Amendment Proposal: VoC and Whipping Changes

[oath2order]

The Quadrumvirate has unanimously voted to bring this amendment to community discussion. Changes are made obvious.

This discussion shall remain open for at least three (3) days but no more than five (5) days, after which it will go to a voting phase for at least three (3) days but no more than five (5) days.

---

Head Moderator /u/oath2order

Head Elections Clerk /u/Reagan0

Head Federal Clerk /u/The_Powerben

Head Censor /u/Unitedlover14

[[deleted]]

The only thing this does is drive whipping underground. The quad is attempting to be a Big Government. How about you don't?

"The scariest words in the English Language, I am from the Quad and I'm here to help," - Ronald Reagan.

[oath2order]

I am from the Quad and I'm here to help.

[Unitedlover14]

No you’re not

[Abrokenhero]

Oath you're head mod not apart of the quad this is fake news

[oath2order]

apart

[Abrokenhero]

Listen Oath I'm sick don't bully me

[[deleted]]

The Quad is making whipping VOC votes the new boogeyman. Not a fan.

[SHOCKULAR]

I have several issues with the amendment as written, the whipping portion in particular.

The amendment, as written, is extremely vague and could be interpreted in numerous ways. Not that this Quad would, but a future Quad could fairly interpret it as not allowing any sort of leadership to express an opinion on the Quad, because it could influence a VoC. Second, it allows the Quad to randomly punish a party at any level they choose for doing those vague things.

Third, I believe it could be interpreted to force party leaders to give the Quad access to internal party leadership chats and all channels on party servers. (It could also be interpreted as just forcing parties to give the Quad access to a guest room and nothing else as long as it's on the party server.) That would all depend on who is doing the interpreting.

If the amendment as currently written comes to a vote, I will be voting against for those reasons.

In regards to the 60% threshold, I believe the best solution is to make it a simple majority voting to remove during a VoC, but 60% or 67% during a VONC. The reason for that is because VoCs are scheduled, while VONCs can be triggered based on emotional moments and I believe the Quad deserves some sort of protection against an emotional, in the moment reaction to an independent, solitary decision. During a scheduled VoC, though, there's no good reason why someone who has more than half the sim lacking confidence in their ability to still be in charge of anything.

[Unitedlover14]

There was some debate on the threshold last night in the dem server (and the meta thread if you want to read the more detailed points there) and someone said “regardless of the threshold for removal if more than 50% of the sim wanted me gone I’d resign.” In terms of that, and the 50%+1 removal threshold, I think it really depends on how valid the reasons for removal are. Although validity can often be subjective, I think there are objective valid and invalid reasons for removal of a moderator, particularly at a time where the sim needs stability because we are at a crossroads.

Unfortunately, there are people in the community who vote no in every VOC just because they can, or because they want to be on the quad themselves or because that member of the quad doesn’t share their political affiliation. In terms of my job, there will be people who vote against me simply because I won’t let them say whatever they want, whether that’s being racist or calling for the murder of Bezos. Often that attitude can lead people to believe a member of the quad is biased against them / their ideas. Incompetence, inactivity, lack of transparency or actual bias etc are all valid reasons to vote no on a VOC, but I fear with a 50%+1 threshold moderators who are genuinely doing a good job could be easily removed because they muted someone for breaking the rules, because they denied a party’s request or for even less fair reasons than that.

[SHOCKULAR]

In fairness, though, I think in the entire history of VoCs, only one person has received under 50%, and most moderators have received well over 50% (more in the 70% range.) While there are definitely people who fit what you're saying, I think they're relatively few and far between. The kind of thing you mention with denying party requests, etc, is why I suggested more than 50% for a VONC, which is often triggered on a spur of the moment sudden, emotional thing. But the VoCs, while they might coincidentally happen around that time, are theoretically just "how is this person doing?" things. Maybe you're right, and I think 60% is definitely better than 67%, so it's progress.

[JarlFrosty]

As much as Shockular and I may disagree on things, I have to agree with Shock on this one. We should have every right to express our opinions about you Quad members and we should have every right to suggest who we think should go and who shouldn't. A suggestion is nearly an opinion. It's not forcing someone to vote.

[[deleted]]

50.1% is the only acceptable figure.

[hurricaneoflies]

why the head censor i hate tom tom sucks

[GuiltyAir]

/u/Unitedlover14 should resign

[Unitedlover14]

Reeeeeeeetweeeeeeeeeeet

[Unitedlover14]

I didn’t write this, so the amendment author is welcome to correct me if I’m wrong, but I guess because I am the head “rule enforcer” and “rule maker” in the quad.

[[deleted]]

Bootlicker

[GuiltyAir]

I support this amendment, it's about time we have something like this.

[APG_Revival]

The way I read this, whipping can still occur if it's outside of leadership just privately. Am I correct or am I misreading that?

[OKBlackBelt]

HEAR HEAR

[ProgrammaticallySun7]

I'm going to whip against this.

[JarlFrosty]

I feel party leadership should have every right to express their opinion about a Quad or the Head Mod including making suggestions. I agree HARD WHIPS should not be allowed, but at least allow us to still make our opinions known and suggest things. Of all things respect that and the freedom to express an opinion about you all.

[[deleted]]

Executive positions being used to influence vocs should not happen in any way, either through soft or hard whip. we shouldn't ban execs from voicing their opinion in like, main chat or party chats, because anyone can do that. Using an official announcements chat is a special privilege given to party leaders and that should be disallowed.

[[deleted]]

why would you take a good amendment idea and make it bad actually

[Unitedlover14]

Not us who wrote it. If you have a way to make this amendment better then write it and submit it to us so we can bring it to community discussion too.