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)

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)