Remove ads

Council Election Policy Adjustment

Stop: This Is Unacceptable
  • Staff Post
    • hghwolf said:
    This was one of the proposals that reached the outside that I've wanted to see implemented most strongly, and I'm happy to see it get done in time to potentially make ████ unelectable.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    this is unacceptable Singling someone out like this is unacceptable. We have no idea, behind our monitors, what struggles others may have in their lives. This is unnecessary to your point and serves only to demean another user. I have no choice but to infract you under Rule 3, and threadban you.

    Please do not do this again. Thanks for your time.
     
  • Staff Post
    • This seems sensible enough. Not sure why it's needed, since I doubt Councilors that were fully inactive would seek reelection, but it doesn't hurt to have it on the books.

    For the record: how long would they have to fill out the form? It would be silly if an active councilor was banned from reelection because they couldn't go online for a couple of weeks.
     
    Sono said:
    This seems sensible enough. Not sure why it's needed, since I doubt Councilors that were fully inactive would seek reelection, but it doesn't hurt to have it on the books.

    For the record: how long would they have to fill out the form? It would be silly if an active councilor was banned from reelection because they couldn't go online for a couple of weeks.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Councilors were told during the onboarding session back last September that there would be a roughly two week period in late July to early August where said survey would need to be filled out. It was open for two weeks, with every councilor getting notifications at least twice before and more during that window.

    To be frank, all the councilors that I consider active are either active on SV or the SV admin discord (many both) on a near-daily basis, with few missing even a single week from one platform and a decent grapevine to let people know if you'd be missing more than that on both. If someone had communicated even a one-off that they couldn't do the survey either before or during the roughly month we knew about or had access to the survey, staff would have likely worked with them. That said, the survey was not arduous - I don't think it took me more than an hour, and unless you were writing full essays for each short response section it wouldn't have taken that much longer.

    Ultimately, though, when we were introduced to the council, one of the things that all of us wanted was to make SV *better.* If someone burnt out enough, or decided to treat it as purely a position of prestige, Instead of a (fairly unarduous) responsibility… they are welcome to run again in the future, of course, but taking a term off is in the best interests of the site as a whole. If I thought that I wasn't doing more good being on the council than retiring, I would do so. I would like to think that all of us agree on that.
     
    First I want to say that I wholly agree with your decision. A mechanism for internal Council cohesion and continuity seems desirable even if not 100% democratic. And the very low amount of power it has when compared to the actual forum wide vote makes me not feel worried at all.

    Also, for some reason I'm a sucker for seemingly complicated election systems that grew organically out of practical needs and circumstances. And seeing them in action in something less impactful than actual national government elections is going to be fun.

    Pawn Lelouch said:
    There was one abstention from voting
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    May I as if that Councillor gave a reason for why they abstained.
     
    Student of Zelretch said:
    The abstaining councilor was the one who both conceptualized and drafted the proposal.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Yep, I functionally abstained till one option was ahead by one and none of the remaining councilors were likely to vote, having been pinged daily for multiple weeks.

    I was rather obviously fine with either option left in the running so I +1'd the one ahead since tying it would be causing chaos for the sake of it. I figured I should have as minimal as possible of an impact on the voting to reduce any potential perverse incentives.
     
    Last edited:
    Sono said:
    This seems sensible enough. Not sure why it's needed, since I doubt Councilors that were fully inactive would seek reelection, but it doesn't hurt to have it on the books.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I'm under the impression this has actually happened; at least once, possibly much more. Mind you, sometimes they might be inactive due to extenuating circumstances, but even in this thread someone mentioned this has always been a problem. And the 'prestige' issue might be a thing, too; being on Council has some weight in this community, so seeking out election without necessarily wanting (or knowing) the work involved is another distinct possibility.

    (I know I wouldn't even consider it, for instance; much as I might like a bit of fame or some influence, there's absolutely no way I could ever actually work on Council even if I somehow got in. An expectation that Council involves regular discussion is reasonable to me, and the policy seems quite fair.)
     
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top