board77

I feel as though I should apologize for constantly commenting on the JR proceedings. It's just that I care very much about this issue and I will be very sad if whatever comes out of committee ends up damaging what I see as the valuable aspects of this opportunity. I can certainly better understand now the urgency ToE members felt about their forum being 'ruined'. So that is why I keep commenting, just to make sure the things I consider important are brought to the attention of the committee.

Axordil wrote:

I would like to strike the language from the tightening proposal regarding mutual agreement being necessary before new posters can come in the thread.

Ax, please consider what this would mean. Using the truehobbit Estel resolution as a reference, that would mean that people who backed Estel's recollections could just come in at her behest and do that, and people who backed truehobbit's recollections could just come in and do that and perpetuate the misunderstanding. In fact, that is initially what began to occur, but those people then deleted their posts, either voluntarily or after being asked after seeing that this dynamic was not helpful.

I think it's extremely important that any discussants not named in the thread title be mutually agreed to. These provisions were not arbitrarily picked out of a hat. They are meant to address problems with the Bike Racks that people expressed during the initial part of this discussion.

If you were in a dispute with someone, would you want them to be able to include everyone they thought would back their position without an ok from you? Could you please tell me what purpose you think that would serve?

Quote:

I believe either poster (or the mediator if present) should have the right to ask someone in if they deem it helpful. This more closely reflects current practice, and I don't believe this aspect has proven problematic.

I think you're wrong about this, Ax, on both counts. I think on the BR discussion that hal started, people expressed the idea that if others joined the discussion, it should be by mutual agreement of the participants. In any case I can tell you this: If our dispute resolution process becomes one that allows the person I am resolving with to invite others without my ok -- people who I know are hostile to me and share their point of view -- then that isn't a process that would interest me.

Fixer wrote:

I believe that Rangers CAN split off threads without there being disputes under present rules. This just specifies that BR is the place to put the posts that involve fighting.

That is the point of disagreement that needs to be clarified.

Clearly the practice on the board before these mock resolutions brought the whole purpose of Bike Racks into question, was that off-topic splits that did not involve two (or more) posters trying to work out a personal difficulty were split into a new thread in the same forum.

An example was a recent symposium thread that began discussing the libertarian disputes. In the midst of that, yovargas became concerned with a statement Ax had made, and wanted to seek clarification on that, so that new thread went in Symp as well.

It would have made no sense to break off that thread into Bike Racks, and it makes no sense to put non-personal dispute derailments in Bike Racks. If people are discussing the new Supreme Court nominee, and two people get off into a more specific discussion about the interstate commerce clause so that it is derailing the more general Supreme Court discussion, it doesn't make sense to put that second thread in Bike Racks. It belongs in Symp along with the original thread.

What should go in Bike Racks is if two people, in the course of the Supreme Court discussion, start fighting with each other.

It has only been since these two upheavals and the mistaken assertion that Bike Racks was meant to be a dumping ground, that the practice of putting non-dispute derailments into Bike Racks has been followed.

I think it would be unfortunate if the rerouting proposal perpetuated the same ambiguities that caused problems in the current situation.

I think fisssh's suggestion helps, but why not just eliminate this confusing bulleted item entirely? (snipped from the larger quote below)

Quote:

• off-topic disputes that are derailing a thread

As seen below, the authority for Rangers to split personal dispute derailments is covered in the third sentence below the bulleted items. I believe the concept of Rangers doing this is actually encompassed in the first bulleted item, it is just a different way that two people end up in Bike Racks resolving their dispute (if they choose to do so).

rerouting proposal with snip wrote:

It is used for:
• resolving disputes between individual members when these disputes do not involve a violation of board rules;
<snip>
• restricting posters who are awaiting a Hearing or have had a jury penalty imposed upon them that restricts them to this forum.

Members may start threads in this forum to resolve personal disputes with other members. Use of the Bike Racks for resolution of casual or light-hearted disputes is permitted.

Rangers at their discretion may split quarrelsome or disruptive posts from threads in other forums and move them to the Bike Racks if they threaten to impinge on member rights.

Do people find anything unclear or inconsistent about the above with that one bulleted item removed?

...

Alatar wrote:

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.

Obviously I agree with Alatar. But what I find really distressing is that that twisting of the Charter to justify an illegitimate use of Bike Racks is now the foundation for this current attempt to turn Bike Racks into something it was never meant to be; this would in turn necessitate turning the Jury Room into something it was never meant to be, and all in the name of accommodating what I also believe we all know was never an intended use of the forum. Why would we do this?

OK, time for another cleanup.

Cerin--
You make some good points regarding mutual agreement, which I will have to think about.

How do you feel about the mediator letting people in?

JS - you couldn't be more wrong in your personal attack of hal.

Cerin wrote:

Alatar wrote:

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.

Obviously I agree with Alatar. But what I find really distressing is that that twisting of the Charter to justify an illegitimate use of Bike Racks...

If the Charter can be twisted, then by definition it is not illegitimate.

In Italy, many years ago, a law was passed stating that people riding mopeds had to wear a helmet. No two ways about it. Helmet-wearing was compulsory.

Now the moped riders, especially the men, did not like that since wearing such stuff was 'uncool'.

So they looked carefully at the law and spotted that at no point did it say where the helmet had to be worn. So they all went 'round having the helmet attached to their wrist.

Sure, it went against the spirit of the law, but not one was prosecuted because it was not against the letter of the law. The law was tidied up later.

So no more of this "illegitimate" nonsense.

Ax

I would assume the mediator would ask the participants how they feel about a certain person being let in. I can't imagine a mediator would seek to admit someone over the objections of a participant, though I can imagine them trying to persuade a participant that a certain person would be valuable to the proceeding.

I wonder what Voronwe would say about that?

This is what I mean by looking for loopholes. We're all adults. We shouldn't need "laws" to keep us in line. We should be following the spirit, not the letter of the "law" because that is what the charter was designed for. For us to govern ourselves with guidelines. As soon as we start looking for ways to circumvent those guidelines we belittle ourselves.

If you want to wear a helmet on your waist, do it. But don't be a smartarse and point out that "technically" you're not breaking the law.

Oh I agree Al. Too many laws. But there are a few that complain and complain about something, using the letter of the Charter as evidence - as hard fact. Those defending point out that in fact the letter of the Charter is flawed, so their complaint is not technically valid in that case.


Too much Charter, too little fellowship.

We lost it. We lost our way. b7 has become this Americanized I-sue-you-sue culture instead of just getting along and each to their own.

Off topicness split out per request.

I have a request. Can we lock this thread and start a new one? This one is getting so long that it takes a LONG time to load the splitting function and causes needless delay in posting.

Can you tell I’m on dialup?



edit: I put the splits in the BikeRacks, as usual.

Cerin wrote:

Using the truehobbit Estel resolution as a reference, that would mean that people who backed Estel's recollections could just come in at her behest and do that, and people who backed truehobbit's recollections could just come in and do that and perpetuate the misunderstanding. In fact, that is initially what began to occur, but those people then deleted their posts, either voluntarily or after being asked after seeing that this dynamic was not helpful.

I don't think that's quite what happened. I had Estel's permission to post but not truehobbit's. Same for Lidless. Jewelsong had truehobbit's permission, but not Estel's I believe. No other people had permission to post, so using this case as an example doesn't work. Both Estel and truehobbit allowed others to come in without eachother's permission.

Quote:

I don't think that's quite what happened. I had Estel's permission to post but not truehobbit's. Same for Lidless. Jewelsong had truehobbit's permission, but not Estel's I believe. No other people had permission to post, so using this case as an example doesn't work. Both Estel and truehobbit allowed others to come in without eachother's permission.

Yes, I think you illustrate my point. The people who came in only had one person's permission, and IIRC it quickly became clear that that dynamic (supporting one person's version of events) wasn't helpful.

Is it not the case that you ended up deleting those posts, and Estel and hobby were left to discuss uninterrupted?

So my point would be, if both participants were required to agree to all of the contributors, they probably would never have been agreed to in the first place and the interruptions would never have occurred.

I apologize if I have remembered this incorrectly.

Please continue this discussion here.