User blog:Wh!te$tar/Revision to the Corruption Call

Okay, so llately I've seen..I think four users call out Kagi? It's brought me to consider revising the current Policy that says any user on SFW may call out an admin as incapable of handling the position, after which a vote shall be set up to decide said admin's fate.

Of course, there are a few rules that go with this. First and foremost, the user calling out the admin must link an example of the admin breaking any Policy as "proof" of their inability. However, I started to wonder what would happen if an admin...manipulated (for lack of a better word) situations to make it seem as though they hadn't done anything against Policy. And, of course, there's the event of admin who genuinely can't handle the position yet haven't broken a policy. They haven't done anything against the rules, yet they're hurting the site without knowing it.

So, as the user who first suggested and, in a way, created the Corruption Call, I would like to ask users' opinions on a revision I call the "Vote of No Confidence", taken right out of Star Wars. Basically, a user may call out an admin on the basis of "no confidence" rather than on the basis of breaking Policy. The voting would continue as a normal Corruption Call would. An admin would create a blog to keep track of the votes, both the admin and user would give defenses for their reasons, and a minimum vote of 2/3 against the admin would be necessary for the admin to be demoted.

So, tell me what you think guys. If enough people like the idea, I'll run it by Flash and he can set up an "official" page for the revision to be put in place. Of course, if you guys request the Policy be put in place asap, I could simply as Flash for permission to revise current Policy.