Board Thread:Community Discussions/@comment-24675554-20160813195520/@comment-4041224-20160814212920

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:

GuacamoleCCXR wrote:

Avalair wrote: Michaelyoda wrote: Avalair wrote: GuacamoleCCXR wrote: Avalair wrote: Michaelyoda wrote: Alemas2005 wrote:

BusyCityGirl wrote: Currently isn't this vote against policy? "A community vote cannot be used to directly demote rights from a user, however, a petition to the Admins can be made that a user be demoted." Apparently no-one remembered that when this vote passed... Then shouldn't this be corrected? What do you mean by corrected? policy applies retroactively as well. if this vote has passed but turns out to be against the policy, admins should still invalidate it. However, the community voted to go against the policy, as we have done in the past numerous times. Then why do we have policies, if they mean nothing? Policies are meant to be followed, however if the community holds a vote to either change or go against policy, whatever the majority (which in this case was 19/20) decides is what is to be followed. We have done this numerous times in the past (see here, here, and here.) so I'm unsure why this is any different. You, the community, voted for this and the majority was overwhelming. no no no no no, that is so flat out wrong and dangerously so, too. the vote that was passed wasn't to /change the policy/. for this to be legal, it would have to /change the policy/ to make sure that demoting does not need to run through the process as outlined by the policy first. /then/ you could pass another vote to hold the cv slice had in mind. this is not what happened. ignoring this is absolutely irresponsible and leads to bad places. what bad places? the lack of any coherence in the logical foundation of our policy, perhaps? if people just ignore and change it however they like, if unrelated votes can be used to bypass it, then none of it makes any sense.

i can see people going the "you're taking this too seriously, lol, what a loser for thinking this matters" route but i'm afraid i'd have to call them out on their lack of understanding of political processes, ''regardless of their significance. ''certain rules must be followed, that one of those rules is that when you have a codified piece of scripture, in our case, the policy, that dictates the mechanisms of administration, changing it requires a standalone process. if a vote is proposed that contradicts the policy, it must be counted as invalid, even if it is supported by a majority. you first need to change the policy, not pass a vote first and then change the policy retroactively on a whim.