board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Charter Amendment Committee Needed Under Article 3

Locked   Page 33 of 35  [ 692 posts ]
Jump to page « 131 32 33 34 35 »
Author Message
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 10:28 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
I thought someone said they were Cerin's proposals, which was confusing to me as she's not on the committee.

That's irrelivent to the primary point though.

The issue is the fun threads. To have two radically different proposals, one with them, one without them, is once again ignoring the central issue.

Why not put that issue to a vote, and THEN work on proposals to improve the dispute resolution procedures?

Why is that a bad idea?


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 10:39 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
hal--

Well, all I can tell you is that no one on the committee has proposed exactly what you want. And I can't promise that anyone will, or if they do, that the committee will go for it. For my own part, and this is only me speaking now, I think that the vote you propose, while simple and straightforward, stands a greater chance of alienating a significant chunk of the membership no matter how it goes than either of the proposals being worked on, both of which I consider compromises.

What Cerin did, btw, is write up text for an idea that had been in committee from the get-go. She did for it what TP did for mine. Several people had proposed it, as I recall.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 10:41 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Edit: wait, excuse me. I think I misunderstood something here. If we are talking about an interloper protesting their removal from a Bike Racks thread, then no, this should not be contestable. It should be up to the principles in the thread, 100%. The Ranger is simply carrying our the request to which they are entitled.
I'd like to clarify something about this aspect of the proposal (as far as what I intended in writing it this way).

Up 'til now, the burden to ask that unwanted posters' posts be removed from a BR thread, or to decline the offer of help, has been on the BR thread participants.

I believe the sentiment was expressed by at least one person in the recent discussions, that this was in fact burdensome, because it could involve a reticence to hurt a friends' feelings, etc.

I devised the proposal this way so that once the participants had decided and announced who they wanted involved in their resolution, they would not be required to continue dealing with people intruding on their conversation, whether in the best intentions or not. Of course, you can't prevent people from offering by PM, and then it will have to be up to the participants to politely refuse.

I do not think it should be up to the participants to have to ask that an intruder's post be deleted; I do not think they should be required to assess any public offer of assistance after announcing who they want participating in the thread. I think it should be automatic, that the post of any name they have not listed, will be deleted. There is no reason they could not mutually agree to additional participants and notify the Rangers after the discussion had commenced.

This was meant to address the concerns of those who would have preferred a closed Bike Racks so that they didn't have to keep dealing with this type of interference.

As to why the interloper should be notified by PM, that was simply a matter of courtesy and/or informing someone who might not know the rules. Fixer, weren't you involved in something like that? Would you have appreciated a PM explaining the situation?



Regarding straw polls, I don't like the idea of asking the membership via informal poll which amendment should be put up first. If a straw poll is done, I believe the result should not be binding in any way on how the committee decides it is best to proceed. (This did not end up helping the ToE committee, IMO, and only created a great deal of annoyance and subject fatigue.) I think the only fair way to do it is to put both proposals up together, as has been described.

Axodil wrote:
Ah, but that's a decision, not just an action, because it may not be clear as to whether something is a joke or not...certainly not immediately. I could certainly see two people faking a convincing argument for kicks...and there were those who thought MariaHobbit and Mummpizz were joking when they started their dispute thread, and they were quite serious, just not particularly nasty about it.
I strongly disagree, Ax. I do not believe there is a single person here who believed that Lidless and tp had real problems they were trying to work out. I do not believe a single person here believed that the second mock thread participants really had problems between themselves that they were trying to work out. I remember the Maria Mummpizz encounter, and I don't recall anyone saying at the time that they thought they were joking. I think it was clear that umbrage had been taken and they were not joking.

This to me is the Emperor's new clothes scenario. We all know damned well when someone is pretending, so why do we have to jump through hoops about it? Why must our hands be tied so that we can't deal with deliberate bs quickly and perfunctorily?

If two people pretend to have difficulties and go to the Bike Racks pretending to resolve them, and two Rangers agree that that is what is going on, Administrator should move the thread (so that the irate joksters can't harrass a particular Ranger about it).

If you really believe that this is a decision, that is, that such a thread could possibly be legitimately perceived as real, or that a real dispute that has been witnessed and left evidence in threads could really be taken as a joke, then have this decision be contestable. But I would find it regrettable, that we don't have the willingness to call a spade a spade and be done with it.

Consider all the disputes we have observed as members of this board and others. When have you ever doubted you were seing a real dispute? When have you ever doubted you were seeing two people joking around?


Top
Profile
TheMary
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 10:44 pm
I took the stars from my eyes, and then I made a map, And knew that somehow I could find my way back; Then I heard your heart beating, you were in the darkness too - So I stayed in the darkness with you
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 7067
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:44 pm
Location: On my tush!
 
hal, my suggestion to you as a friend is to be as active in jury room discussion as Cerin is, but actually discuss charter issues like she is. All you seem to be doing is focusing on the fact that Cerin has been overy active in committee discussion, when you too could be helping the committee out too.

_________________

Lay down
Your sweet and weary head
Night is falling
You’ve come to journey's end
Sleep now
And dream of the ones who came before
They are calling
From across the distant shore

Why do you weep?
What are these tears upon your face?
Soon you will see
All of your fears will pass away
Safe in my arms
You're only sleeping


Top
Profile
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 10:46 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin, thank you for the clarification at the beginning of your post above. I confess that I have become confused a number of times throughout this discussion as to what, exactly, was at stake.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 10:53 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Ax, they are not compromises in the least bit. They are both different ideas to make the bikeracks better or more clear, with the fun posts or no fun posts added in, one on each.

The fact that fun posts are allowed or no has no bearing whatsoever on the two different proposals!


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 10:55 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
TheMary wrote:
Cerin has been overy active in committee discussion...
Sounds like a chick thing.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
TheMary
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 10:57 pm
I took the stars from my eyes, and then I made a map, And knew that somehow I could find my way back; Then I heard your heart beating, you were in the darkness too - So I stayed in the darkness with you
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 7067
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:44 pm
Location: On my tush!
 
Lidless wrote:
TheMary wrote:
Cerin has been overy active in committee discussion...
Sounds like a chick thing.
:shock: Crap, that's not what I meant!

_________________

Lay down
Your sweet and weary head
Night is falling
You’ve come to journey's end
Sleep now
And dream of the ones who came before
They are calling
From across the distant shore

Why do you weep?
What are these tears upon your face?
Soon you will see
All of your fears will pass away
Safe in my arms
You're only sleeping


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 10:58 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
An edit to my last post to point out, we aren't talking about deleting anyone's posts or requiring that they stop their discussion. We're only talking about moving joke discussions to an appropriate thread where they can be continued without interference.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 11:03 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Ara-anna wrote:
Why is there not an option to leave the BR just the way it is? Can that not be an option. It is the option I would vote for, and I am sure there are a good bunch of us silent posters who would do the same.
People have pointed out that a vote against both proposals is a vote to keep BR the way it is. At least, I think that's the rationale.


The reason the rerouting proposal is longer, is because it involves changing the Charter text for hearings as well as BR. The tightening proposal only involves clarifying the BR language.


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 11:15 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
*wonders when Cerin will actually go and enjoy the rest of the board like all other posters that have been posting about the BR. In other words, actually engage in the fellowship - the whole underlying reason of this messageboard's existence.*

The last post by her not originally posted in the Business Forum was 159 posts ago, welcoming castanea.d (but still mentioning the dispute), and the one before that, that had nothing to do with the dispute, was 267 posts ago.

It's a hell of a crowd there, Cerin. A wonderfully eclectic and intelligent mix, the likes of which I have only seen on TORC before.

You should join in.

Last edited by Lidless on Tue 29 Nov , 2005 11:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Tinsel_the_Elf
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 11:15 pm
* trolley dodger *
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:27 am
Location: Fighting the Long Defeat
 
Cerin wrote:
Ara-anna wrote:
Why is there not an option to leave the BR just the way it is? Can that not be an option. It is the option I would vote for, and I am sure there are a good bunch of us silent posters who would do the same.
People have pointed out that a vote against both proposals is a vote to keep BR the way it is. At least, I think that's the rationale.
Yes, voting against both proposals is a way of keeping the BR the way it currently is.

Its an option I personally haven't ruled out myself, although I'm going to wait and see how the proposals get refined in committee.


Edit: To add one word ("voting").

_________________

Omnia Vincit Amor; Et Nos Cedamus Amori

Need a Laugh? Generate a Laugh!
[ img ]
LOTR Caption Competition #24--->Sauron Gives Isildur the Finger.


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 11:21 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
But a vote no against everything, leaves things ambiguious to some, and leaves inflexible interpretations to others.

This solves nothing.

A simple clarification of what the current bikeracks situation IS should be the first order of business to solve the CURRENT problem.

No one had a problem with the way they thought the bikeracks worked (well I did, but gave up on that argument some time ago), only with whether or not fun threads were "allowed." To try and improve the dispute resolution while at the SAME time resolving this problem does not make sense. The current problem should be solved THEN methods to improve thigns should go forward.

By doing both at the same time, more problems will be introduced, and it confuses the whole issue.

Telling people to just vote no is not a valid course of action. That's the same as saying you don't think anything needs to be corrected. Most everyone acknowledges SOMETHING needs to be done, but most also think it's very little.


Top
Profile
Tinsel_the_Elf
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 11:32 pm
* trolley dodger *
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:27 am
Location: Fighting the Long Defeat
 
I agree that a vote "no" does not solve the BikeRacks issue (but then, I think a lot of the anger and bitterness that occured recently had very little to do with the actual BikeRacks regulations).

If I come to believe that either of the proposals will cause MORE problems than we have already, I will vote 'no' and choose to keep the problems we know.

hal, I will bring up your proposal for a vote in the committee (unless someone has already done so), but isn't it rather like voting yes or no on the tightening proposal (which would 'tighten' the purpose of the BikeRacks to only allow earnest disputes?)?

_________________

Omnia Vincit Amor; Et Nos Cedamus Amori

Need a Laugh? Generate a Laugh!
[ img ]
LOTR Caption Competition #24--->Sauron Gives Isildur the Finger.


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 11:36 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Well, it is like voting yes or no on that, but it's voting yes or no on the opposite of it.

The proposal I'm suggesting is, keep the BR the way they are, but clarify that "fun" or "frivolous" disputes are allowed. Or, alternatively, tightening the current form of the bikracks such that, while allowing fun or frivolous disputes, if you interfere in a serious one, action will be taken... which is how things are now, it's just not very strictly enforced.

Maybe that's why I see the "tightening" option as a problem. It's not really any different than we've got, EXCEPT the no fun or frivolous statement.


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 11:39 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Lidless wrote:
*wonders when Cerin will actually go and enjoy the rest of the board like all other posters that have been posting about the BR. In other words, actually engage in the fellowship - the whole underlying reason of this messageboard's existence.*

The last post by her not originally posted in the Business Forum was 159 posts ago, welcoming castanea.d (but still mentioning the dispute), and the one before that, that had nothing to do with the dispute, was 267 posts ago.

It's a hell of a crowd there, Cerin. A wonderfully eclectic and intelligent mix, the likes of which I have only seen on TORC before.

You should join in.
But making sure the Board function correctly now and in the future is far more important, Lidless. Surely you can see that.


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 11:42 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
*sigh*


To the committee:

It's quite simple, really.

A key ingredient of the m77t thread was that it was in the BR forum. The location led to the humor.

To have a forum dedicated to false disputes simple would not be that funny. They might as well be in Turf, Symposium or Members Lounge. It's like saying, "you can only be funny between 6 and 7pm".

It doesn't work. Trust me.

Look, just put in the word "solely" into Art 5, and those people that feel that other threads in BR are (mistakenly IMHO) compromised in terms of integrity will be happy. Forget a fake BR forum. It would be a wasteland.

"Solely" lessens the board as a whole, in my opinion, and the thought of having to require such a protected area required stikes me as "alien" (Self-edit: I had a very different word in the original. C'mon, it's only the thread that counts isn't it, nothing else. Most realize this), but I realize there are some posters here that are more fragile than others when they want/need to be taken seriously.

I mean, I do the funny and I do the serious posts. Most of us do. People here are clever enough to discern which is which. And I trust them. Most people here trust them.

Alas, as I said, there are others that feel more vulnerable in this respect, requiring a double layer of both thread and forum to feel they are being taken seriously, and I guess we need to cater for them too.

You'd think with the intelligence here people would be more discerning and trusting of other intelligent people in this regard, but people are human - each with their individual weaknesses and strengths. Each with their own overriding securities and insecurities.

For once, let's just simplify things.

EDIT

Either "solely" in Art 5

Or, allow fun threads, but they must be clearly designated as such in the title of the thread.

Either way, that extra level of protection is given to the more fragile of us.

My personal favorite is the latter, of course.

*sigh*

Last edited by Lidless on Wed 30 Nov , 2005 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 12:36 am
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
I've been a little confused as to the proposals and the point of the committee lately. I voted in the straw poll, but still am not sure why so much is being placed on dispute resolution. That wasn't the original issue at all.

I agree with liddy's suggestion: "solely" for serious disputes, or not "solely". Brain surgery seems like it would easier.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 12:55 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
TED--
The purpose of the BR is dispute resolution. If we're fiddling with it, we're gonna talk about that. The proposal for rerouting things to the Jury Room requires talking about it more, since it seeks to define terms et al.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 1:41 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Replying to Tinsel in the Jury Room:
Quote:
I am reluctant (though not absolutely opposed to) adding large new sections to the Charter. Would a simple vote on whether or not "fun" or parody disputes can be started in the BikeRacks be another way of clarifying the issue? (Very similar to the 'Tightening' Proposal, but in the opposite direction)
Tinsel, even if we had a vote like that, we would still have to formulate and ratify the changes to the Charter that reflected that vote, I believe. Which means going through exactly the process we are going through. So it seems best to present the changes to the Charter as the vote, if you see what I mean.


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 33 of 35  [ 692 posts ]
Return to “Business Room” | Jump to page « 131 32 33 34 35 »
Jump to: