board77

I could actually care less one way or the other, myself, but I'm sick of the drama back and forth when it could all be settled right here and now.

I voted NO, because that's not the question I had in mind.

This is going into the woods and picking up the crooked stick after all.

I suppose IF we knew that someone had done it to hurt someone the offender could be banned, but for pete's sake, think of the process!

I'm not sure it's useful to frame the question around the issue of banning, since for the most part, people can commit the offense without fear of being found out, and it might be colossally difficult to try to prove someone guilty, and the process could cause tremendous damage, far beyond the offense.

I'd be more interested in knowing if people feel that the closed and private nature of the board implies that what is written here should not be shared with non-members. I think that is implied.

I know some people find the idea of a closed board repugnant; I think if a person felt they couldn't honor the concept of confidentiality until the board opens, without feeling they were compromising their personal integrity, then the ethical thing would be to leave the board until it opens.

I think expectation of confidentiality is a different issue. I think practically speaking, if you absolutely don't want what you say here to be known to anyone who is not a member, then you'd better say it in PM.

So I would phrase the question thus: Do you feel that the closed and private nature of the board implies that what is written here should not be shared with non-members?

Cerin wrote:

So I would phrase the question thus: Do you feel that the closed and private nature of the board implies that what is written here should not be shared with non-members?

That doesn't quite work either. For instance, I shared Alatar's link to romance novel cover parodies with several people. I doubt many people would object to that.

Yov, I also voted no because it's really the wrong question. Specifying the punishment (and making it the worst this board can deal out) is begging the question: should breaching the confidentiality of the board be considered a punishable offense?

Cerin wrote:

So I would phrase the question thus: Do you feel that the closed and private nature of the board implies that what is written here should not be shared with non-members?

Cerin, I don't think this is a useful question either. If the answer is yes, what has been accomplished? There is still no rule demanding confidentiality.

Yes, this is obviously an important issue, and yes, it should be clarified. But I would hate to see this controversy derail the constitution process (it has already damaged the committee terribly) and, worse, delay the opening of the board. Opening the board will make this controversy moot.

Ethel wrote:

That doesn't quite work either. For instance, I shared Alatar's link to romance novel cover parodies with several people. I doubt many people would object to that.

Hmmm.


Do you feel that the closed and private nature of the board implies that comments of a personal nature posted here should not be shared with non-members?

???

This has the same problem, I think. If we want to clarify this to the point that there is a rule, we can't simply say, "We believe this is wrong." We need to say, "This is wrong and will be cause for punishment of a poster who is found to have done it." And we need to specify whether an arbitration or a hearing on a ban would be appropriate.

The only issue that I've seen is whether or not leaking info is against the rules. So I'm asking should leaking info be punishable, and since the only punishment I know of that admin's can deal out is banning, that's what I put up. Perhaps Steve or someone else who actually has the issue should be the one phrasing the question.

If we want a different question, hopefully the admins can edit it because I can't.

Let's see how this vote goes, then we can have another polls on the other questions.

Btw, I reckon that these polls are non-binding... or are they? I regard them as opinion polls to gauge the mood of the board, which will be useful to draw up legislation, not pieces of legislation per se.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

Cerin, I don't think this is a useful question either. If the answer is yes, what has been accomplished?

We will know where the membership stands on the issue.

Quote:

There is still no rule demanding confidentiality.

What would be the point of demanding something if you had no way of determining that the demand was being met? I don't think confidentiality can be demanded, because I don't think confidentiality can be policed, tracked or guaranteed in any meaningful way.

I think it is a question of trust. Some people trusted, because they assumed an ethos of confidentiality was understood and shared. Asking the question will at least give people an idea if their understanding is shared by a majority.

Quote:

Yes, this is obviously an important issue, and yes, it should be clarified. But I would hate to see this controversy derail the constitution process (it has already damaged the committee terribly) and, worse, delay the opening of the board. Opening the board will make this controversy moot.

I don't see why it should derail the constitution process or delay the opening of the board. The damage to the committee occurred (as I understand it) because there was a basic underlying, unresolved issue between members that led to a hurtful remark. I think having a poll will clarify the issue fairly simply. I don't see the harm.

Quote:

If we want to clarify this to the point that there is a rule, we can't simply say, "We believe this is wrong."

We aren't clarifying to the point of establishing a rule. We're asking how members ethically view the issue. I think there could be great value in clarifying what ethical standard is embraced by the community at large.

Berhael wrote:

I regard them as opinion polls to gauge the mood of the board, which will be useful to draw up legislation, not pieces of legislation per se.

I agree with this.

I don't like the phrase of the question - but I voted no.

It depends entirely on the nature of the information and the manner in which it is revealed. This is entirely the wrong question, IMHO.

*~Pips~*

I, too, would vote no, and I'll copy/paste from another thread to explain further. I myself (as Ethel threatens to do) have shared information with Jonathan no less. But as I mentioned in another thread, no names were given. I never attributed a poster's name against a specific point.

I think that's the crux of my issue. To speak in generalities is fine, acceptable and the nature of the beast in the real world (what I've heard about it at least). But to communicate that Poster X said Y about TORCer Z really would not sit well with me - whether it was in an Invite thread or elsewhere.

In fact, I wouldn't have too much of a problem of copying/pasting a post or even a thread so long as the posters names are deleted, and that the posts are such that the poster's name cannot be inferred from it.

However, if Poster X can be identified by the quote, I'm not sure what should be done. A banning sounds too draconian for me.

Mind you, if that poster can show they have been harmed by such revelations, yes, there should be some sort of ban. Whyever not?

When the board is open, we won't have to worry about all this.

So please let's all hurry up and work on opening it, and not get involved in these never-endign arguments.

So what rule would you ask to be approved, Steve? What you've asked for so far has been far too vague to actually be enforced, imo.

Berhael

I'll vote no, too.

Here's the problem, as I see it:

1. People have posted their private thoughts on a closed board, assuming that "closed" means "confidential".

2. Private thoughts were shared off the board.

3. No rules were in place to address this issue.

4. We are aiming to become an "open" board, soon, so these intense issues are really a problem of our immediate present only... when we are no longer "closed", there should be NO expectations of confidentiality.


My suggestion, as posted elsewhere, is to have a "temporary" forum where confidentiality IS stated as a requirement. If people are found to have flouted that requirement, their access to that forum could be blocked. If people feel tempted to share the information they might find there, they could request that their access be voluntarily blocked.

When we are fully "open", that confidential forum would be removed.

Let's not jump to bannings as a first choice punishment. This is a sticky situation because different people... very GOOD people, all of them... have very different ideas on when it is appropriate to "share" potentially hurtful information.

To one person, enlightening a friend about what is being said about them could be viewed as helpful, while to another person the same action could be viewed as malicious gossip.

I don't have all the answers; I'm not even sure if my suggestion is feasible. But it does seem like a half-step towards where we are going, anyway... to an "open" board.

.

.

.

Is it time for a group hug, yet?

I'm not sure what people want in terms of a rule. But in terms of what an aggrieved poster can do, we already have a system more or less in place. The first step is the Bike Racks; if nothing can be settled there, an arbitration is next. A poster who won't cooperate with an arbitration or who won't abide by the verdict can be made subject to a hearing on a ban.

I personally don't think banning should ever be the first response, except in carefully specified cases such as trolling or using the boards for criminal activity.

It is always time for a hug.

Yes the issue will pretty much become moot if and when we open, but I caution all to be careful of what they wish for. Having an open board will alleviate some problems, but others will spring up.
There is no perfect world. Just different problems.

No.

Too many variables.
Besides being impossible to enforce.