Started by Klaw, August 18, 2019, 02:12:31 pm
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Klaw on August 18, 2019, 05:34:51 pmcorrect - the focus would be on the game/games they oversee. I see them having the ability to kick players (for example) but not ban them - they're more a "police force" to help enforce the rules and enhance gameplay
Quote from: Klaw on August 22, 2019, 05:25:30 pmHow would you like to decide?Truthfully, each of these have their pros and cons.1 - The pro being, we can have total control over who we put in the job - the con being, we risk creating a "good ol' boys" club, where only friends of the Ops team get anywhere.
Quote from: undefined2 - The Pro being, we're more open to applicants, and giving people a shot - The Con being about the same as the above.
Quote from: undefined3. - The pro being, we're grabbing community feedback, and letting the membership decide - the con, this is time consuming, and can serve as an inaccurate representation of the community as not everyone registered may vote...
Quote from: undefinedWhile, at present, I don't see an immediate problem with any of the three - down the road, issues could arise - just wanting to make those possible issues a topic to consider.Considering the current state of the CoC - Option one seems easiest to implement, and offers a decent amount of opportunity for "refreshment" if the membership deem it necessary - we could set the role up similar to the Community Advocate - in that they are appointed by the Ops Team, but can be refreshed by the membership if needed or desired.
Quote2. The disciplinary options available to the Community Advocate include, but are not limited to: unofficial warnings, official warnings, temporary server or forum bans (lasting no more than 5 days), revocation of awards, suspension of moderator/administrative privileges, removal from staff positons, server or forum bans, and expulsion from the community.