Discussions on SC Removal/Suspension Laws

Crushing Our Enemies:
Once again, if I had noticed Kiwi's forum activity before it was too late, such a reminder would have been sent. I am generally in favor of that sort of thing, and take inspiration from GBM. Nonetheless, SC members are not above the law, and, as I and others have pointed out, I had no choice in this matter. I did not remove Kiwi from his office - he vacated it by not logging onto the forum. I was simply the first to notice because I began monitoring this sort of thing as part of my VD duties.
Click to expand...
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see what happens when we try to regulate EVERYTHING and leave no room for common sense and initiative.
 
Flem, I think that's an unfair characterization of our laws. When the court declared that SC members were government officials, it was not considered how this law would affect them. So really, it was their initiative that got us into this mess ;)
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Flem, I think that's an unfair characterization of our laws. When the court declared that SC members were government officials, it was not considered how this law would affect them. So really, it was their initiative that got us into this mess ;)
Click to expand...
... I had no choice in the matter
Click to expand...

Not so. When a set of laws are so inflexible that they leave officials no scope for discretion, and leave no room for common sense or reasonable flexibility then there is something wrong with the regulations.

And that is the case whatever branch of the government the laws apply to.

When admins go inactive we have a chat about it, try to talk to the person involved, and come up wit the best course of action in that case. It really isn't so hard.
 
flemingovia:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Flem, I think that's an unfair characterization of our laws. When the court declared that SC members were government officials, it was not considered how this law would affect them. So really, it was their initiative that got us into this mess ;)
Click to expand...
... I had no choice in the matter
Click to expand...

Not so. When a set of laws are so inflexible that they leave officials no scope for discretion, and leave no room for common sense or reasonable flexibility then there is something wrong with the regulations.

And that is the case whatever branch of the government the laws apply to.

When admins go inactive we have a chat about it, try to talk to the person involved, and come up wit the best course of action in that case. It really isn't so hard.
Click to expand...
And we've gone to the use of an admin emeritus status for inactive admin so that if they choose to become active as admin again they can easily be switched back to the regular admin status.

It simplifies things for the admin team, and avoids a lengthy discussion about remasking admin who were inactive. It's the same concept that is intended to be used with the Security Council (i.e., trustworthiness was a factor in making a user an admin in the first place, as is the case with SC members, so the same logic should apply in having SC members be in suspended status and not removed due to inactivity issues.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
flemingovia:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Flem, I think that's an unfair characterization of our laws. When the court declared that SC members were government officials, it was not considered how this law would affect them. So really, it was their initiative that got us into this mess ;)
Click to expand...
... I had no choice in the matter
Click to expand...

Not so. When a set of laws are so inflexible that they leave officials no scope for discretion, and leave no room for common sense or reasonable flexibility then there is something wrong with the regulations.

And that is the case whatever branch of the government the laws apply to.

When admins go inactive we have a chat about it, try to talk to the person involved, and come up wit the best course of action in that case. It really isn't so hard.
Click to expand...
And we've gone to the use of an admin emeritus status for inactive admin so that if they choose to become active as admin again they can easily be switched back to the regular admin status.

It simplifies things for the admin team, and avoids a lengthy discussion about remasking admin who were inactive. It's the same concept that is intended to be used with the Security Council (i.e., trustworthiness was a factor in making a user an admin in the first place, as is the case with SC members, so the same logic should apply in having SC members be in suspended status and not removed due to inactivity issues.
Click to expand...
... and it was a creative, non-legalistic and flexible solution.

I think we could learn something from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top