board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Split from Charter thread

Post Reply   Page 1 of 3  [ 46 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 »
Author Message
halplm
Post subject: Split from Charter thread
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 4:08 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
I'm sorry, Jnyusa, I read the ranger's responsabilities for calling a hearing completely differently.

A RANGER calls a hearing if they witness what they THINK is a violation of the bylaws. The Jury decides if the ranger was right or not.

If a Member brings what THEY THINK is a violation of the bylaws, then two rangers must agree they THINK it is a violation of the bylaws. If it clearly is not, no matter HOW SINCERE the member is, no hearing should be called.

Sincerity of complaint is not a standard in the charter in any place. All that does is eliminate "joke" hearing calls, which I don't think anyone would actually use, as calling for a hearing is in private, not very good for a joke...

This thread was split from the Charter discussion thread following this post by me: Jnyusa's Post. Jn

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 4:13 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Jny--

Agreed. The Rangers should be there as a resource in disputes, not as judges or juries. But they are a resource for both the disputants, and the rest of the board.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 4:14 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Hal, if a member comes to me and wants a Hearing after one objectionable post by another member, I am going to point to the charter and say that the Jury can only impose penalties after persistent objectionable posts, and therefore a Hearing would be futile until the problem is shown to be persistent.

But if a member asks for a Hearing after ten objectionable posts, I am not going to say, "well, I don't think those posts are so bad." I do not decide the criterion for "objectionable" when it is another member complaining unless they are asking ME to do something, like edit the post.

I don't think anyone here realizes, or maybe they just don't like to admit it, that the Charter actually requires Rangers to call Hearings. Failing to call a Hearing is one of the more serious things a Ranger can do, and if they do it three times they can be removed from office. If they do it five times they MUST be removed from office.

You can't have it both ways - the Rangers cannot mod, but then the Rangers replace a jury with unilateral decisions.

We were very, very careful when we worked on the Charter to give it the proper balance. To hand out roles in a way that achieved our underlying purpose, which was to give members as much control over their own behavior as possible but not to let every punk rule the board.


Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 4:17 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
no, you don't decide what's objectionable, but you do decide if a hearing is "required" and that involves looking at the whole situation, the motivations of the posters involved, and if there is another alternative to a hearing.

I'll have more to say on this later, I don't want people to think I'm saying this just because I have a hearing.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 4:22 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I find it instructive that much of the language used here recently with regards to defining what is objectionable, or not, mirrors the discussion on restricting access to ToE.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 4:31 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Could you elaborate on that, Ax? I'm not seeing the similarities and I recall those discussions.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 4:38 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Do you recall the angst expressed over who, if anyone, should be allowed to decide if an objection to an applicant was real/relevant/sincere?

We decided in that case that rangers should not be expected to judge anything regarding the objection beyond its form, did we not?

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 4:48 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Ax

Yes, I remember those concerns.

So are you referring to the decisions Rangers make about a hearing? (Sorry if I lost track of what you were referring to.)


Responding to Fixer in the Jury Room (sorry I messed up your formatting):
Quote:
Reposting list of needs for further review:

1. A place for serious problem resolution not yet requiring a Hearing.

2. A place for disruptive spin-off threads to be moved to unequivocally so Rangers are not required to make value judgements on where to put them.

3. A means to prevent non-serious 'problem resolutions' from infringing on the gallantry of the forum to be used for serious problem resolution.

4. A method for rebellious users (present and future) to 'show their ass' and not cause a disruption.
I would say that 2 can go with 1, because if it was distruptive enough to put in Bike Racks, it automatically fits the definition of one and there is no question about where to put it.

I disagree that there is any problem or burden for Rangers in deciding where to put split-off non-disruptive derailments. Normally the people in the thread casually reach a consensus and say, could you move these, and I don't think it has ever been a cause for contention where a non-disruptive derailment has been put. Just put it in the same forum, unless it is a chess game, or a discussion about making pickles, or a sidetrack on Fellini's techniques, etc. It should be obvious where it goes, and if not, just break it off into the same forum after consulting the amicable participants where they think it should go.

The equating of non-disruptive derailments with disruptive ones was in error. The Bike Racks was never intended for non-disruptive derailments, and there is no reason to have a separate forum for them because they can be put as new threads into whatever forum seems best to the participants.


Top
Profile Quote
Fixer
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 4:58 pm
The Man who Knows his Tools
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 10:08 pm
Location: Near Tallahassee, Florida
 
I was making a list of needs, not proposals. If you can think of any more needs to add to the list I know I'd greatly appreciate it and will add them in. This applies to everyone, not just Cerin who I am responding to.

Item 1 CAN go with 2 but it must be decided if that is the best decision provided that 3 and 4 must also be performed and if 1 and 2 are the same forum then 3 and 4 might become impossible. First we decide the needs, THEN we decide how best to provide for them all.

(I wasn't discussing non-disruptive spin-offs in that list of needs. Those are Ranger calls and I hope always will be. I forgot to add that adjective my first list of needs.)

_________________

[ img ]

The best measure of our accomplishments in life is not what goods we have accumulated or the recognition gained from actions we have performed, but what we leave for others who choose to follow the path we made for them.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 5:01 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin--

Yes. Or rather, decisions we seem to expect rangers to make in some cases but not in others.

I am actually quite happy with the decision made for ToE, which was NOT to make Rangers into judges, but clerks, when it comes to processing complaints in general. I think it much more in line with our expectations for them in general, that is, acting on the request of the membership except on those formerly rare occasions when it was necessary to act on behalf of the membership.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 5:43 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
So instead of rangers being judges, deciding if a complaint has merit, the posters get to decide that?

What's to stop me from calling a hearing against someone for a point of view I find offensive. don't need a discussion with them... don't need a ranger to agree... just need to convince two rangers that my complaint is sincere.

most people's circle of friends is wide enough that they can count on two rangers at any given time being among them.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 5:49 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
If the two rangers in question are unprincipled enough to set friendship above their jobs here. I honestly don't think that's likely.

In response to fisssh's post in the Jury Room, I think the committee does need to bear in mind the use of the BR as a place to confine people. Although this hasn't happened yet, it is possible that someone will need to be confined on an "emergency" basis, and the place has to be available. I don't think the Jury Room is appropriate, as a rampaging troll or porn poster or commercial spammer could make quite a mess of a committee proceeding or a hearing.

Note that this kind of confinement would be used for (1) new "members" who join just to disrupt or spam commercially or (2) old members who have gone much farther around the bend than we have ever seen—aggressively posting porn or making threats of violence, for example.

Edit: I forgot the Charter-mandated use for confining members when a Ranger calls for a hearing against them. But doesn't the charter say "Jury Room"? For the reasons I mentioned above, I think it should the BikeRacks or equivalent, until and unless the hearing starts.

Last edited by Primula_Baggins on Wed 23 Nov , 2005 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 5:49 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
What annoys me is that this stuff was added to the charter eons ago and no one said boo about it then.
I am an inch away from saying to hell with the charter, let anarchy rule.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 5:51 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Actually I believe that action was considered during this week, but given one posters refusal to post in the bikeracks it amounted to a temporary ban, so it was not used.

Yet again, another example of one person wanting their way and disrupting the board as a whole to get it.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 5:56 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
 
halplm wrote:
Actually I believe that action was considered during this week, but given one posters refusal to post in the bikeracks it amounted to a temporary ban, so it was not used.
If that is the case (I must have missed it), that should not have entered into the equation. That's the poster's problem - not the board's.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 5:59 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
I agree, Lidless, that is why it IS a problem.

I don't know if it was considered by any rangers. I just know that was the reason I didn't consider making that recommendation.

Perhaps I should retract my statment of it being considered. That could just be wild speculation.

I think it SHOULD have been considered. I think it should have been done.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 6:02 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Quote:
So instead of rangers being judges, deciding if a complaint has merit, the posters get to decide that?
No. Merit doesn't come into it, nor does sincerity. It's strictly a matter of rangers saying, this complaint, if true, is about actionable behavior, as opposed to something that is not actionable.

If someone complained that a poster was using too many adverbs, the rangers would and should point out to them that there is nothing in the Charter governing style of prose, no matter how sincere the complainer's objection was. This is akin to a clerk informing someone that they can't get a license for their riding lawnmower, because it's not a motor vehicle, even if they ride it around their lawn.

There is no discussion of whether lawnmowers SHOULD be motor vehicles, or if adverb-happy posting SHOULD be forbidden. There is just an evaluation of whether the form of the complaint falls in line with things we can ask for hearings about. Which is as it should be.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 6:07 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
ah, I see, well, I've been kind of torn with calling for a hearing or not, and the only reason I haven't is because I was told that the rangers wouldn't see it as a good enough reason for a hearing... NOT that it wasn't something that wasn't in the charter.

Note, of course, there's nothing in the charter about calling frivilous hearings as being an actionable offense.

So, I could call for a whole bunch of hearings against someon efor things they may or may not have done, but because they are things listed in the charter, the rangers SHOULD let them through to a hearing, and lets bog the whole board down because we need about 60 jurors and weeks of figuring out which hearings are really necessary, and which aren't, and wait, the Poster X putting us in this hell hasn't done anything wrong.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 6:12 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Long before that went very far, Poster X would be up for a hearing for harrassment and/or disruption. Raising hell for the sake of raising hell makes the board a bad place. Rules that prevent that do NO harm to anyone of good will.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 6:14 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
 
Hal,

I think that in itself would easily be classed as Board Disruption, given all the time and effort in starting up Hearings and assembling the pieces.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 3  [ 46 posts ]
Return to “Business Room” | Jump to page 1 2 3 »
Jump to: