Content Bills

[Tom Paine]

We have a safeguard, no? The owner has an absolute right, and the Hex can do it by simple majority vote.

And the fact is, the Hex does nothig unless it comes to a consensus... ie, a majority vote. Or at least, it should do nothing unless this is the case, as otherwise Hex may well (I'm not saying it does, mind) have the psychology whereby a criticism of one reflects as a criticism on all and so the unilateral actions of one must be backed and confirmed by all.

[imb39]

So, you want Hex to operate in the way it currently does, but enshrined in law?

Hex does not veto unless there is a definite reason. Sim has already begun to establish the policy that a detailed explanation be given. Ofcourse, that might take a short while to get but it is a sensible policy to establish.

[Tom Paine]

As regards this? Since it removes the possibility of legally acceptable unilateral action on the part of Hex members, with the exclusion of yourself.... yes. Yes I do.

And exactly; Hex does not veto Hex-member actions unless there is a reason to. I don't want Hex members doing things then being supported for some sense of solidarity of some sort.

[imb39]

No Hex member acts unilaterally unless there is a clear problem and no others are online at that time. Nothing should impede that possibility. It is, of course, open to scrutiny once others come on line.

[Simetrical]

We have a safeguard, no? The owner has an absolute right, and the Hex can do it by simple majority vote.

imb39 may not always be on.

And the fact is, the Hex does nothig unless it comes to a consensus... ie, a majority vote. Or at least, it should do nothing unless this is the case, as otherwise Hex may well (I'm not saying it does, mind) have the psychology whereby a criticism of one reflects as a criticism on all and so the unilateral actions of one must be backed and confirmed by all.

Hex does not have to bother with a majority vote unless it's perceived that there will be some controversy over it. If a Hex member knows beforehand that the rest of Hex will agree with him, there's no need to have a formal little discussion and vote over the course of two days.

And exactly; Hex does not veto Hex-member actions unless there is a reason to.

That is not true. Hex has overruled Hex member actions when it has simply disagreed. At least once, for instance, I undid a moderator's suspension and it was reinstated by staff after some discussion and a vote. We do not shy away from overturning our own members' decisions. But the situation rarely comes up, because none of us will typically do anything we think Hex will find controversial: in the example I gave, for instance, I only acted before discussing because it was time-sensitive (it doesn't do much good to agree to overturn a three-day suspension when it's expired by itself a week ago).

Seriously, this isn't an issue.

[Tom Paine]

So if I change it to "The staff will only prevent content being put up or take it down if it breaches one of these conditions, on the decision of a single member of Hex which will then be ratified by a majority vote of the Hex, or at the behest of the owner (in this last case, no more than the owner's edict is required); any such action shoud then be explained to the Curia."

(That ratification need only be a simple vote, no?)

EDIT: On discussion with Sim, that is neccessary... but also castrates the Bill to so great an extent as to simply re-affirm the status quo, and thus is pointless and does not deserve time in the Proth. So... meh. Me go look at the other Bill proposed I think...

EDIT2: Some changes to the other Bill...