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?
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.
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.
That is the point of disagreement that needs to be clarified.
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.
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)
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).
Quote: • off-topic disputes that are derailing a thread
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?