Originally Posted by LWafflez

A couple things that could use rewording or more explaining.

Number 1: Maybe assign more definite powers to each to make it more clear cut on where the powers of one end and the powers of another begin.

Number 4: So everyone votes but they're not really making the decision since the council makes the decision? Or do you mean, the new applicants are decided by the council but everyone in the org gets to voice their concerns or comments about others joining?

Number 5: In personal conflicts, what exactly happens to the persons involved with said conflict? To me it doesn't seem like there's much anyone could do in a personal conflict situation other than be a 3rd party voice or some kind of mediator in a discussion.

Number 8: Seems like it can be a loophole for Number 2. If the leader doesn't like a guy he can just 'infract' him until there's a ban from the org. Maybe add something about infraction appeals that would go before the council if the infraction was believe to be wrongly earned.

It also has nothing about a democratic change in the leader or council.

Originally Posted by devil1337

How about this.


1.The council has 50% of the power in the org. The other 50% is to the leader. Meaning that the council and leader are needed for decisions as to prevent power abuse from either of them.

2.The leader can only fire a member ( be it from the council or a regular one) if 60% of the council members agree to it, in order to prevent personal conflicts to affect official decisions.

3.Events and suggestions are taken in consideration if they receive at least +3 yes votes over no votes. After that events/suggestions are brought to the council first. If they decide they are good, they will take it up with the leader.

4.Everybody CAN vote on the new applications. It's only up to the council to make the final decision ( if a member is accepted or not).

5.A personal conflict in a branch is only brought up to a superior member, preferably the branch commander. Only he can bring it up to the council if he considers it worthy, otherwise he will attempt to resolve it himself.

If there is a conflict between members of different branches, just bring it up to one of their commanders.

6. If at least 5 members want another member removed, they can bring it up to the council. Otherwise, it will be considered a personal conflict ( see point 5 ).

7. The council and leader can appoint a small event team, in charge with organizing forum and ingame events of any kind. This way it we can become more popular and it will attract even more members and make the whole org more fun to be in for everybody.

8. The council and leader are the only ones who can give infractions in the org, and have moderator abilities on the forum. Upon reaching a specific amount of infractions points, the user is banned from the org for a week. Upon 3 bans, the user is permanently banned from the org.

Originally Posted by devil1337

How about this.


1.The council has 50% of the power in the org. The other 50% is to the leader. Meaning that the council and leader are needed for decisions as to prevent power abuse from either of them.

2.The leader can only fire a member ( be it from the council or a regular one) if 60% of the council members agree to it, in order to prevent personal conflicts to affect official decisions.

3.Events and suggestions are taken in consideration if they receive at least +3 yes votes over no votes. After that events/suggestions are brought to the council first. If they decide they are good, they will take it up with the leader.

4.Everybody CAN vote on the new applications. It's only up to the council to make the final decision ( if a member is accepted or not).

5.A personal conflict in a branch is only brought up to a superior member, preferably the branch commander. Only he can bring it up to the council if he considers it worthy, otherwise he will attempt to resolve it himself.

If there is a conflict between members of different branches, just bring it up to one of their commanders.

6. If at least 5 members want another member removed, they can bring it up to the council. Otherwise, it will be considered a personal conflict ( see point 5 ).

7. The council and leader can appoint a small event team, in charge with organizing forum and ingame events of any kind. This way it we can become more popular and it will attract even more members and make the whole org more fun to be in for everybody.

8. The council and leader are the only ones who can give infractions in the org, and have moderator abilities on the forum. Upon reaching a specific amount of infractions points, the user is banned from the org for a week. Upon 3 bans, the user is permanently banned from the org.

Originally Posted by RayA75

1. No. There are branches for a reason. We need to use them; and benefit from each branch, so that checks and balances actually can work. The power cannot be 50/50. It can be 50/50 if its only related to a certain aspect, as in, dealing out org rules throughout the members. Thats fine.

2. Is fine if its on dealing rules throughout members

3. check #7

4.Thats fine

5. Fine too

6. within branches; the whole org, or both?

7. We need the branches to have responsibilities. that sounds like a good place to start

8. same as #7

Originally Posted by Muur

I second this, but I don't believe the council members should be able to hand out infractions, seeing as this could destroy the protection against personal conflict.