Recruitment Policy poll

[Collier]

Hi guys,

As promised, here is the first poll for policy changes. More polls will be created after gathering more information on where the community thinks issues lie. Please use my other thread to discuss future changes, suggestions or concerns.

The winning vote might not be implemented exactly as written unless a majority vote is reached.

Regards
Chiefs of Department

 

[Aquaa]

By waive recruitment policies you mean the Chiefs can promote people even when they're not eligible against the Role oppurtunity policy right? If not, elaborate for me please lol thanks.

 

[Aquaa]

I believe leaving it or slightly tweaking it in the sense that a public announcement must be made by the Chief(s) as to why an exception was made because last time when someone got reinstated or promoted to a role they weren't eligible for there was a big uproar. I believe that the lack of transparency encompassing that decision was what sparked such an outrage; with this we wouldn't have that problem as they could justify it. On the other hand, many people may still not agree with the decision so removing it as a whole could be a plan B

 

[Momo]

It simply means that if the chiefs believe it might be a good idea to bypass the policy they can. This could be for a role they have opened themselves or for a role opened by another division. People in other division may also approach the chiefs and ask if they may bypass the policy. In general, the recruitment policy is great but there are situations where it does not make much sense.

 

[Daigestive]

You can already do this?

 

[Aquaa]

@Momo Thank you for making such a detailed response!! cough cough @Collier cough cough

 

[Collier]

I am asking what the community wants? If it's removed then I don't need to justify anything?

What is your question?

 

[Momo]

7.2 Within certain circumstances, it may be requested from the Chiefs of Department to disregard this Policy. ( this policy or possibly with another form has been around for as long as I can remember )

 

[Daigestive]

You have a poll for 3 things that more or less keep it exactly the same and 1 to remove it. If you want your reasons to be public why not just post them rather than waste time with a pointless poll? You promised transparency so surely you just post your reasonings and not waste time.

 

[Collier]

@Daigestive What's your question? I haven't bypassed any policies yet so what makes you think I wouldn't justify it publically if I did? The poll is here to ask whether or not the community even wants the Chiefs to hold this power and if so, if it should be edited.

 

[Daigestive]

@Collier what a waste of time. Why would anyone want applications to take even longer if it can be justified.

 

[Collier]

@Daigestive What does it have to do with the length of applications? What if people don't trust me to justify it properly? What if people don't trust me to justify it at all?

What if people would prefer it simply not to happen?

 

[Daigestive]

I mean I wouldnt trust anyone that sympathises with nonces or promises a vote for chiefs after winning a poll and doesnt do it. How can we trust you to do what this poll wins?

 

[Collier]

@Daigestive I never "sympathised with nonces", nor did I promise Chief votes for all Chief ranks?

How can we trust you to do what this poll wins?

Why would I be making this poll if I didn't want to change the policy in a way the community wants?

Also, please answer my other questions properly.

 

[Daigestive]

@Collier my question was did you understand you can already do this at the beginning. Well you did sympathise with nonces @efan told you he asked him for 1 to and you still promoted him. It took you a month to close 2 applications when most command positions take less than 2 weeks. Not hard to see removing this policy doesn't give us the benefit of being able to promote people that show higher standards, removing it has no benefits. Publicly announcing it allows people to judge whether its justified. I didnt reply to argue I just found this poll very unproductive and pointless.

 

[Collier]

@Daigestive Of course I was aware I could already do this, what kind of odd question is that? The evidence Ethan posted surfaced after the promotion, it took a month because I wasn't on a lot around Christmas and New year's, a lot of people I spoke to during my campaign disliked the idea of having Chiefs be able to bypass any policy at all, hence the vote.

 

[Daigestive]

Pointless democracy never works, you've seen the state of the map poll and managed to turn COD election into rim competition.

 

[Collier]

@Daigestive It's a shame you can't see that community involvement is a good thing. I'll stop replying to this now as it is clear nothing productive is coming of it.

 

[Bnjemann]

If someone is applicable for a role in the PD and would make a good candidate imo the only way they should be able to prove themselves should be through there actions as an applicant.

 

[Daigestive]

.