UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/ARE

Simple.

Modify the re-evaluations guidelines to have one every 6 months for a System Operator instead of 8.

I'd much rather it be four, but everyone won't like it because that's too constant. On the other hand, 8 is much too long of a time span for a bad 'op to stay in power once he gets promoted/passes his revaluation bid.

We don't have a clause for interim evaluations or any other policy bound way of getting rid of a bad 'op, so I feel a shortening of the time span is a decent idea.

DISCUSS.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. hurrrr-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
2. durrrr 05:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
3. gurrrr —Aichon— 05:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
4. burrrr --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
5. )c-c-c-combo breaker! -- 
   •   Timmah!  
   •   Talk  
   06:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
6. For.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
7. LETTERurrrrrrrr AM I COOL YET Cyberbob  Talk  05:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   No, you're not-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Fuck I just realised that that is exactly the kind of joke jed makes Cyberbob  Talk  09:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   8B -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

8. I approve of this policy. --Thadeous Oakley 10:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
9. According to SA, I'm a cunt, but I'll still go For.-- Adward  12:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
10. For --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
11. furrrr --Haliman - Talk 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Yes. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 22:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
13. --
     
     
     
     
    02:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Against

1. Eight months is fine. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   You're a cunt.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Don't mind me. I'm just raging against the bandwagon. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Which is why you're a cunt. :( -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 09:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

2. We haven't even had one 8 month term yet. Unneeded change -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:57 10 January 2010 (BST)
3. I thought the 8 month term was recently voted in? Why not wait till at least the end of a term? I see no drastic reason for change --C Whitty 14:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
4. fuck you SA!----Sexualharrison 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
5. As Box. =/ This is silly since we havent even hit eight months yet. -- Cheese 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   So what you're saying is you'd rather wait until we do have a bad 'op let in? k-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   stop fucking saying "'op" thanks in advance Cyberbob  Talk  06:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   If you insist.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well it's more the apostrophe that annoys me than anything else, dunno why :\ Cyberbob  Talk  13:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   Either way, if you want me to stop doing it, it's not too big of a deal. Sysop sounds better than 'op anyway.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 14:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

6. nay, because im a dick Ripf22 03:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Nay, because the person who brought the policy just wants to vote on getting rid of people more often. How about a policy on voting to get rid of SA every week? I'd be for that. --Funt Solo ^QT 05:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   I would approve of that, just for hilarity's sake. --Thadeous Oakley 10:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   So who brought you out of retirement?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

8. This is ridiculous. Give the current policy time to work.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)