board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Charter Amendment Committee Needed Under Article 3

Locked   Page 34 of 35  [ 692 posts ]
Jump to page « 131 32 33 34 35 »
Author Message
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 2:09 am
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Cerin wrote:
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.
that may be, but if that's the case, then the options should be the same except for those differences. Otherwise, things are complicated.


Top
Profile
tolkienpurist
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 3:00 am
Unlabeled
Offline
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Location: San Francisco
 
A few general thoughts. This ramble is relevant to the idea of changing the Charter to allow joke threads in the BikeRacks - specifically, why I feel that this doesn't actually serve any point other than to make people feel that a compromise did occur. STILL intending to respond to your questions for me, Cerin. Really sorry about this delay.

Speaking as one of the two participants in the chess thread, and the one who originally pressed for it to continue...

The humor in the thread, such as it was, had a lot to do with the selection of forum combined with the content (mock dispute) being posted. It would not have had its intended effect in, say, Turf. We here on b77 do a lot of mock fighting - to the point where it seems like we never get tired of it. Examples are the m77ter thread, the Chess thread, the Retrograde thread, and numerous osgiliations in the Turf (e.g. Farawen's pie schtick) that feature posters breaking into mock fights. I'm not even sure WHY we find it so funny, but we obviously do, and I've participated in my fair share.

I was back at TORC recently looking for an old thread, and I came across a 4000-post congratulations thread that Rebecca started for Mammo in 2004. By that point, these threads were forbidden, so she did a tongue-in-cheek, "This has nothing to do with Mammo's post count, but the weather is great and let's talk about how fun the movies were, and by the way, Mammo's post count is totally irrelevant" sort of thing. It was bending a rule that said that such threads weren't allowed in the Movie forum. Other posters jumped in and started not!congratulating Mammo. If everyone created such threads, it would have cluttered the forum and destroyed its purpose. But, so long as it was one thread, it was amusing (to some) because it was pushing the rules slightly. Same with TDL's thread on which my Retrograde one here was based, as well as several other m00bies institutions on TORC.

Without the timing problem, the chess thread humor was of the same sort. "Look, this isn't the most kosher use imaginable for the BikeRacks, but it's a joke that's never been done before. We find it funny and so might some of the rest of you." On a one time basis, we were bending rules and pushing Charter boundaries. It was funny to us, it was funny to some other posters, and it would have been funny to even more had it been done at a different time. Start twenty threads in the BikeRacks about boardgames and mock disputes. Now they're not funny, they're tedious, and they've sabotaged the concept of the forum.

Given these thoughts, I have reservations about the proposal that I hastily threw together permitting light-hearted threads in the BR for two reasons:
(1) Actually permitting such threads under the Charter destroys whatever humor was in them to begin with - the humor in the boundary-pushing. It's funny. Lidless has often commented on how his banning from TORC was inevitable because his humor was destined to clash repeatedly with the rules. I wonder, though, if his humor was so well-loved on TORC because it rested right at that critical boundary between permissible and proscribed...because so many of us appreciate the hilarity that can result from toeing that line when the stakes are low, as they almost always are on a messageboard. Because there were mods at TORC responsible for enforcing rules, if they chose to let something slide, no other posters could create a thread with hundreds of posts to protest its inappropriateness. (Likewise when they didn't let things slide.) So, if boundary-pushing humor was allowed to stand, those of us who found it funny could sit back and enjoy it, and those who didn't essentially just had to deal with it, which caused no permanent scarring. Likewise, when it wasn't allowed to stand, those who didn't find it funny could have their way, and the rest of us would just have to deal with it, which also didn't cause permanent scarring. The problem is our lack of arbiter, which leaves some people still wanting to have their fun and push the boundaries, and leaves others fearful of the consequences of their doing so.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure how ever to resolve this within a democratic system. We can legislate all we want, but either people are going to feel stifled because the boundary-pushing they enjoy is NEVER permitted, or people are going to feel threatened because they are not comfortable with ANY boundary-pushing. As mutual respect goes (i.e. resolving without legislating), we are at a stalemate. The former group feels that mutual respect means that their sense of humor should be respected; the latter group feels that mutual respect means that their belief in strict and unwavering adherence to the rules should be respected.

(2) I defy anyone to create a thread in the BR that is actually funny to anyone, at this point, by virtue of its placement in the BR. I think the humor is gone, both because of this protracted dispute AND because of the fact that it was never going to be funny more than once, or at the very, very, VERY most twice.

[this is mostly a restatement of what Lidless said]

Lidless and hal - if either of you has suggestions on how to handle this amendment, particularly since the three of us share so many thoughts on the current Charter setup, I will make sure that the committee gives your suggestions equal consideration with Cerin's, as I am sure they would regardless.

hal - the first proposal is longer is because:
- it deals with the setup for two forums, not one
- it was written by me and is thus destined to be verbose
- I was trying to incorporate many people's suggestions in, whereas Cerin simply proposed the language she would like to see (as far as I could tell)
I promise that Cerin and I did not conspire to have her proposal be shorter and thus potentially more likely to be approved. Length is most likely not a deterrent to people, as they will probably make their decision based on very brief summaries of both proposals.

grammar edit/double negative

Last edited by tolkienpurist on Wed 30 Nov , 2005 4:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 3:37 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
tolkienpurist

I hate the thought of those questions hanging over your head, so please feel free to disregard them.

Quote:
the latter group feels that mutual respect means that their belief in strict and unwavering adherence to the rules should be respected.
This is simply not the case. IIRC, I have never complained about anything else in my time at b77.

I saw a use of Bike Racks that to me, represented a threat to the usefulness of that forum for members who really needed to use it.

The extrapolation to a more general stance about rules was unwarranted generalization. My opposition to that use of Bike Racks does NOT represent a belief in strict and unwavering adherence to the rules. It represents my belief in strict and unwavering adherence to the intended use of Bike Racks, because of the value I see in dispute resolution and in seeing that process respected.

Quote:
I was trying to incorporate many people's suggestions in, whereas Cerin simply proposed the language she would like to see (as far as I could tell)
No, I tried to incorporate the concerns expressed by those who wished to see the Bike Racks more controlled, while offering a proposal for what I believe is preferrable, that is, keeping Bike Racks to the original intent (rather than opening it up to mock threads).

Quote:
Given these thoughts, I have reservations about the proposal that I hastily threw together permitting light-hearted threads in the BR for two reasons:
2) I defy anyone to create a thread in the BR that is actually funny to anyone, at this point, by virtue of its placement in the BR. I think the humor is gone, both because of this protracted dispute AND because of the fact that it was never going to be funny more than once, or at the very, very, VERY most twice.

So I trust you see the absurdity of proposing a complicated Charter amendment that has the effect of ruining (my perspective) two perfectly good forums, in order to accommodate a use that no longer has a rationale behind it except to keep a certain group of people from being pissed off?

If so, you might try promoting an understanding of that idea in committee (though I suspect we have already wandered too far down this particular path to find our way back, and will end up cutting off our nose to spite our face -- that is, turning the Jury Room into the Bike Racks so people can turn Bike Racks into just another inside forum for fun and games because really, we just don't have enough of those already).


Top
Profile
tolkienpurist
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 3:53 am
Unlabeled
Offline
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Location: San Francisco
 
Thank you, Cerin. I will try to address them somehow, at some point, but I appreciate your understanding.

I want to clarify that when I say "the latter group," I really am referring to what I believe is an actual group of posters. It is not a veiled reference to you alone, which is how you understood it, it seems. I saw several different people state very emphatically that they felt it was important to the functioning of this board to follow closely all the rules passed by democratic process on this board (whether or not they said it in so many words).

As far as I can remember, this IS the only instance in which you've objected. I agree. I didn't mean to suggest anything to the contrary.

I was referring to one of the two general stances I have seen on this issue, namely: "We have rules. We agreed to follow them. The simplest path to peace and harmony is for everyone to respect that and to have fun that is clearly within the rules." I got the impression that several different people felt this way from their posts. And I got the impression that several other people (myself often included) enjoy playing right at the boundary of the rules. These two views clashed here. They may clash again in the future. That's all.
Quote:
So I trust you see the absurdity of proposing a complicated Charter amendment that has the effect of ruining (my perspective) two perfectly good forums, in order to accommodate a use that no longer has a rationale behind it except to keep a certain group of people from being pissed off?
Cerin, to be absolutely honest with you, I think that this entire thing is absurd. I think that the absurdity of the thousands and thousands of posts, PMs, and IM exchanges that have arisen from an original silly, tongue-in-cheek thread that had eight posts made by two people in it is unrivaled by anything else that I've seen in my years on the Internet. I think that the fact that more than a dozen people have to volunteer their time to propose a legalistic amendment is absurd. And by all that is fun and humorous, I think the fact that we will not have resolution on this issue for weeks to come is beyond absurd. At this point, it's all a matter of degree of absurdity.

I don't care how this comes out. As I said when I posted the draft of Ax's proposal, I do not intend to advocate for any given outcome. Because I was involved in this conflict from the get-go, I feel some odd sense of duty to help resolve it. So, I'd like to resolve it in a manner that is mostly satisfactory to the majority of people. I couldn't care less what that is.

My previous post speaks for itself - I don't see that people are gaining anything, at this point, by "light-hearted disputes" being "legalized" in the BR. However, if others do, then that's fine by me. I'm not going to advocate that they should feel differently, or that the committee should deny them that option.

That's what democracy is, right? Letting the will of the majority be done?


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 4:39 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thanks for clarifying on the rules point, tp.

And please, just forget about those questions. I don't think they are relevant any longer anyway, especially if you don't have an interest in the outcome or in interpreting the proposal you wrote (which is not meant as a criticism, that is a perfectly valid position to take).


Top
Profile
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 5:33 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
tolkienpurist wrote:
I think that this entire thing is absurd. I think that the absurdity of the thousands and thousands of posts, PMs, and IM exchanges that have arisen from an original silly, tongue-in-cheek thread that had eight posts made by two people in it is unrivaled by anything else that I've seen in my years on the Internet. I think that the fact that more than a dozen people have to volunteer their time to propose a legalistic amendment is absurd. And by all that is fun and humorous, I think the fact that we will not have resolution on this issue for weeks to come is beyond absurd. At this point, it's all a matter of degree of absurdity.
:yes:

One is supposed to come here for whatever s/he feels is fun and to relax, not partake in government or legal procedures.


Top
Profile
WampusCat
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 1:17 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:07 pm
Location: Off the beaten path
 
I have hesitated to say this because of my respect and affection for all the posters who are so caught up in this debate, but I too think it is absurd. Personally, I was glad there was a place like the Bike Racks to settle serious disputes and I laughed at the joke threads. I did not see them as mocking the process, and even thought their light-heartedness made it more likely, not less, that I'd feel comfortable taking a serious problem there.

But that's just me. It has been made abundantly clear that others reacted differently. That is why I believe a change to the charter is necessary, to clarify the rules and -- by finding a middle ground -- to give all of us a reason to feel comfortable and invested in this board again.

It is my hope that the committee's work will bring us together, not further divide us.

_________________

Word shaper / Soul tender / Melody maker


Top
Profile
TheMary
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 2:03 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!
 
Of course this whole thing is absurd, but if we don't try to satisfy those who are upset they'll feel jipped (gipped?) and if we are allowed to have our fun then I guess others are allowed to protest.

May I just add that the joke is ruined once you have to explain it, so if you don't get the joke please try not to piss on the rest of us who do get it because you fail to see the humor. Our sense of humor isn't going to change which is what makes this whole thing absurd. You're trying to keep our silliness out of certain places but it isn't going to work. What I mean is I don't see this every stopping because there are always going to be serious conversations in the Turf and jokes make in the Symp even though those are not the "intended" uses for those forums.

Now before anyone splits these last few posts off for, god forbid, going off topic does anyone have any suggestions as to what we are actually dicussing in the JR?

Added: To clarify what the heck I was saying.

Last edited by TheMary on Wed 30 Nov , 2005 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

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
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 2:12 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
TheMary wrote:
You're trying to keep our silliness out of certain places but it isn't going to work.
What exactly do you mean by this TM? Are you saying that no matter what the committee and membership decides, you're going to try to find a way around it and do what the hell you feel like? Doesn't strike me as either helpful or mature. I hope I'm misunderstanding you here.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile
TheMary
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 2:29 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!
 
Alatar wrote:
TheMary wrote:
You're trying to keep our silliness out of certain places but it isn't going to work.
What exactly do you mean by this TM? Are you saying that no matter what the committee and membership decides, you're going to try to find a way around it and do what the hell you feel like? Doesn't strike me as either helpful or mature. I hope I'm misunderstanding you here.
It wouldn't be helpful or mature, but that's not what I meant. I'm just expressing that trying to confine people to certain areas isn't going to work. I was more refering to silliness happening in the Symp rather than the Turf, not actually going around causing trouble. As a member of the current committee I'd be a fool to purposfully go around forcing amendments, this isn't what I consider fun.

Apologies for me very unclear statement, maybe I'll rework my post for clarity. Even that's become bothersome. I wish we all could just understand one another for at least one day.

_________________

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
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 3:44 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
As has been said many, many times: There is nothing in the charter about what belongs in the Symposium or in Turf. Although many technically "inappropriate" threads have appeared in those forums, the complete lack of board-dividing controversy, or even one single objection, might be a clue that they are different and seen as different even by the people who care about the rules. People who care very much about the rules have started "out of place" threads in those forums.

I wish this would stop being trotted out as an argument, because it's patently wrong and has now been answered at least half a dozen times.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
TheMary
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 3:47 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!
 
Well pardon me Prim, I shall refrain from bothering you again.

_________________

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
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 3:54 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Sorry, TM—I'm cranky at the moment. Didn't mean to swat.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
TheMary
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 3:54 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!
 
S'okay Prim I feel the same way :hug:

_________________

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
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 3:56 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
The thing is, even though the bikeracks are mentioned in the charter, it does not specify only serious threads. I really wish THAT argument wasn't trotted out over and over and over again, becuase it's been answered every single time.


Top
Profile
TheMary
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 3:58 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!
 
But that's what we are working on hallybaby :) Clarifying that oversight in the charter.

_________________

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
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 4:09 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
TheMary wrote:
Apologies for me very unclear statement, maybe I'll rework my post for clarity. Even that's become bothersome. I wish we all could just understand one another for at least one day.
Well, that's ok then :)

Sorry if you felt I jumped on you, but my big worry is exactly that. I'm afraid no matter what happens that some will just look for a loophole instead of accepting the intended use.

To be clear. If someone decides to post something contary to the charter guidelines for comedic purposes, I have no real problem with that. However, if that someone then gets called on it, they should admit it. Don't point to some loophole or try to twist the charter into knots to justify it.

In other words... Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 4:13 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
but it wasn't "contrary to charter guidlines" Alatar, that's why there's an argument at all.

If it was, then I agree with you. However, being told you're breaking the rules when you are clearly not, is a different issue entirely.


Top
Profile
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 4:16 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Sorry, Hal, I'm not buying that. The charter was twisted to fit the facts. We all know that the BR was never intended for joke threads. I enjoyed the joke. Just don't insult my intelligence by claiming it was a legitimate use of the BR. We all know it wasn't.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 4:18 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
no, we don't "all know." It's the casual assumption that people were out to break the rules that bugs me more than most of all of this. It was not a SERIOUS use of the Bikeracks, but it was certainly a legitimate one. Do you think I would have spent the last two weeks of my LIFE arguing over this if I thought the rules had been broken? What would my argument be exactly? We're allowed to break the rules, you can't do anything about it? That's neither rational, nor something I've every said or thought.


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