Part three here: http://18.104.22.168/forums/site-gov-part-three-departments
Ok, wow - you guys are going through these fast. Yay! That gets us to a final proposal sooner than later :)
Part four / last part of the basic gov doc is how we handle it when things go... and not just a little wrong or when two people don't get along - this is big, something's rotten in the state of Denmark, wrongs. When we can't just fall back on a social dept to help us talk it all out, cause the problem is bigger than a department, or we can't trust a department to handle it correctly. This outlines how someone would call out when a decision that's been made is violating the core principles or a person in leadership is abusing their power. Hopefully we never have to use this part but you can't predict the future - and if we have an outlined path for handling this that makes recovering from it a lot smoother.
Sometimes problems are just too large to handle within a single department, the department leads may not be trusted with the decision or other signs of significant leadership problems may exist. While a department may have authority over the topic involved - in some (hopefully rare) cases - a significant grievance must be addressed on a level outside the department to handle issues of conflict of interest or abuse of position.
Process of Resolving Grievances
When a situation has risen to the point where a grievance needs to be addressed outside of the department, there is a process any site member may follow to request the situation be addressed and resolved.
1) The site member with a grievance that falls under violation of guiding principles should go to the Anonymous Mailer.
2) At the mailer they may freely describe the grievance and must give specific evidence.
3) Wherever possible, citation of department policy and violations of the systems outlined in this document should be provided.
4) Any violations of the guiding principles should be specifically noted when the grievance is lodged.
Conversation about the grievance should be held in public, any question of the credibility of a site member’s position on the site innately involves the entire site and thus the entire site is an "involved party." Site members in conflict of interest situations (including any specifically named members) are allowed to contribute to discussion but not vote on the resolution of the issue itself.
After discussion, when a solution to the situation is presented then a standard proposal, including the two week window for voting will be used to resolve the conflict. Voters may choose from the paths of resolution provided during the discussion, with an option to fill in an optional resolution of their own if none of those provided are satisfactory. It is possible for a solution to simply be a statement that the grievance is not valid - and this solution should be included as an option on all grievance votes.
At the end of the two week window, the results of the vote are made public. In order for the solution to be accepted, a simple majority of players active within the last two weeks must particulate in the vote to ensure the vote reflects the opinion of enough people on the site to be trusted as a valid opinion.
In order to approve a solution, after participation requirements are met, the solution must be approved with a 3/4ths majority of the votes cast with the following exception: When votes cast are below 10 (after accounting for participation requirements), then simple majority is used instead due to the small population size involved.
In the case of an unclear result further discussion and additional proposals will be required until the situation is resolved. While under review, the subjects of the original grievance (as well as anyone in a conflict of interest situation with them) may continue to act as a member of their position.
However, if the voting results in a removal of a role or limitation of power, decisions made by the involved parties during the span of time since the original grievance was entered may be reviewed with further scrutiny or rolled back entirely under the judgement of the department or as a secondary proposal.
If a site member holding a role of authority (apprentice storyhost, storyhost, evaluator or lead) does not abide by the decision of grievance vote or if the site votes to have them removed from position, they will immediately lose the role in question and associated powers. Related roles may also be reviewed and potentially revoked as well depending on the nature of the original grievance. In such a case, if the site member held a critical position on the site - such as a lead - a special election will be held for the new position.
Vaxia relies on it’s population of players and storyhosts to keep alive. Sometimes both can be hard to locate. In thin times, the site will operate under an extraordinary circumstances mode called “starvation mode”. While in starvation mode efforts to increase the population of available site members to address a need for storyhosts, evaluators or leads are a priority - the sooner critical positions are filled, the sooner the site may return to standard behavior.
The members of the current site cannot hope to imagine the needs of the future site, be it in a time of strong growth or dormancy. With that in mind, this document may be updated at any time with amendments. Amendments are a type of proposal that is a formal suggestion to active site members to change the behavior of the governing structure as outlined in this document and it's amendments at the time of making the proposal.
The new amendment is announced to all players on the site and may be put forth by any player. It must be available for review for two weeks for feedback, review and updates. If updated, the two week window is extended from the moment of revision for another two weeks. During the two week span, all active site members may vote on the new amendment.
At the end of the two week window, the results of the vote are made public. In order for the amendment results to be accepted, a simple majority of players active within the last two weeks must particulate in the vote to ensure the vote reflects the opinion of enough people on the site to be trusted as a valid opinion.
In order to approve an amendment, after participation requirements are met, the amendment must be approved with a 3/4ths majority of the votes cast with the following exception: When votes cast are below 10 (after accounting for participation requirements), then simple majority is used instead due to the small population size involved. This is to ensure that the system described in this document can continue to operate at critically low membership levels - effectively 'starvation mode'.
We're almost done - I promise! This is the last of the baseline document - and there's a small collection of amendments for setting up our suggested departments and handling starvation mode situations and stuff. Thank you guys for getting through all this text.
As before - yes, no, questions, clarification etc :)
edit: Typo fixed