Media Constitutional Crisis Averted

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Bloodied52; I find when the Senior Qooty Players pull the old "you've been here two minutes" line, the appropriate reaction is to:

1. Reply with: EAD

or

2. Post pr0n, get banned and then you don't have to put up with their condescending posts

I hope the advise of a 5 minute player is of some use

love

Tigerturbulance

Ta and Gold. Am no stranger to Banhammer myself

 

[Millky95]

As I noted in an earlier post. Being an outsider means a different view can sometimes be offered. Yep I am a Barbarian but like heaps of people here,vi get lots of fun.

A poor governance system is good only for s**t fights which may entertain some folk but risks burning people

I think the current model developed by you vets has problems.

The Admin role is set up to fail, irrespective of who is doing it.

I think these can be resolved. Your committee differently constituted could become more like a board and the Admin should be directly accountable to it.

My view and added to the mix

Hence the original rule 9. From brahj 's thread:

S27:
9A) Abuse Of Power & Incompetence
If a player feels the administrator is blatantly abusing their power or failing to fulfil the duties then they may contact all SFA captains stating their case:

• If the half of captains (6/12) in the committee believe the administrator is corrupt or incompetent they obtain the right to open an application process for any potential challengers to the administrator position. A committee vote will take place within two weeks on whether the administrator retains the position or the challenger is preferred.
• If the significant majority of captains (9/12) in the belief that the administrator is corrupt or incompetent they can forcibly remove the administrator of their position and open an application process for a new administrator immediately. A spokesperson within the committee will be appointed by the captains as a caretaker administrator during this process. The ousted administrator cannot apply.

Half the committee goes "you're doing a shit job, we want person X to admin" they could take it to a committee vote. I assume the admin also gets to vote, meaning the 6 would need to convince a 7th member to think said admin is doing a bad job.

Now here is the thing: You would have to be really arrogant or really shitty as an admin to not know this was happening. Either you were consulting the committee at all or were doing dumb things. Not only that, but as each member of the committee represents a club, it would mean half the league itself doesn't think you are up to standard. You'd notice if half the league starting acting up at every turn. And it wouldn't just be the 1 bad idea it would have to be a snowball of poor decisions and bad governance to get to this stage.

The league for the most part can somewhat run itself as long as people are willing to volunteer and they always will because people in this league are wonderful. People want to post match threads, sim games and post games. The admin should mostly be enforcing rules (which the committee in theory would have happily had a say on and agreed to) and being "the face" of the machine.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Your last sentence is really interesting. No way should the Admin make the rules. They should develop and assessnnts for consideration of the Committee/Board who should ratify, amend or knock off a proposal.



I think having the 12 Clubs on the Committee/Board is not a recipe for success or half good donut.

Just allows too much potential for rivalries to be played out and too many people. Give the Club's no more than 4 members. they'd be accountable. Have proper quorums. Have a non voting Chair - NOT the Admin. The Admin should always be the servant of the Board.

And yes

 

[pantskyle]

Your last sentence is really interesting. No way should the Admin make the rules. They should develop and assessnnts for consideration of the Committee/Board who should ratify, amend or knock off a proposal.



I think having the 12 Clubs on the Committee/Board is not a recipe for success or half good donut.

Just allows too much potential for rivalries to be played out and too many people. Give the Club's no more than 4 members. they'd be accountable. Have proper quorums. Have a non voting Chair - NOT the Admin. The Admin should always be the servant of the Board.

And yes

The committee mostly runs fairly smoothly, more so with an active admin at the helm.

 

[RelaxMax]

 

[BRAB]

The committee mostly runs fairly smoothly, more so with an active admin at the helm.

People have to consider the the committee had run mostly perfectly for the last 5 years. These talks about the efficacy of the system have only really come up since we allowed an actual dictator into the position.

 

[Millky95]

Your last sentence is really interesting. No way should the Admin make the rules. They should develop and assessnnts for consideration of the Committee/Board who should ratify, amend or knock off a proposal.



I think having the 12 Clubs on the Committee/Board is not a recipe for success or half good donut.

Just allows too much potential for rivalries to be played out and too many people. Give the Club's no more than 4 members. they'd be accountable. Have proper quorums. Have a non voting Chair - NOT the Admin. The Admin should always be the servant of the Board.

And yes

See, the league is also 28 seasons old. You don't have to "make rules" as such as you do make minor edits. Other than this season's rule 9 change (and I wasn't here for Kennedy Parker 's reign so he may correct me if I miss something) the biggest rule change I have seen is about team sheets which has gone under several changes. But each of those (again in my time and from what I can gather) the change was presented and signed off by 12 different people. And each of those, represent the wider player base. So essentially 13 people have to agree on a change. Which is why only small changes get done each season and why a big change as to rule 9 this season, has caused such a fuss.

Only have 4 players represent every club is asking for trouble. All of a sudden 1 club goes from having 1/12th of a say to 1/4 and 8 teams miss out. What if player A has a question or an idea, they can't present that to their captain because they don't have a say. Their team is powerless in the decision making process. Why play for them?

People have to consider the the committee had run mostly perfectly for the last 5 years. These talks about the efficacy of the system have only really come up since we allowed an actual dictator into the position.

To play devil's advocate for a second my dear BRAB, what if the committee is now just full of idiots? According to the OP of this thread, at one point 5 captains wanted a clear cut and dry ruling over turned. Is it the admin's fault for his own committee voting like idiots? Maybe because he can't keep control and isn't respected. Maybe they are just idiots. Hard to tell unless you're in there

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

The committee mostly runs fairly smoothly, more so with an active admin at the helm.

Ta

Hmmn I guess we differ on the Admin role. I think Admins are the servant not the master.

Would the Committee as currently set up be capable of running smoothly if it was the master? IE it set the rules esp re penalties?

Reading a bit about it my eyebrows got peeled from the ceiling when I realised Admins once effectively appointed their successor until ex Admin "name changer" adopted a different model.

I accept any Admin must be technically competent but this struck me as an old Guild Model. Either that or a little unkindly the succession model in Nth Korea.

No wonder the joint has more melts than a BHP foundry.

 

[Millky95]

Would the Committee as currently set up be capable of running smoothly if it was the master? IE it set the rules esp re penalties?

Think you'll find 1 person would become "de facto" leader and there would be a lot more shit fighting about trivial things

 

[Papa Juggs]

People have to consider the the committee had run mostly perfectly for the last 5 years. These talks about the efficacy of the system have only really come up since we allowed an actual dictator into the position.

I'm actually amazed AB is more of a dictator than Okey and boncer. It's something I would not have thought possible.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

See, the league is also 28 seasons old. You don't have to "make rules" as such as you do make minor edits. Other than this season's rule 9 change (and I wasn't here for Kennedy Parker 's reign so he may correct me if I miss something) the biggest rule change I have seen is about team sheets which has gone under several changes. But each of those (again in my time and from what I can gather) the change was presented and signed off by 12 different people. And each of those, represent the wider player base. So essentially 13 people have to agree on a change. Which is why only small changes get done each season and why a big change as to rule 9 this season, has caused such a fuss.

Only have 4 players represent every club is asking for trouble. All of a sudden 1 club goes from having 1/12th of a say to 1/4 and 8 teams miss out. What if player A has a question or an idea, they can't present that to their captain because they don't have a say. Their team is powerless in the decision making process. Why play for them?


To play devil's advocate for a second my dear BRAB, what if the committee is now just full of idiots? According to the OP of this thread, at one point 5 captains wanted a clear cut and dry ruling over turned. Is it the admin's fault for his own committee voting like idiots? Maybe because he can't keep control and isn't respected. Maybe they are just idiots. Hard to tell unless you're in there

To clarify If have two or three folk representing simmers, stats gurus etc without whom there would not be such a great place.

Also your bolding of the five duffer captains illustrates why the committee needs fewer Skips.

 

[Kennedy Parker]

See, the league is also 28 seasons old. You don't have to "make rules" as such as you do make minor edits. Other than this season's rule 9 change (and I wasn't here for Kennedy Parker 's reign so he may correct me if I miss something) the biggest rule change I have seen is about team sheets which has gone under several changes. But each of those (again in my time and from what I can gather) the change was presented and signed off by 12 different people. And each of those, represent the wider player base. So essentially 13 people have to agree on a change. Which is why only small changes get done each season and why a big change as to rule 9 this season, has caused such a fuss.

Only have 4 players represent every club is asking for trouble. All of a sudden 1 club goes from having 1/12th of a say to 1/4 and 8 teams miss out. What if player A has a question or an idea, they can't present that to their captain because they don't have a say. Their team is powerless in the decision making process. Why play for them?


To play devil's advocate for a second my dear BRAB, what if the committee is now just full of idiots? According to the OP of this thread, at one point 5 captains wanted a clear cut and dry ruling over turned. Is it the admin's fault for his own committee voting like idiots? Maybe because he can't keep control and isn't respected. Maybe they are just idiots. Hard to tell unless you're in there

tl;dr

my admin reign was splendid

 

[pantskyle]

See, the league is also 28 seasons old. You don't have to "make rules" as such as you do make minor edits. Other than this season's rule 9 change (and I wasn't here for Kennedy Parker 's reign so he may correct me if I miss something) the biggest rule change I have seen is about team sheets which has gone under several changes. But each of those (again in my time and from what I can gather) the change was presented and signed off by 12 different people. And each of those, represent the wider player base. So essentially 13 people have to agree on a change. Which is why only small changes get done each season and why a big change as to rule 9 this season, has caused such a fuss.

Only have 4 players represent every club is asking for trouble. All of a sudden 1 club goes from having 1/12th of a say to 1/4 and 8 teams miss out. What if player A has a question or an idea, they can't present that to their captain because they don't have a say. Their team is powerless in the decision making process. Why play for them?


To play devil's advocate for a second my dear BRAB, what if the committee is now just full of idiots? According to the OP of this thread, at one point 5 captains wanted a clear cut and dry ruling over turned. Is it the admin's fault for his own committee voting like idiots? Maybe because he can't keep control and isn't respected. Maybe they are just idiots. Hard to tell unless you're in there

The committee was on struggle Street last season with captain's being inactive or unsure of what to do.

 

[beez]

To play devil's advocate for a second my dear BRAB, what if the committee is now just full of idiots? According to the OP of this thread, at one point 5 captains wanted a clear cut and dry ruling over turned. Is it the admin's fault for his own committee voting like idiots? Maybe because he can't keep control and isn't respected. Maybe they are just idiots. Hard to tell unless you're in there

 

[Millky95]

To clarify If have two or three folk representing simmers, stats gurus etc without whom there would not be such a great place.

Also your bolding of the five duffer captains illustrates why the committee needs fewer Skips.

Hypothetical for you then.

Committee now consists of: 4 captains, 1 simmers, 1 stat guru and 1 veteran. Team X is up for breaking a team sheet error. Captain 1, simmer, stat guru and veteran all play for Team X. All vote to throw out the charge at a vote of 4-3.

The only bias a committee member would have is for the benefit of their club. Adding in people adds new allegiances and can muddy the waters more. Captains aren't the issue. It's the people who are being given that role, imo.

Now, it could be because they hate AB and want to see his reign burn in fire. Maybe. I don't know I am not in the committee.

Another reason is because as an "average" or "new to the game" player if I have something I need clarified or wanted discussed for the next season or what have you, but feel out of place by talking to the admin directly, if my captain (who is my immediate leader) isn't on the committee, who do I feel comfortable talking to? How do I feel represented when my club isn't?

The captains are there to make sure all 12 clubs are heard in the process. How captains relay information to their LGs and clubs as a whole, is up to them.

The only group that might deserve a say is the simmers but realistically, they only care about getting the team sheets to them in a way that makes using the sim easy and to get games out on time. The admin would be with them and can easily present any issues they have to the committee.

tl;dr

my admin reign was splendid

I'm sure it was delightful. Did you offer the committee a chance to go over any and all rule changes you wanted to make?

The committee was on struggle Street last season with captain's being inactive or unsure of what to do.

Sounds like the clubs made errors in electing their captains, which is a shame

 

[Tigerturbulance]

The committee was on struggle Street last season with captain's being inactive or unsure of what to do.

this I think says a lot about the leadership of the SFA

 

[NaturalDisaster]

Hypothetical for you then.

Committee now consists of: 4 captains, 1 simmers, 1 stat guru and 1 veteran. Team X is up for breaking a team sheet error. Captain 1, simmer, stat guru and veteran all play for Team X. All vote to throw out the charge at a vote of 4-3.

The only bias a committee member would have is for the benefit of their club. Adding in people adds new allegiances and can muddy the waters more. Captains aren't the issue. It's the people who are being given that role, imo.

Now, it could be because they hate AB and want to see his reign burn in fire. Maybe. I don't know I am not in the committee.

Another reason is because as an "average" or "new to the game" player if I have something I need clarified or wanted discussed for the next season or what have you, but feel out of place by talking to the admin directly, if my captain (who is my immediate leader) isn't on the committee, who do I feel comfortable talking to? How do I feel represented when my club isn't?

The captains are there to make sure all 12 clubs are heard in the process. How captains relay information to their LGs and clubs as a whole, is up to them.

The only group that might deserve a say is the simmers but realistically, they only care about getting the team sheets to them in a way that makes using the sim easy and to get games out on time. The admin would be with them and can easily present any issues they have to the committee.


I'm sure it was delightful. Did you offer the committee a chance to go over any and all rule changes you wanted to make?


Sounds like the clubs made errors in electing their captains, which is a shame

Appointing TJASTA was both the worst and best decision i've ever made in the Sweet FA.

 

[Kennedy Parker]

I'm sure it was delightful. Did you offer the committee a chance to go over any and all rule changes you wanted to make?

Yes for all pre-season changes. In-season changes, I go 'hey this situation came up and I'm gonna handle it by making this change...' if there's no objections (there were generally none because a lot of captains were inactive) I go right ahead.

 

[Barrybran]

tl;dr

my admin reign was splendid

 

[TJASTA]

Appointing TJASTA was both the worst and best decision i've ever made in the Sweet FA.

A. I'm not a captain, I am an overlord. Get it right.
B. Don't know what you are on about. I am the best thing to have ever happen to this shithole. I have learned it all from my favourite poster, HaroLad

 

[Tigerturbulance]

Appointing TJASTA was both the worst and best decision i've ever made in the Sweet FA.

just leave it at worst

we all understand

 

[pantskyle]

this I think says a lot about the leadership of the SFA

Without naming teams I at times found myself pm'ing another teams LG to remember to do things.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

The duty of committee members should be to the SFA as a whole.

In Millkys scenario ethical members would declare conflicts of interest and not vote. Significant bans for failing to declare conflict of interest.

 

[Tigerturbulance]

Without naming teams I at times found myself pm'ing another teams LG to remember to do things.

that my senior law partner is because you are part of the solution not the problem

my case rests

 

[Loonerty]

As I noted in an earlier post. Being an outsider means a different view can sometimes be offered. Yep I am a Barbarian but like heaps of people here,vi get lots of fun.

A poor governance system is good only for s**t fights which may entertain some folk but risks burning people

I think the current model developed by you vets has problems.

The Admin role is set up to fail, irrespective of who is doing it.

I think these can be resolved. Your committee differently constituted could become more like a board and the Admin should be directly accountable to it.

My view and added to the mix

Literally have had 27 seasons run fine.