2? It's also important to note that having executives where there are generally very few of them, to be able to control the potential flood gates proved to be exceptionally valuable to the process, else every time someone here goes "Well I don't like you so I'll call you negligible and vote you off" is going to cause utter anarchy, and we both know there are plenty of people in this community that are that petty.

Quote

@Miwojedk#5439 “Executives will continue to be put in to place by me, and that's not negotiable.”
And another thing that is dissapointing is that you admit that you’d simply stick two fingers in each ear if the community has a legit concern instead of trying to mitigate this concern.

I've already flexed on my original position. The community doesn't run this server, I do. If the community doesn't like that, then at this point maybe the community should be finding other servers to play on, rather than moan that they have no power, because at the end of the day this isn't a democracy.

Quote

@Miwojedk#5439 Then perhaps you're not fit to be owner if this is how you're going to take any constructive criticism in this manner. I don't understand how this thread, nor any of my other concerns in other instances display me as being full of myself? I've criticized every past owner, some more than others, but it's all come from me wanting a better server?

There is nothing constructive about this, that very quickly ended on the last thread, where the OP was in fact (And as I've said before) a knee-jerk reaction to the other thread. I don't think it's wrong to care about the server, or my position on it, especially when I'm the one funding it, and putting considerable amounts of my time into maintaining it and trying to grow it. This in my view has long since gone past genuine criticism and is reaching the point of just attacking the fact that I want to be able to run this server like I've told people I would from day 1, people signed up for that, it's too late to change your minds now.

This suggestion, as with the last one does nothing but water down an existing policy which took weeks to get community approval, and ultimately goes against it's original inception as I've already stated multiple times.

I don't mind suggestions, and I don't mind genuine constructive criticism, but this is now reaching the point where enough is enough, and people need to remember that this is a minecraft server, to which I own, and the community is just that, a community. We're not a democracy, and while I have said from the start that I will take the communities views on board, it won't govern what I do.

It's clear this isn't being listened to, and my mind has already been made up. I'm making changes that I feel are in the best interest of the server. I've made my position very clear, and I've yet to see a good reason to re-consider either of these options beyond that the community want to take additional power which quite honestly isn't a sensible way to run a server...

Suggestion declined.