board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Request for a hearing on a ban

Locked   Page 2 of 2  [ 33 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2
Author Message
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 6:10 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Ethel wrote:
No. I am saying that I might reveal information from elsewhere on the board, if and only if I believed it would help rather than hurt people to do so. This is what wilko threatened to do, and for the same reason. (We both have friends from TORC who feel massively hurt over this closed board.) I specifically agree not to do this with the contents of the Invites forum, however.
Ethel, thank you for that clarification.

I wish I had straight in my mind at this moment, just what the banning procedures are. Are they in place yet? Have we even articulated what a banning offense is? It's not that I haven't read through the board policies and tried to get a grasp of them, but I definitely do not have them all straight in my mind at this point.

Quote:
I want to give Lidless and those who agree with them the opportunity to rectify what they see as "just wrong."
If I understand your purpose correctly, Ethel, I think this remark from Lidless' post is the kernel of the issue you are seeking to officially address:
TheLidlessEyes wrote:
I would have looked at what the board is. Closed and private.
Lidless accused the arbitration panel of a whitewash (a very offensive and hurtful remark, IMO), because you didn't look at what he sees as the deeper question of the private nature of the board in the hearing. (Btw, I think the hearing was handled excellently, in the only way it could have bedn handled at this point in time.)

I think we need to make some sort of official determination on this question: does the closed and private nature of the board at this point in time confer on the membership the obligation NOT to make known to non-members what is said here?

As I understand things, we can't do this through the official Constitutional process, as that isn't far enough along. We can't wait 'til the process is ready, because shortly after that it looks as though the board will be open, and then the point would be moot.

I would suggest that we set up a poll thread somewhere with this question, rather than having a hearing on a ban. Then we would have an idea (though not "legal" and official as the ratifications will be) of where the membership stands. That would in turn give members an awareness of whether they are violating the ethos of the board as it is understood by most members currently, when they share b77 information with those outside the board. It would also give the jurors in the recent hearing some solid ground to stand on in confronting the rather slanderous, IMO, accusation of a whitewash in the arbitration hearing, if they feel the need to do so.

I actually don't think the discussion should be held in Bike Racks, because I think it is an issue that concerns everyone; the fact that some people are concerned about confidentiality, makes it a concern for everyone.


Top
Profile
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 6:33 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
Ethel - I think if there is an arbitration decision, you will never have everybody agreeing with it. Everybody has to respect the decision - but agree not. This is an ideal you will not reach.

:(

Stop putting me in such dilemmas, you people here.

I want the panel to work, and to work quickly and I think Ethel's presence is vital for it.

I want spammy, happy, sappy posts from Estel, to have the chance to talk her once in my life in an IM conversation.

I want Voronwë on the panel.

I want some sereine athmosphere. I fear that the drama might make us loose posters - I was worried enough last week to mail Lidless about his absence. I have not seen Mummpizz in days. I am afraid - if you fear member apathy, it seems to me this is a way of achieving it.

:(

I think I want the moon..... however I think a hearing would not help the board, even if the privacy issue is important or perceived as important by some.

BikeRacks or a poll - but a hearing is not the solution IMHO, because this is about a principal and a hypothetic action.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile
Queen_Beruthiel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 6:40 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu 10 Mar , 2005 12:35 pm
 
I'm sorry but I think this is quite ridiculous. How can anyone arbitrate on a completely hypothetical situation: well, I might in such a situation.... if the situation ever arose.... which it might not... but then I might decide not to....?

Ethel, with respect, you are asking those three people to do the impossible and if I was one of them I would bat it straight back to you and point blank refuse to act as a member of a "jury" for a non-existent "crime" (or whatever non-emotive word one wants to use).

Solomon would refuse this one.

I'm afraid I have nothing more profound to offer than that we tough it out until the board becomes open and all this becomes irrelevant. I admit that it's easier for me than for some here, as my Torc friends are either here or not interested in being here.

I sincerely hope that people will step back from this.


Top
Profile
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 6:48 pm
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
Queen_Beruthiel wrote:
Ethel, with respect, you are asking those three people to do the impossible and if I was one of them I would bat it straight back to you and point blank refuse to act as a member of a "jury" for a non-existent "crime" (or whatever non-emotive word one wants to use).
Well... one of them accused me of participating in a "whitewash" because the panel I was on declined to ban someone else for precisely the same "non crime." It doesn't seem so unreasonable to me to ask them to address the matter directly themselves.

A session in the Bikeracks might get me comfortable with being accused of participating in a whitewash. It won't clarify the privacy expectations of this board, though.


Top
Profile
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 7:12 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
The procedures we have in place right now are listed here.

According to that post, Ethel can select only one jury member, who is supposed to act as her advocate. The admins select another, and, as the process stands now, the third is elected by the board at large.

It looks to me as if the entire process takes at least a month. Then, if the jury recommends a ban, the board must vote.


Top
Profile
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 7:18 pm
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
Primula_Baggins wrote:
The procedures we have in place right now are listed here.

According to that post, Ethel can select only one jury member, who is supposed to act as her advocate. The admins select another, and, as the process stands now, the third is elected by the board at large.

It looks to me as if the entire process takes at least a month. Then, if the jury recommends a ban, the board must vote.
Thank you. You're absolutely right. I've gone off like the hothead I am and disregarded procedures. I request Lidless as "my" juror. Not because I expect him to act as an advocate for me, but because I want this "whitewash" business cleared up once and for all.


Top
Profile
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 8:04 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Ethel wrote:
A session in the Bikeracks might get me comfortable with being accused of participating in a whitewash. It won't clarify the privacy expectations of this board, though.
And since the privacy expectations of this board are what we're actually concerned with, how about we avoid the melodramatic hearings on bannings and just ask the damn question we need to ask? I'm sorry but it's getting on my nerves that so many people seem to be taking this to such strange and emotional extremes when the answer is quite simple: does the board want to officially demand privacy from its members? Yes or No.

Or as Cerin put it:
Quote:
I think we need to make some sort of official determination on this question: does the closed and private nature of the board at this point in time confer on the membership the obligation NOT to make known to non-members what is said here?
This is all that needs to happen and then all this crap will be resolved.


Top
Profile
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 8:11 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Quote:
I request that Lidless, Eruname and Iavas_Saar serve as the jurors.
Me on a jury? Not a good idea, ever ;)

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 8:19 pm
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
yovargas wrote:
Ethel wrote:
A session in the Bikeracks might get me comfortable with being accused of participating in a whitewash. It won't clarify the privacy expectations of this board, though.
And since the privacy expectations of this board are what we're actually concerned with, how about we avoid the melodramatic hearings on bannings and just ask the damn question we need to ask? I'm sorry but it's getting on my nerves that so many people seem to be taking this to such strange and emotional extremes when the answer is quite simple: does the board want to officially demand privacy from its members? Yes or No.

Or as Cerin put it:
Quote:
I think we need to make some sort of official determination on this question: does the closed and private nature of the board at this point in time confer on the membership the obligation NOT to make known to non-members what is said here?
This is all that needs to happen and then all this crap will be resolved.
Yov, when all the reaction to the arbitration thing blew up, I asked, more than once, that the matter of privacy expectations be clarified by a vote.

It hasn't happened. Now I find myself accused of participating in a "whitewash" - which to me says "corrupt and dishonest" in big neon letters. So why is my corrupt and dishonest ass still here, I wonder? The arbitration was apparently a whitewash because it failed to throw wilko out, not for something he did, but for something he said he might do if his conscience dictated it.

Well, my conscience is similarly guilty.


Top
Profile
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 8:19 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
Or as Cerin put it:
Quote:
I think we need to make some sort of official determination on this question: does the closed and private nature of the board at this point in time confer on the membership the obligation NOT to make known to non-members what is said here?
That's the question. And we could all vote, YES. Then what? Who's going to be the cop? How will anyone know the crime has been committed?

I would vote YES. But then, I will feel the same way even when the board is open. I feel that way about TORC, for pete's sake. I wouldn't "lift" a post from TORC and post it here to hurt someone, or email it to someone out of spite, or some other miserable motive.

I'm NOT talking about the kind of sharing that MariaHobbit does. It's absurd, in my mind, to think THAT kind of thing is the problem.

The problem is: if someone has or does use a post from here in a hurtful way. Or if someone from "outside" sees what has been posted here. The first thing is unstoppable, and the second is going to happen when we are "open".

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 8:26 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Ethel wrote:
It hasn't happened. Now I find myself accused of participating in a "whitewash" - which to me says "corrupt and dishonest" in big neon letters. So why is my corrupt and dishonest ass still here, I wonder?
Because only one poster has accused you of such a thing and I've seen no indication to think that any of the other 181 members here agree. Calling for a hearing on a banning because one member made one hurtful comment is...unproductive, I would say. The only solution to this problem is for Steve to apologize to the jury, assuming (as I do) that he didn't intend to imply corruption and dishonesty.


Top
Profile
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 8:32 pm
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
yovargas wrote:
Ethel wrote:
It hasn't happened. Now I find myself accused of participating in a "whitewash" - which to me says "corrupt and dishonest" in big neon letters. So why is my corrupt and dishonest ass still here, I wonder?
Because only one poster has accused you of such a thing and I've seen no indication to think that any of the other 181 members here agree. Calling for a hearing on a banning because one member made one hurtful comment is...unproductive, I would say. The only solution to this problem is for Steve to apologize to the jury, assuming (as I do) that he didn't intend to imply corruption and dishonesty.
Okay. You're right. I overreacted. Your poll should do the job of clarification. I do not expect an apology from Steve, as I'm sure he thinks he is absolutely right. I believe a number of others do agree with him, actually.

Admins, please feel free to lock this thread.


Top
Profile
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 8:37 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Right...I've only skimmed over this thread and it seems quite ridiculous to me. I'm sorry Ethel but I don't think you're acting at all rationally. I think your actions are making things worse. Can you honestly say your actions have the best intentions? And naming me for a jury along side Lidless and Iavas...are you trying to tell me something?

I think, as stated before, that you and Lidless (and whoever else you think is attacking you personally) need to take this to the Bikeracks. That should always be the first thing we do instead of trying to rile things up by requesting our own ban.

Both you and Lidless are reasonable people and I have a lot of faith that you two can come to an understanding...not an agreement, but an understanding.

Let's all stop this drama and try to actually work it out okay? :) :hug:

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 2 of 2  [ 33 posts ]
Return to “Business Room” | Jump to page « 1 2
Jump to: