Like most of our other systems and procedures on staff, we need to assume most people will be participating in some measure of good faith rather than constantly having it out for eachother's necks.

I agree with this, but I believe that as a function of time, this will eventually happen in some capacity. We have a non-zero precedent of people outright quitting Staff after being reprimanded, and giving them a tool to potentially lash back out should have a plan to deploy when abuse is suspected.

Edit for clarification:

I don't expect it to happen, for years even, but we don't want to scramble to make up a clause when it's been a tool for years and suddenly we suspect that someone is being petty.

The difference between "doing this out of spite" and "the straw that broke the camel's back" are nebulous, undefined, and extremely subjective. Like most of our other systems and procedures on staff, we need to assume most people will be participating in some measure of good faith rather than constantly having it out for eachother's necks.

Say that this goes through, and staffer A makes a no confidence vote on staffer B. What happens if that happens to be right after staffer B had a disciplinary measure on staffer A, or an interaction that staffer A didn't like?

I assert that there have to be measures against doing this out of spite instead of someone genuinely believing that someone is in the wrong. What happens to staffer A if there is sufficient evidence that they did it because they personally don't like the accused? What happens to staffer A then?

I could very well see a well-meaning and good-faith Captain trying to restore somebody to a team after a period of three months, or six months, or something — but then getting backlash when others feel it is too earlier. Setting an absolute minimum will alleviate this, rather than leaving it to a vague "Whenever feels appropriate." Making the minimum a long one guards against speedy return.

We'll edit these changes in.

1. Is a VoNC allowed to be initiated if Disc is actively investigating the staff member in question?
2. Is a VoNC allowed to be initiated if Disc opens a vote on that staff member, but declines to punish them?
3. Is a VoNC allowed to be initiated if Disc votes on a punishment (i.e. a warning or above), but the requisite five staff members think the punishment is too lenient? For the record, I'd be extremely hesitant about this, unless new relevant information comes to light (and if so, the case should be reopened by Disc anyway).
4. Disc often has access to relevant information that the general staff body doesn't, and it's possible that information given in confidence with the expectation of privacy was vital to their decision. What is the procedure, if any, for sharing this info with the petitioners for a VoNC?

However, there is one final matter that occurs to me: the Full Removal from Staff option should also come with a blacklist period of some time in which the user is not permitted to join or be recruited to staff. It would also do well to address how this interacts with our current policy on returning staff. Without any additional rules to what is here or there, staff removed by a VoNC vote would be able to return to staff immediately, as Operational Staff. This is clearly unacceptable, if this policy is to have any teeth.

To that end I propose that staff subjected to a full removal be subjected to a year blacklist, minimum (with an explicit mention that return to staff is only possible after this year mark and not assumed or even likely), and if they do return, they will return as Junior Staff.

edit: Upon mulling this over the blacklist is likely also necessary for the Removal from Captain and Removal from Team punishments, although the JS stipulation is not. edit edit: by which I mean a separate blacklist i.e. if removed from Captain you cannot be Captain for a year, if removed from a team you cannot be on that team for a year.

Depending on the nature of the staff member's misconduct, a vote can advocate for of one of the following levels of severity. Note that this is simply a list of outcomes, there is no requirement that all "lower" outcomes be exhausted first.

• Formal Warning: The staff member will receive a formal warning.
• Censure: The staff member will be removed from staff duties temporarily. The length of a censure should be specified as part of the vote.
• Removal from captaincy: The staff member will be removed from their position as a team Captain or Vice Captain. They will still be permitted to remain a normal member of that team. They will not be permitted to regain this captain position for one year.
• Removal from team: The staff member will be removed from a specific team, though will be free to continue staff work for other teams. If deemed appropriate, this may also include loss of specific named staff privileges for the user.¹ They will not be permitted to rejoin the team until one year has passed.
• Demotion: The staff member will be demoted by one or multiple ranks, though promotion back to their rank would remain possible.
• Full removal from staff: The staff member would be removed from staff entirely. They are permitted to remain as a site member, although the Disciplinary Team reserves the power to revoke or ban them. The user would be forbidden from rejoining staff for one year, and would join as Junior Staff if they did later rejoin.

Votes of No Confidence can be organized by any group of at least five Operational Staff (or higher). Junior Staff are permitted to initiate an internal discussion about this procedure, but cannot bring this to a formal vote.

These votes will be posted to 05, and should consist of:

• Who specifically is being voted on.
• The reasoning for the vote, and relevant non-sensitive evidence or attachments
• The outcome to apply if the vote passes.

Votes will be open to all Operational Staff and above, and require quorum (as defined in the Site Charter) and a 60% threshold of votes in favor to pass. As with Disciplinary censures and demotions, the individual being voted on would be permitted to a post a defense in the thread.

This proposal will be open for discussion for 5 days to all levels of staff. Mainsite Mirror.