Post by Zucceta on Jun 18, 2015 12:45:57 GMT
Prior Threads
wodsouls.freeforums.net/thread/1628/representative-democracy-dictatorship-baby-urgent
wodsouls.freeforums.net/thread/3263/urgent-discussion-re-structuring-democracy
wodsouls.freeforums.net/thread/3568/re-structure-vote
Hyoza's Restructure
![Hyoza Avatar](http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g431/Tuskbreaker/hyozav1.jpg)
The system I propose (and have already discussed with several other members of the staff team) would work as follows:
- Staff are given control over rules and mechanical changes as a process. Resolutions are still voted upon, but internally by the staff team themselves.
Generally, staff are the most well-informed members with regards to current events, and the overall metagame of the site. No disrespect is meant when I say the staff are better at designing rules and mechanics than anyone else. They have experience, they have a direct interest in it. It's their job. This new way of working will cut down enormously on the bureaucratic aspect of making proposed ideas into finalised content.
- The suggestions and polling route for implementing ideas will remain in place for members. Staff are required to carry out resolutions that pass through this route, unless there is a unanimous staff vote to stall the resolution. This is not an outright denial, but a delay to attempt to negotiate a more satisfactory resolution with all parties.
This is where we begin to see how the members still maintain considerable power within this new system. Simply put, staff cannot ignore or bluntly refuse ideas put forward by members. This is also a way for members to contest changes made by the staff independently that they disagree with. This provides recourse against the actions of staff if they prove unpopular with members.
Though the staff may stall a contentious idea, this is a system in place only to prevent potentially disastrous ideas from being implemented, or to prevent abuses of the voting system. As you can see, the staff cannot stall unless they unanimously vote to do so. One dissenting staff member is enough to negate the possibility of stalling a proposal.
- Staff MAY NOT make any further changes to disciplinary or voting processes without going through the public voting channel for approval by the entire membership.
Simply put, this is another check on abuse of power by the staff. Staff cannot modify the disciplinary process (though members will be expected to keep up with rules changes) to allow them to more easily punish members. Nor can they make changes to the voting process which could potentially reduce the power of members under the new system.
That's my proposal. Please let me know what your thoughts are, and any suggestions for additions/modifications to the current rules. Whether you support, disagree, or are on the fence, this idea is one that affects the whole site and its future direction. PLEASE respond.
Bao's Organisational Restructure
![President Bao Avatar](//storage.proboards.com/5453652/avatar/2_CRaXl5i7Vuv7m4j0vc.gif)
The aspects which have lead to the current situation and need to be addressed are:
- Backbone: When this was a smaller operation I was the backbone, I was one of the main 'doers' around here cause there simply weren't other people dedicated to doing so. Back then the volume of changes was also smaller(more on this later*), and the amount of day-to-day work also smaller. Day-to-day is always higher priority then new content, the present is always before the future, and so most staff are diverted to that.
To solve this, we need enough actual day-workers, and then with that covered we need more people to actively take on responsibilities, *and fufill them*. I have created processes, but with no one owning the fulfilment role things always fall back to me again, and prioritisation then leaves them sitting on hiatus.[case in point, the wodsouls list of things to do, no one except me ever updates or works on it... or the threads to discuss process]
- Knowledge: Having been in this position, and often being the main designer of many proposals(partially cause it's my interest area, I've been here longer than anyone else, and I have a background in this stuff), my knowledge of the system has become more imbedded than most, undocumented/misunderstood aspects meaning that others simply don't know what I know and aren't aware of a given issues/concerns until I come and point it out. This is a problem.
To solve this, we need people who will chase up knowledge and then document the discoveries. Who will supervise their area(s) of specialisation, so that someone can be like 'oh, you have a question about Transformations? Check with X, they've been looking after that features knowledge base'.
- Mistakes: mistakes have been made, and debt has been acquired because of them. A recent smaller example is Vi-poi attempting to help implement the banners, but not being aware of the prerequisite that the images needed to have their format changed, and ideally be hosted internally[causing wasted time and a site which in the mean time is loading very slowly for me, as no one has taken that job for me]. An older example was when the species apps were updated, and misinformation was included - a debt we're still struggling to pay down.
The way to solve this is to solve the above two issues, and ensure a proper roadmap and focus. We need to take a leaf from professional development studios in this respect, and plan out our focuses and implementation strategies in advance, officially assign priorities, and track our development cycle.
- Consistency: pretty simple, I've come to be the main man partially because I have always been here, recently my free time is low but I'm always at it, every single lunch break and all weekend. While others quit, went on holidays, or generally did not meet the requirements of their assigned tasks [not insulting any staff past or present, just noting various 'anti-consistencies']. A building needs pillars to hold it up. We need people in staff who are properly going to stick to it, and who can be assigned a task and acctually do it fully and competently. It may sound like a no brainer but training up people takes a lot of time and effort, which gets wasted if they aren't dependable long term. Once we have this, more lower priority aspects can get attention faster.
Tariph's Republic
![tariph Avatar](http://i59.tinypic.com/2pqjacm.jpg)
That way people can still throw out ideas and discuss them; if it's an idea that people are in favor of, a staff member or member who oppose it can debate the pros and cons given to them by members who cared enough PM to the debaters about why they think it's a good idea or not.
When everyone's had their say it moves to a vote with the pros and cons summarized and listed below the idea's description. There would be a limited voting time, I think the max should be 30 days, and if no one's voted within that timeframe it's either soft-vetoed out or put back up and re-advertised.
Anyone who votes has to at least say which they voted for and why (at least give a line from the pro/con list and say I agree with that) and if there's a vote without a statement it's not acknowledged, because we can't guaranty that person read beyond two lines and just pressed a yes/no. If it's a tie, the moderators break it, but would need at least 2 mods over half to veto the idea (So moderator ties don't matter, the majority opinion has to be No for something to not pass)
Koramund's Republic
i vote we make this a democratic republic, where we vote for leaders who share our views and they make the decision. we will have a vote every 3 months, and the leaders will show their posts in the voting for a week. That vote during the week will decide if the leader should stay or go.
wodsouls.freeforums.net/thread/1628/representative-democracy-dictatorship-baby-urgent
wodsouls.freeforums.net/thread/3263/urgent-discussion-re-structuring-democracy
wodsouls.freeforums.net/thread/3568/re-structure-vote
Hyoza's Restructure
![Hyoza Avatar](http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g431/Tuskbreaker/hyozav1.jpg)
The system I propose (and have already discussed with several other members of the staff team) would work as follows:
- Staff are given control over rules and mechanical changes as a process. Resolutions are still voted upon, but internally by the staff team themselves.
Generally, staff are the most well-informed members with regards to current events, and the overall metagame of the site. No disrespect is meant when I say the staff are better at designing rules and mechanics than anyone else. They have experience, they have a direct interest in it. It's their job. This new way of working will cut down enormously on the bureaucratic aspect of making proposed ideas into finalised content.
- The suggestions and polling route for implementing ideas will remain in place for members. Staff are required to carry out resolutions that pass through this route, unless there is a unanimous staff vote to stall the resolution. This is not an outright denial, but a delay to attempt to negotiate a more satisfactory resolution with all parties.
This is where we begin to see how the members still maintain considerable power within this new system. Simply put, staff cannot ignore or bluntly refuse ideas put forward by members. This is also a way for members to contest changes made by the staff independently that they disagree with. This provides recourse against the actions of staff if they prove unpopular with members.
Though the staff may stall a contentious idea, this is a system in place only to prevent potentially disastrous ideas from being implemented, or to prevent abuses of the voting system. As you can see, the staff cannot stall unless they unanimously vote to do so. One dissenting staff member is enough to negate the possibility of stalling a proposal.
- Staff MAY NOT make any further changes to disciplinary or voting processes without going through the public voting channel for approval by the entire membership.
Simply put, this is another check on abuse of power by the staff. Staff cannot modify the disciplinary process (though members will be expected to keep up with rules changes) to allow them to more easily punish members. Nor can they make changes to the voting process which could potentially reduce the power of members under the new system.
That's my proposal. Please let me know what your thoughts are, and any suggestions for additions/modifications to the current rules. Whether you support, disagree, or are on the fence, this idea is one that affects the whole site and its future direction. PLEASE respond.
Bao's Organisational Restructure
![President Bao Avatar](http://storage.proboards.com/5453652/avatar/2_CRaXl5i7Vuv7m4j0vc.gif)
The aspects which have lead to the current situation and need to be addressed are:
- Backbone: When this was a smaller operation I was the backbone, I was one of the main 'doers' around here cause there simply weren't other people dedicated to doing so. Back then the volume of changes was also smaller(more on this later*), and the amount of day-to-day work also smaller. Day-to-day is always higher priority then new content, the present is always before the future, and so most staff are diverted to that.
To solve this, we need enough actual day-workers, and then with that covered we need more people to actively take on responsibilities, *and fufill them*. I have created processes, but with no one owning the fulfilment role things always fall back to me again, and prioritisation then leaves them sitting on hiatus.[case in point, the wodsouls list of things to do, no one except me ever updates or works on it... or the threads to discuss process]
- Knowledge: Having been in this position, and often being the main designer of many proposals(partially cause it's my interest area, I've been here longer than anyone else, and I have a background in this stuff), my knowledge of the system has become more imbedded than most, undocumented/misunderstood aspects meaning that others simply don't know what I know and aren't aware of a given issues/concerns until I come and point it out. This is a problem.
To solve this, we need people who will chase up knowledge and then document the discoveries. Who will supervise their area(s) of specialisation, so that someone can be like 'oh, you have a question about Transformations? Check with X, they've been looking after that features knowledge base'.
- Mistakes: mistakes have been made, and debt has been acquired because of them. A recent smaller example is Vi-poi attempting to help implement the banners, but not being aware of the prerequisite that the images needed to have their format changed, and ideally be hosted internally[causing wasted time and a site which in the mean time is loading very slowly for me, as no one has taken that job for me]. An older example was when the species apps were updated, and misinformation was included - a debt we're still struggling to pay down.
The way to solve this is to solve the above two issues, and ensure a proper roadmap and focus. We need to take a leaf from professional development studios in this respect, and plan out our focuses and implementation strategies in advance, officially assign priorities, and track our development cycle.
- Consistency: pretty simple, I've come to be the main man partially because I have always been here, recently my free time is low but I'm always at it, every single lunch break and all weekend. While others quit, went on holidays, or generally did not meet the requirements of their assigned tasks [not insulting any staff past or present, just noting various 'anti-consistencies']. A building needs pillars to hold it up. We need people in staff who are properly going to stick to it, and who can be assigned a task and acctually do it fully and competently. It may sound like a no brainer but training up people takes a lot of time and effort, which gets wasted if they aren't dependable long term. Once we have this, more lower priority aspects can get attention faster.
Tariph's Republic
![tariph Avatar](http://i59.tinypic.com/2pqjacm.jpg)
That way people can still throw out ideas and discuss them; if it's an idea that people are in favor of, a staff member or member who oppose it can debate the pros and cons given to them by members who cared enough PM to the debaters about why they think it's a good idea or not.
When everyone's had their say it moves to a vote with the pros and cons summarized and listed below the idea's description. There would be a limited voting time, I think the max should be 30 days, and if no one's voted within that timeframe it's either soft-vetoed out or put back up and re-advertised.
Anyone who votes has to at least say which they voted for and why (at least give a line from the pro/con list and say I agree with that) and if there's a vote without a statement it's not acknowledged, because we can't guaranty that person read beyond two lines and just pressed a yes/no. If it's a tie, the moderators break it, but would need at least 2 mods over half to veto the idea (So moderator ties don't matter, the majority opinion has to be No for something to not pass)
Koramund's Republic
![Koramund Avatar](http://i.picresize.com/images/2015/04/13/vas0N.jpg)