UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/ARE
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
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:
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
- hurrrr-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- durrrr 05:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- gurrrr —Aichon— 05:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- burrrr --Bob Boberton TF / DW 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- )c-c-c-combo breaker! -- 06:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- For.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- LETTERurrrrrrrr AM I COOL YET Cyberbob Talk 05:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I approve of this policy. --Thadeous Oakley 10:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- According to SA, I'm a cunt, but I'll still go For.-- Adward 12:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Against
- Eight months is fine. Linkthewindow Talk 05:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- We haven't even had one 8 month term yet. Unneeded change -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:57 10 January 2010 (BST)
- 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)