Political Organization Draft PLEASE READ:

PLEASE READ

In the new organization of the forums, there will be four administrators.

1 Executive Administrator (currently KMS)
3 other Administrators (Jaggermuffin, Rosier, and 2007guy)

The four administrators make most of the major decisions not dealing with crimes or court or anything, unless they are part of the court themselves.

Basically what happens is, when the administrators get together to make a decision, they take a stance. The Executive administrator has a significant amount of points more than the other administrators, though still would not win if all other admins ganged up.

Executive Administrator's Vote: Worth 2 points
Other Administrators' Votes: Worth 1 point each

Meaning that if the other three administrators vote against the Executive administrator's decision, his rule is vetoed. Everyone though, can abstain from a vote. This is exclusive in the Administrators' VIP room.

Furthermore, sometimes an administrator may ABSTAIN from a vote, where they do not vote one way or the other. This could set up other opportunities. The executive may also abstain as well.

With this, bribery, persuasion, or blackmail of any kind to an administrator to "swing" towards a side is being considered to be added to the CPI COnstitution.

I'd say the executive administrator should have 1.1 points, and there to be a maximum of 5 administrators in total.

Seems okay, but do slightly the Executive Admin's vote worthy..ness.

What 2007guy said was reasonable. Maybe you two could agree on a number of ponts between 1.1 and 2.5.

Excecutive should be at most 2

it should be just to tip the balance in case of a draw.

iHEdgeHog wrote:I'd say the executive administrator should have 1.1 points, and there to be a maximum of 5 administrators in total.

Then two could easily gang up on the administrator and win if the other abstains.

I'll compromise.
1.5 - 2 points seem fair enough.

That way, if one person abstains and the other two vote against the executive, it will still be a tie.

it's just that the executive administrator's vote counts twice.

However, I will be voting LAST, to see how the other guys go. I will then decide which side to support.

The idea of a fifth administrator seems unlikely at the moment, because then the number of administrators will be half the number of users at total, but it could be done if you convince me.

If someone abstains, the two administrators should be able to win, as more people did vote against the administrator. It is true that they could win, but they should win.

iHEdgeHog wrote:If someone abstains, the two administrators should be able to win, as more people did vote against the administrator. It is true that they could win, but they should win.

If someone abstains then I suggest if it happens to be that the other two administrators are against the executive, then the vote should be temporarily drawn and introduced to the moderators and users, they decide in a general consensus. If they cannot decide and create a general consensus, the win is given to the two administrators.

All moderators, must win by at least 66%.

66% or 2/3 must agree to one side for that side to win. If its something like 55 45 or 65-35 the win is given to the two administrators.

This reminds me, can I be able to moderate the case archives, vault and stuff?(just me and not he mod group)
For one thing I was the one that created case archives, it doesn't seem right to me I can't be able to control it

Granted. I believe the moderators should be the deciding factor.

iHEdgeHog wrote:Granted. I believe the moderators should be the deciding factor.

Except Regular Archives.

why?

Because too many posts to risk being deleted.

C'mon. You really think he's going to delete them?

It's a possibility. KMS is right to be cautious.