Welcome to The Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads

Constitution Discussion


Burnt
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let's discuss what we see somewhat positively.

 

I'll start it off,

Reading that infuriates me

It's all talk right now.. Plus it just seems like a stupid system

 

Members have to attend mandatory meetings? Fuck that. There's no ducking perk in being a member so why the fuck would they continue to put in the effort to stay a member and attend meetings.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little concerned with some people possible being part of "Community Relations" which are to be recognized as the "appeals court" of the clan. Bias will always be there, but when people who are naturally just going to be put there based on current positions within the clan have grudges or well known for unfairness or excessive/unreasonable decisions, that frightens me. I don't want to see more corruption.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's not restricting your ability to play games at all. It's only saying that you're required to be at meetings. That's time consuming I it's every day but meetings are going to be held every once in a while.

 

But to make them mandatory and implementing a strike system is kind of a shitty thing to do. With over 400+ members getting all those times to sync up and have multiple meetings that everyone can make is gonna be a fucking nightmare to plan and a big hassle for those 400+ people to schedule with IRL events. And like brunt said; I get no perk for being a member so why should I even try?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having seen the document's draft prior to its public debut, I'll say that my initial thought was that it seems to enforce a level of rigidity and structure that is probably excessive for a gaming community.

 

Community participation is good in shaping direction, but too many cooks spoil the broth.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having seen the document's draft prior to its public debut, I'll say that my initial thought was that it seems to enforce a level of rigidity and structure that is probably excessive for a gaming community.

 

Community participation is good in shaping direction, but too many cooks spoil the broth.

 

Yeah, I feel the same. This is a clan; should be about fun, it's not a corporation or an executive company.

 

Just reform the current system in place; fancy new idea's that are complicated and elaborate are the biggest way to bring in bigger and harsher bottlenecks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion on this is that there shouldn't be a penalty for not going to meetings. I think that all members have the option to join a "Member Voting Commitee" that if you join you are allowed to vote on decisions but must meet the requirements set the way it says now. This makes it to where if you actually want to be apart of decision making and change the direction your division is going, you can do so. If you're a member but don't want to be involved and just play on the servers, you aren't forced to do so. People who actually want to be involved can do so by taking the next step to becoming a voting member; but it's a choice, not mandatory

 

Unless you are in leadership I don't think we should make anything mandatory for members. They are here simply for fun and we staff are here to ensure that we make this a fun place for everyone. I do like the idea of restructure though, our current system does not work at all.

 

So much this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you are in leadership I don't think we should make anything mandatory for members. They are here simply for fun and we staff are here to ensure that we make this a fun place for everyone. I do like the idea of restructure though, our current system does not work at all.

 

I spoke with homer in teamspeak and from what i understood the mandatory thing wont be for everyone, but at the same time im not 100% sure on this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well what happens a lot is that the staff members and division leader make decisions that are not in the interests of the community and sometimes that doesn't settle well for them. Please use any Gmod thread in existence for reference

What I think can benefit other divisions is using the system that CS:GO used, which was the fireside chat. Having community meetings has worked great so far because we are able to see what your current opinions are and how you feel about most of our upcoming plans. Communication is key obliviously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we had a community meeting in Gmod for the first time (and only time) very few people actually went. One reason was the time and the other was that there was no week notice

 

It wasn't meant to be an open meeting. It was sorta improvised but it turned out really good.

 

About the so called constitution, on one side, it seems like renaming everything that already exists. On the other hand, it seems a bit too rigid for a gaming community, seems like a government office or something.

 

As FaZe said, though, it's a work in progress. I wanna where this goes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So under section II.A, it states membership requires "dues". "Dues" are not defined or explained in any way, and says "The council has no membership dues."

 

Whatever Homer or Council wants to make "dues", all members are REQUIRED to meet the "dues", otherwise "Any member who has not met the requirements stated in [iI.A] will have their membership withdrawn immediately."

 

I actually read through most of this and I don't like it from a membership point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rigid? Probably. But with the way people are operating up there, we kinda do need a more rigid system in place so people can get stuff done as "promised" instead of flying afk and making big talk about all the work they've magically done.

 

Is this too rigid? I can't tell. All I know is as long as we actually get the ball rolling with the community in mind instead of our powers and test out these changes, it's all good. Just test run it, and don't wait a million years to enact on feedback. Or ignore it like many do.

 

There's been mounting discord between the community members and leadership. Let's fix it.

 

Maybe instead of mandatory meeting for members, we could have an obligatory meeting. Sec records, and those who could not attend MUST read the report and sign off. Seems reasonable.

Edited by TheAtrocity
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name=Paul :)' timestamp='1451697125' post='674073] What would be preventing me from leaving without a 2 weeks notice?

I didn't read this part but if its anything like stepping down from staff it should go something like this: If you give the 2 weeks notice and wait the 2 weeks, you leave on good terms and receive retired leadership status plus some benefits of that. I imagine the member part would just be leaving on good terms but there should be nothing stopping you to leave if you want to leave earlier than planned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name=Paul :)' timestamp='1451697125' post='674073]

What would be preventing me from leaving without a 2 weeks notice?

 

I also have a feeling there can be conflict of interest and abuse of the system.

This isn't something new.

There is literally nothing preventing you from doing this, but it will basically make you look bad, it makes it so you have almost no chance of joining leadership again. You will most likely not keep admin, and basically be treated like shitty person you are.

Edited by Icon315
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read this part but if its anything like stepping down from staff it should go something like this: If you give the 2 weeks notice and wait the 2 weeks, you leave on good terms and receive retired leadership status plus some benefits of that. I imagine the member part would just be leaving on good terms but there should be nothing stopping you to leave if you want to leave earlier than planned.

You also need a year in the position apparently

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't something new.

There is literally nothing preventing you from doing this, but it will basically make you look bad, it makes it so you have almost no chance of joining leadership again. You will most likely not keep admin, and basically be treated like shitty person you are.

I didn't read this part but if its anything like stepping down from staff it should go something like this: If you give the 2 weeks notice and wait the 2 weeks, you leave on good terms and receive retired leadership status plus some benefits of that. I imagine the member part would just be leaving on good terms but there should be nothing stopping you to leave if you want to leave earlier than planned.

 

The section was for members. Gah, idk, the thing was too damn long for me to focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name=Paul :)' timestamp='1451699122' post='674082]

The section was for members. Gah, idk, the thing was too damn long for me to focus.

Okay, I feel like people aren't reading this correctly.

Do you guys think "Members" means [HG]? because it doesn't, it means members of Hellsgamers Council

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share