how will you respond if your fellow headmin elects want the opposite of your platform promises?

[dendydoom]

rather than saying that you'll discuss it with them amicably (this is the easy answer,) let's assume that the other 2 headmin elects totally oppose your primary platform promises and you're not able to convince them otherwise. what would you do about it?

how closely do you think headmins should work together? how far do you think a headmin's individual rights to headmin without the blessing of their peers should extend?

do you think that one headmin in every cycle naturally takes the lead? or do you think the position is at its best when the power is spread evenly amongst all three? would you be willing to push for the power that you feel you deserve when you're faced with a roadblock? or would you find common ground even if it means giving up on goals that are important to you?

interested to hear your thoughts, and good luck with the election!

[kinnebian]

I think that if the situation has devolved to a point where we cant come to an agreement or discussion, theres clearly a massive or fundamental flaw in my promise.

I think this term has proven that 3 headmins with pretty varied opinions can still work well as a team, so I don't have much worries about it.

[Sightld2]

rather than saying that you'll discuss it with them amicably (this is the easy answer,) let's assume that the other 2 headmin elects totally oppose your primary platform promises and you're not able to convince them otherwise. what would you do about it?

Imagining a complete and absolute roadblock scenario and I am completely unable to convince either to budge? Honestly? If I could do so quickly and without causing issue, I'd probably resign. It feels like reaching that state is just a different brand of failure.

how closely do you think headmins should work together? how far do you think a headmin's individual rights to headmin without the blessing of their peers should extend?

This was more thoughtfully discussed on the Charter debate thread, but I feel like the idea that an individual headmin should have more power if a particular issue is sitting for a while. But even in situations where a single headmin could act, they should inform the others and speak if there's a chance to do so.

do you think that one headmin in every cycle naturally takes the lead? or do you think the position is at its best when the power is spread evenly amongst all three?

I don't think that's something we can know without inside perspective. Even if it appears Timber wrote a lot this term, we don't know how much the others played their respective roles, and any guess at that would be uninformed I feel.

[General Thrax]

the other 2 headmin elects totally oppose your primary platform promises and you're not able to convince them otherwise. what would you do about it?

If I'm unable to have what I want for admin training to happen, I'll settle for suggestions to the trainer team to try and work it through that way. If my MRP policy stuff is completely blocked, that's quite a bit tougher. Best I could do is get support on it from other manuelmins and push it for it next term.

how closely do you think headmins should work together? how far do you think a headmin's individual rights to headmin without the blessing of their peers should extend?

I think there should clearly be significant cooperation but each headmin should be able to pursue their own goals they have for the term. Lasting changes and things like ban appeals should still have the others weigh in (probably more fitting for the Charter question).

do you think that one headmin in every cycle naturally takes the lead? or do you think the position is at its best when the power is spread evenly amongst all three? would you be willing to push for the power that you feel you deserve when you're faced with a roadblock? or would you find common ground even if it means giving up on goals that are important to you?

It happens but I don't think it necessarily has to. I don't think any headmin that has "took the lead" in recent years has actually had any more power than the other two, at all. If there was a roadblock to changes I support, I doubt these same headmins would support giving me more power at all. Finding some sort of Common Ground and brokering a compromise is probably the only proper way forward, and as long as I get a few things in it'll hopefully lead to the rest.

[iain0]

I don't really have much to oppose, yay!

Okay, more usefully the opposition is simply someone wanting to change something that I don't agree should be changed, or I think is just a bad idea.

At the end of the day it really is all in the discussion, opinions, collect data, polls, whatever need be, but the hypothetical is all this not reaching consensus.

In which case there is nothing to do about it, the time for doing things is over, everyone casts their votes, the results are binding, and we all move on with our lives. Kinda a big point of having 3 headmins, a number that avoids even splits in votes but having 3 means that there's at least two people on board with ideas (based on a typical charter that is), and thus the decisions /shouldn't be/ one person running away with their ideas in their own little bubble, unknowingly disconnected from the reality around them. Everyone acts as everyone elses checks and balances.

And if you lose the vote, you lose the vote. Not a big deal, you can always try reverse or re-enact the change by campaigning next term or appealing to the next term if you're dead set against it. But like when stuff changes in code that we dont like and can't do anything about, you suck it up and carry on playing, because the game is still just awesome over all. And for headmins that means you just move on to the next thing to work on.

Working together is a +ve, see the above about checks and balances, it should help keep the whole process and thoughts more grounded generally, and picking up ideas that other brains came up with that your brain missed is typically a good thing. Not everything really needs that though.

Headmins "taking the lead". The power *IS* spread amongst all three. "Pushing for power" I don't really get I suppose ; things get discussed, everyone says their piece, if you want to lay it on thick and how strongly you believe in something, go ahead, but at the end of the day 3 people vote and the charter tells us what happens next, no-one can really "take" power. I think earlier I suggest that common ground is /ideally/ the way forward, if two people believe in something and one person doesn't, that one person should take the time to have a long hard think about things, see what the root of the difference is, maybe gather opinions from other sources, but for me having three people is /good/ because you don't end up with one persons vision that goes against the majority. The only thing really up for debate is how flexible one is on their opinions, and that's down to the topic and the debating of the topic. At the end of the day the votes decide, and the headmin job is to think that through as best they can, factor in all the things from the internal discussion, consider the effect of your vote, and vote (e.g. majority votes aren't blocked if its 2v1, so you can downvote something here without sinking it, just to show your disagreement, while if for some reason say policy was unanimous then the thought process is more about wether you disagree enough to /veto/ it in the face of two other yes votes).