|Closed on date||Governance Proposal|
|05/24/2014 - 8:48pm||
Emergency SH ApprovalEmergency SH Approval System, everyone please read
As you all know, we've been discussing on how to instate new SH's when we don't have enough full SH's on the site to help with the voting process. There have been several great ideas and now we want to know what you all think based on the forum thread linked above.
|06/13/2014 - 9:08pm||
Site GovernanceSite Gov: Part One - Founding Principles, Site Gov: Part Two - Roles and Responsibilities, Site Gov: Part Three - Departments, Site Gov: Part Four - When things go wrong
This proposal is the formal adoption of our site governance policy for Vaxia.org. After a lot of scrub and polish, we're ready to make a proposal on the baseline document for how the site will handle itself going forward. Please take a moment to look over all of the existing threads before voting.
|06/09/2014 - 1:22am||
AmendmentsSite Gov: Amendments Part One, Site Gov: Amendments Part Two
This proposal is the formal adoption of the additional Amendments for Vaxia.org. These amendments address specific departments to be defined and other needs. Please take a moment to look over all of the existing threads before voting.
Adoption of any of these amendments is dependent on adoption of the amendment process from the Site Governance proposal found here: http://184.108.40.206/proposals/site-governance
|10/08/2014 - 12:04am||
Grievance of 09/12/2014 Closure Part 1 - Addition of a Double Jeopardy ClauseGrievance Posting Fri, 09/12/2014 - 9:13pm
In this Grievance there were issues that were brought back up that had already been handled by Social, or were in the process of being handle but for one reason or another was in a hiatus state until a mediation could finish to allow Social to move forward.
It is the general census that punishing people twice or forcing them to go through procedures again for actions that were already handled were unfair, not fun for anyone, and offered potential abuse of our policies to allow people to take 'revenge' upon those people.
Therefore it has been recommended to add a Double Jeopardy Clause to our Site Governance Amendments to offer protection for those whom have already had issues that were handled and to help reduce the temptation of using the anon mailer for revenge. This clause will still allow for any new evidence/logs be introduced to Social to see if the resolved or open situation need reviewing.
In order to avoid subjecting a player to multiple punitive actions for the same incident, we will not review an incident a second time after the initial incident has been reviewed. Any punitive actions to be given to any involved players should be given at the time of the initial review.
Once an incident has been reviewed by the Social Department for Code of Conduct violations or has been reviewed in the course of resolving a Grievance, the incident will not be subject to a second review unless new evidence relevant to the original incident has been submitted, deemed relevant by the Social leads, or the Grievance coordinator, and verified by the technical admin.
Players addressed or not-addressed during the initial review may not be subject to additional punitive actions unless additional evidence has been provided and a second review has been initiated.
|01/30/2015 - 12:06am||
Instating Mediators (Proposal to formally amend the Governance)Discussion: Instating the Mediator Position On Site
This proposal is to formally introduce a mediator position onto the site. These will be specially trained players who will assist with mediations and social duties. Mediators are the first responders to conflicts onsite. They train players who need extra help with abiding by the Code of Conduct and when players break the code or their social contracts they are often the ones who bring it to the Social Leads attention. During mediations, they are the neutral party that helps the aggrieved players work toward a solution. It is an optional position onsite, and no one is forced to be a mediator if they don't want to.
Having Mediators removes a current bottleneck in authority. Having only two people responsible for all of the training/punitive action/social duties onsite isn't desirable or practical. The mediator position will spread out the work to avoid overloading the leaders onsite.
I'd like to address an issue that came up in the forum thread so that there can be some clarification here (so people don't have to go all the way back to read it in the forums). What makes the Social leads different from Mediators? Leads still set policy and train Mediators. They handle the most difficult situations. Social Leads also have the sole authority to give instant red strikes.
The following questions will help set up whether or not we add this new position to the site, the baseline for how they are voted in, what their powers would be, and what happens if a mediator abuses their position.
|04/16/2015 - 12:07am||
Amendment: Removal of a separate "Evaluator" roleAmendment: Removal of a separate "Evaluator" role
This amendment would merge the current "Evaluator" role, which has SH as a pre-requisite, into the normal duties of all SHs.
|04/29/2015 - 12:14am||
Removal of a separate "Evaluator" roleAmendment: Removal of a separate "Evaluator" role
This amendment would merge the current "Evaluator" role, which has SH as a pre-requisite, into the normal duties of all SHs. Please take a moment to vote, even if you're a newer player to the site. Your vote counts!