| Poll: In what ways should an admin be recalled? (select *any* of the following - you may choose more than one) You do not have permission to vote in this poll. |
|||
| Admin vote. | 15 | 53.57% | |
| Assembly recall vote. | 1 | 3.57% | |
| Assembly recall vote - but only after a factfinding report is published. | 4 | 14.29% | |
| Judicial tribunal. | 4 | 14.29% | |
| Independent tribunal. | 4 | 14.29% | |
| An admin should not be removed ever. | 0 | 0% | |
| Total | 28 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
| Adminstration |
|
The independent review is essentially the Judiciary building a report for the Assembly and the Admins -- because I didn't like the idea of the Assembly not voting on these matters without all of the facts "on the table".
Maybe the section should be named "Article 4: Recall" so people don't get the wrong idea. I was vague on the specifics of infractions because I didn't want the proposal to step on the toes of admins. If the admins want us to encode the infractions, we could beef up Article 3 with more specifics for sure - but you guys have to speak up! 
I mean -- I'll throw this to GR and Kris -- but I'd sooner the infractions be there than not. I just don't think it's ideal to determine how exactly we define the infractions because then it's gets too complex.
Im not sure how I feel on this. Especially Article 4. I think it should be an admin decision to remove an admin, unless there are outside factors. If an admin is convicted of a crime, then they should be under admin review, not judicial review. Thats double jeopardy...
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
I think Unibot's proposals are incredibly bad, and in someways actually dangerous. To start with, they are utterly irrelevant and completely useless. The problem we had was, quite simply, a rogue root admin. No amount of bureaucratic regulations will mean a damn thing in that scenario, for the simple reason that a rogue root who is prepared to ignore both the internal admin team procedures and the law cannot be made to comply with them. Telling someone that they "should recognize all internal policies" does nothing if they're not willing to do so. That simple fact renders the entire concept utterly redundant.
More broadly, I think this would politicize the administration process in very dangerous ways. The assembly is a fundamentally political body, and therefore giving it control over who is or isn't an admin transforms that into a political decision. What is even worse, it renders it into a popularity contest. Administration should exist as a self-selecting technocratic meritocracy, utterly separate from the political process. 90% of Articles 1-3 already existed, via internal admin procedures. The problem was that they were simply ignored by a rogue root. I would assume that they are largely back in place, as the new admin team will be establishing internal procedures. Moderation policies should hopefully be published soon - I would recommend simply keeping the most recent set from the old forums, as I think they were sound. A knee jerk reaction to the actions of one rogue root admin is a bad idea. The fact that you want to politicize the administration process at the same time makes it a dangerous one. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
I don't think it's accurate to pinpoint all if the problems with the previous administration team solely on Hileville.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the vast majority of them can be, actually. As far as I'm aware he was the only admin taking unilateral action, illegally banning citizens, breaking internal admin team procedure, and threatening to take down the forums if he didn't get his own way. Aside from these, what other issues were there?
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Ok, yall. Lets not make this about the past. Lets keep our eye on the future.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium Quote:90% of Articles 1-3 already existed, via internal admin procedures. The problem was that they were simply ignored by a rogue root. I would assume that they are largely back in place, as the new admin team will be establishing internal procedures. Moderation policies should hopefully be published soon - I would recommend simply keeping the most recent set from the old forums, as I think they were sound. You know there's a quote from Einstein where he said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Yes, the regulation in Article 1-3 is not particularly groundbreaking. But there is something to be said about it being written in our laws and accepted by our community, then just maintained in a dusty internal policy. Could it improve behavior if these expectations were not only admin policy, but regional law? I believe it can. I also think it will lead to a paradigm shift - the relationship between the Admins and the Government should be mutually cooperative, not the Admins as a unilateral imposition above the Government that it totally separate from our constitutional structure. The latter was the framework that was popularized by Hileville and others (let not forget that Hileville's views were incredibly popular for a long time -- it's only now that criticism is starting to catch up). Quote:Im not sure how I feel on this. Especially Article 4. I think it should be an admin decision to remove an admin, unless there are outside factors. If an admin is convicted of a crime, then they should be under admin review, not judicial review. Thats double jeopardy... Rebel, just to clarify: the judicial review does not convict anyone of anything - it builds a report for the Assembly and the Admins. It's like a fact-finding mission. Seems to me that the current opposition is to Article 4 and Tsu also proposed encoded infractions in Article 3. The main questions then we can ask are: 1) In what ways should an admin be removed? 2) What should a vague outline of how infractions work?
Perhaps I'm being naive here, but I trust TSP to not make admin posts a "political" position. A nomination by the current admin team and an approval vote by the Assembly seems logical to me. My assumption is that it will be pretty rubber stamped, but I still think it's an important part of the process.
The rest of it can be whatever -- the Assembly decides, the administration decides, whatever. But I think an approval and recall process will help restore faith in the admin team.
At the top of the thread I have begun a poll to help steer the proposal towards finding a general consensus around the recall measures. My current proposal is "Admin vote" + "Assembly recall vote - but only after a factfinding report is published". Rebel and others expressed concerns with allowing the Assembly to vote on the matter, although Tsunamy and myself believed there should be some mechanism for recourse outside of the Admin appellate system.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |