board77

In the recent thread in bikeracks a number of people posted who were not party to the original misunderstanding.

If I rightly understand the charter requirements, only those directly involved should be posting in those threads without extraneous intervention. In this case, I believe TH purpose was to call me in, though as it directly touched Jn, she also posted in clarification.

Others also posted, however.

If I may quote directly from the "How to use the bike racks" sticky:

Quote:

The Bike Racks are intended for use by members directly involved in a dispute and whomever they designate as participants. Uninvolved members should consider carefully before posting comments that they consider to be helpful without the permission of discussants. Sometimes even the most benevolent intervention serves to exacerbate the situation when it is made without the parties' consent or desire. Rangers have the right to delete the posts of non-designated members who enter the thread.

I am bringing it up here because I feel that the provisions for limiting the discussion were overlooked, probably because the whole process is still fairly new. However, I think we should pay attention to those provision in future to facilitate a quick end to these discussions. I personally found the widening of the discussion unhelpful but felt awkward about mentioning this at the time because the other posters were obviously only trying to help.

I do feel that perhaps some oversight of these threads would be helpful, by an uninvolved third party (read "Ranger") who can gently remind extraneous posters not to become involved either. It only muddies the water.

I would appreciate some acknowledgement that these provisions will be kept in mind by our acting PTB.

Thank you.

*checks to make sure she didn't post in the Bike Racks discussion*

Very good point, Imp. I hadn't actually remembered that direction from the bike racks sticky... we'll get better, soon enough, in fine-tuning these processes.

I didn't even read the thread (I don't think; there are so many ; I don't know who said what there, and am not meaning to point fingers at all. I just went when reading what you just quoted, because I had not remembered that at all, and certainly would have been one of the people jumping in because I had forgotten it.

I am not an acting PTB; however, as a plain ole' member of the board, I appreciate the reminder.

Imp, I suspect that the Ranger who moved the posts, who had just started the job, didn't yet know that she could extract only the disputant's posts and move just those, rather than moving all the posts after a certain point. I certainly had no idea of that when I first started.

So other people got swept up in the move, and then felt that meant they were able to, or even were supposed to, continue their discussion in that thread.

I actually wrote the instructions for Rangers on how to split a thread, and now that I reread them I don't think they make the process clear at all.

Oh, dear, I just posted in a Bike Racks thread. I did so with the caveat posted above in mind - that the person should consider carefully before posting. But I read the posts my friends have written and feel the distress in their voices, and I am involved. I cannot remain a bystander and do nothing.

I was under the impression, when the bikeracks idea was first proposed, that we would be chatting merrily away about various non-personal topics (PJ raped the book, etc) and then someone would get personal with some other poster, and the two would go off to the bikeracks. But so far, there have been huge numbers of very personal threads in the business room and elsewhere. They start out personal and self-examining. At what point do they become a private discussion that others can only watch?

As I said about a month ago. We need a mission. Right now we are just picking at our scabs.

A very valid point you raise Impenitent and thank you for it
And yes, Prim is right (as always ) I seem also to remember that any bikeroom threads should be clearly labelled with the desputants names either in the title or definitely in the first post. To that effect I think it would be wise for any Ranger that takes on the job of splitting posts off a thread and with them create a new thread in bikeracks to insert a post made with the Admin ID, naming the posters in question so the issue is clearer. Too bad such a post cannot be made at the beginning of a new bikerack threads (or at least I believe it's not possible, maybe I'll be proved wrong).
There are a few pending issues to go into the Ranger Handbook and the 'how-to' thread in Forum Management here and this point is definitely one that could benefit of clarification. I hope one of the Rangers can get to this soon Having updated info on 'how to' is vital in a rotation system as we have here on b77.

laureanna wrote:

Oh, dear, I just posted in a Bike Racks thread. I did so with the caveat posted above in mind - that the person should consider carefully before posting. But I read the posts my friends have written and feel the distress in their voices, and I am involved. I cannot remain a bystander and do nothing.

Laure, I thought your post in the bike racks was lovely, and definitely more helpful then counterproductive.

The use of the bike racks thus far has been different then we (or at least I) anticipated. It was (at least from my perspective) designed mainly as a place where members could choose to go to resolve their disputes. It has mostly been used in situations where members are forced to go resolve their disputes.

There has already been some discussion of this in the Charter Issues thread, in which Frelga suggested that the circumstances under which Rangers are authorized to move a part of thread to the bike racks be more clearly spelled out. Several of us cautioned that we felt that the Rangers needed to have sufficient discretion to address unanticipated situations that were bound to come up.

I think that with this particular situation there was a real grey area, because it did not really involve a specific dispute just between two people. When we discussed the bike racks in the convention, we made it clear that people could not be prohibited from posting in threads there.

Article 5, ¶1, of the Charter provides that:

Quote:

Those who have initiated the thread may request that Rangers delete the posts of non-designated members who enter the thread.

However, that does not address a situation like this one where the participants of the dispute did not initiate the thread. In the enforceable section of Members Rights and Responsibities, it says:

Quote:

It is your responsibility to resolve your own personal disputes in a productive fashion, and not to interfere with other members who are doing the same.

What it boils down to, in my opinion, is exactly what Laureanna said above: consider carefully before posting in such a thread, and only do so if you really are involved.

I don't feel like that thread was well defined. I didn't see it as just an Imp/truehobbit thing and it didn't seem to be one of those threads that could only involve two people, especially considering Ethel's post and some of the subsequent posts that were moved with it.

laureanna wrote:

As I said about a month ago. We need a mission. Right now we are just picking at our scabs.

We are, aren't we?

Yes, this particular thread is a tough one. When Rowanberry started the thread she posted the following after the moved posts:

NOTE: The posts above have been split from this thread in the Business forum; there were several participants so I didn't put their names in the title of this thread. Please solve your disputes here.

As Imp said, the people whose discussion caused the posts to be moved were myself, Imp and Truehobbit. When that seemed to be resolved, Imp posted asking the Rangers to "do whatever they do." She was referring, I believe, to the fact that members can ask for a thread to be locked and even deleted when the 'dispute' has concluded. So I understand her expectation that nothing further would be posted there.

laureanna was working from the premise stated by Rowanberry when the thread was moved, so her expectation of being allowed to comment was also reasonable, and surely exceeded any requirement for constructiveness.

I just now had a look at the thread before posting here and I see that what followed was a post by Wilko addressing me ... and he is asking to discuss an issue that I did in fact abandon in the Business Forum. That issue is different from the one for which the current Bike Racks thread was started, so I think that in this case the best solution would be for the Rangers to move Wilko's post alone to a new thread in the Bike Racks, put Wilko's name and my name on it, and I will take up the discussion with him there

Wilko deserves an answer and by doing it this way we will not derail further the Business thread with a topic that I (at least) consider personal.

Jn

Primula_Baggins wrote:

Imp, I suspect that the Ranger who moved the posts, who had just started the job, didn't yet know that she could extract only the disputant's posts and move just those, rather than moving all the posts after a certain point. I certainly had no idea of that when I first started.

So other people got swept up in the move, and then felt that meant they were able to, or even were supposed to, continue their discussion in that thread.

I actually wrote the instructions for Rangers on how to split a thread, and now that I reread them I don't think they make the process clear at all.

Prim, (and Jny), I'm sorry I keep repeating that, but IMO all the posts that rowanberry moved, she moved because she thought they belonged there, and I agree.
Ethel's post certainly did, and with it, naturally, those that answered this post.
I'm pretty sure that rowanberry is perfectly capable of splitting a thread correctly, and that she (rightly IMO) found the posts she split in violation of our rule not to carry one and the same conflict from thread to thread.
Yes, my and Imp's argument were of a different nature, so I suppose two threads in the bike racks would have been better.
But as it was obvious that the matter with Ethel's post would not be discussed, I think that's no harm.
It would of course be possible for her to argue about her post in the same thread in which my and Imp's difference is discussed.

Edit: I haven't seen wilko's post yet, but it sounds like he should just have started a new "wilko and Jny" thread there - something the Rangers can easily do now.

(Going to have a look at the latest posts there now. )

Sassy, I don't know if it's keeping people away, but it sure is quiet, even (and particularly) in the light-hearted threads.

Jnyusa wrote:

As Imp said, the people whose discussion caused the posts to be moved were myself, Imp and Truehobbit.

And Ethel. Unfortunately, a few others had already put their spoon in the soup as well.

FYI, I did notice the "split marked posts" option, and considered using it; but, all the posts of the "bystanders" more or less referred to the argumentative posts so, in my opinion, leaving them to the original thread would have made it incomprehensible. All I think I could have done otherwise in this case would have been to inform Prim, Eru and Din about the move.

(ETA: TH posted while I was typing this so, it repeats things a bit.)

TH: I haven't seen wilko's post yet, but it sounds like he should just have started a new "wilko and Jny" thread there - something the Rangers can easily do now.

He was responding to a post of mine in that same thread, so from his point of view it was also a legitimate entry.

I would start a new thread myself, but then Wilko's earlier post would not be there, which is why I thought a Ranger might move that particular post for continuity.

The solution I propose is only for the sake of courtesy to Imp, whose name shows as threadstarter even though her name is not in the title, and who has asked that the thread be ended.

I think what we have here is not so much a matter of rules as a matter of etiquette. Because we have not had so much experience with this system, no etiquette has yet emerged to cover these situations.

Jn

I can split those posts if you wish; I suppose you're talking about your post on Aug 3 and wilko's answer to it in the Personal Issues thread?

The thread for Jynusa and wilko should only have those people posting in it, correct?

Eru, I thought about mentioning that, too. Jn would be within her rights to request that Vison and Wampuskitty's good-hearted but not really appropriate posts be removed, but she would also be completely within her rights to not do so. I really think that it is up to her. The relevant portion of the Charter states:

Quote:

A thread in the Bike Racks forum is intended for those members directly involved in the interaction, plus whomever else they designate as participants. Those who have initiated the thread may request that Rangers delete the posts of non-designated members who enter the thread.

So I really would say that its up to her. I would like to encourage people to avoid the urge to post in bike racks threads, particularly those that are started by a particular member for the express purpose of resolving a disagreement with another member.

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:

I would like to encourage people to avoid the urge to post in bike racks threads, particularly those that are started by a particular member for the express purpose of resolving a disagreement with another member.

This needs to get out somehow. I don't think posters realize that those threads aren't really open to everyone, partially because we've had threads in there before that everyone has been involved in.

Well, I don't really object to those two posts. Wilko, though, is within his rights to object to them.

If it turns into a free-for-all, though, I will ask members to respect the privacy of the thread.

Perhaps I'll add a note to Wilko in the thread asking him if he objects to other members posting there .... I suppose it depends a lot on what they post.

What should the etiquette here be, really? Should members send a PM to the threadstarter asking for permission before posting?

Jn

I thought about posting it in the thread itself, but then I would have inappropriately posted in the thread. I'm not sure there is much we can do to get it out other then just point it out whenever it seems appropriate. There is already a notice in the bike racks, I believe. I certainly don't think that either a global announcement or a membership-wide email would be justified. Just the occassional gentle reminder.

I started this thread immediately after posting my "This thread is done" in the bike racks. Obviously there were no other posts following mine at the time so I was not referring to any of those (I still haven't seen them as I came here first.

So laure, if you posted there, I haven't seen it and I wasn't making any complaint relating to you!

I was moved to begin this thread because I PM'ed one of the people who had posted earlier who had not been here at the time the bike racks had been created and discussed - in order to advise as gently as I could that the point of bike racks threads was to allow disagreements/misunderstandings to be resolved as quickly as possible between the parties involved. I did not ask for posts to be deleted as the discussion was over as far as I was concerned - it was simply a courtesy FYI thing.

The response was a terse "I will post where I want". The perception was that I had stepped out of line by forwarding that information, even though, ironically, I would have been perfectly in my rights to request a deletion - which I did not do.

So I think we must be clearer about the seriousness of these "don't interfere" provisions because no matter how helpful the intention of the one interfering, it can muddy the waters.

I feel we must make it clear that if one wishes to post, one should clear it with one of the interested parties first. I think in the midst of a tense discussion it is difficult to deal with a red herring tossed in, even if tossed with the best intentions.

And if people insist on intervening, it woud be very helpful if a Ranger could gently take on the role of reminding them that they ought not get into it. If I, or TH or Jn had said to any of the non-involved parties, " thank you for your input but it is not helpful, could you remove it please," it would have sounded much more pugnacious than the same message coming from an objective third party.

I'm sorry. I forgot it was in Bike Racks. When I'm reading around the board I don't always notice what forum I'm in. I'll delete the post, which was pointless anyway.