board77

http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... um=board77

Option 1) The first post in the forum.
Option 2) The second post in the forum.

This is not for discussion on either proposal, nor do you have to say when you've voted. We committee members want an idea of which one we should let folks vote on as we have come up with two ideas on how to satisfy the Board's needs and are unsure which to propose first. In an effort to make this a quick decision, I will leave this up for 5 days for people to pick which to vote on first. This is not part of the official Charter procedure so I'm winging it.

If a Ranger would sticky this, I would appreciate it. After the poll is completed, it can be locked and moved to... wherever it needs to go.

Sorry Fixer, can you summarize for us? Just a short explanation of each option. I went to the link and my eyes immediately glazed over. I will put the effort into it when the time comes, but for a straw poll like this can we have a basic idea of what we're voting on?

Personally, I don't care which one gets voted on first. How would you determine the winner? The one that gets 67% I imagine. Might make sense to have them run concurrently... people can then vote for one and not the other if they choose, or vote yes for one and no for the other...

I thought we were running them at the same time too. It makes more sense for people to be able to compare and make their decision at one time.

Hmmmm... I might screw up a summary, but I shall do my best. Other committee members may correct me if I am wrong but once a vote is cast it cannot be uncast so bear that in mind when reading my summary and making your decision.

Option 1 basically alters dispute resolution to where anything serious MAY occur in Jury Room or it can be kept in Bike Racks if both parties want it there. It does not prevent any sort of threads based on levity or 'mock threads' in Bike Racks, in fact is clearly states, "Use of the Bike Racks for resolution of casual or light-hearted disputes is permitted." In this manner, people who do not wish to use Bike Racks to settle their disputes can request it be moved to Jury Room to have it be more limited in who can intervene. There are also safeguards written in to deal with posters who interfere in other dispute threads. It also specifies that users penalized for interference in are limited to post only in Bike Racks, where they would be further prevented from posting if they become unruly.

Option 2 keeps a model similar to our current Bike Racks, but eliminates any possibility of using it for mock disputes. If you have a serious dispute that does not warrant a Hearing, it goes to Bike Racks and that is the only purpose that forum will serve. It has not yet been determined where posters who flagrantly disregard procedure will be limited to posting within. It will likely require a new forum be created or that the user's posting rights be eliminated entirely for a duration yet to be determined.

REAL BRIEF SUMMARY

Option 1) Bike Racks becomes dumping grounds for anything, including unruly posters. Jury Room becomes place for serious disputes.

Option 2) Bike Racks becomes place for serious disputes not requiring Hearing.

Thanks Fixer.

TED:

The idea is that we could use this poll to determine which proposal to show to the board first, and if it didn't pass with 67%, then and only then would we resort to the other proposal.

This would be an alternative to offering the two concurrently with a clause that if both were approved, only the one with the greater support would actually take effect, or neither would, or something like that.

Alatar:

The rerouting proposal would move sequestered dispute threads to the Jury Room, and leave the BR open to all disputes, regardless of their gravity or sincerity.

The tighetning proposal would state that the BR forum is only for sincere and earnest personal disputes or something similar. If two Rangers believed that a thread started there was not on the up and up, they could relocate it.

I get it now, Ax. Personally, I think both should be offered at the same time, but then again what to do if neither gets 67%... that would probably make things needlessly complicated.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

I get it now, Ax. Personally, I think both should be offered at the same time, but then again what to do if neither gets 67%... that would probably make things needlessly complicated.

If neither proposal gets 67%, I believe that means that the current system (both lighthearted and serious disputes) would be able to be created in Bike Racks. Of course, there is nothing to prevent someone from crying foul and asking for another Charter Committee on this either.

The Charter wrote:

A binding vote cannot be held for a proposition that has been defeated by an earlier vote during the past six months unless a genuine change of circumstances justifies holding an additional vote. It is the responsibility of the Committee to determine whether the proposed vote is allowable.If the committee is divided, a straw poll will be taken and a simple majority of the committee members will decide whether the vote is allowable.

(Jny, you want to put a space between the period and the I in there? The grammar nazi part of my personality is just going, GAH!!!!!)

Yes, will do, Fixer.

Jn

Fixer---

Although a charter amendment isn't a binding vote, and thus isn't subject to the six month restriction, I suspect that attempts to try revisting a defeated amendment too soon would result in some pretty nasty backlash.

I voted (for option 1, in case anyone is interested).

Quote:

If neither proposal gets 67%, I believe that means that the current system (both lighthearted and serious disputes) would be able to be created in Bike Racks.

That is not the current system. The current system is that the Charter indicates that the forum is only to be used for genuine disputes, but some people claim that because it doesn't prohibit mock disputes, those are also allowed.

Keeping the current wording would mean that we would continue with the dispute about what Bike Racks should be used for. I would have grounds to complain about its use for mock threads, and people would have the same dubious (IMO) grounds to continue using it for mock threads and for whatever else is not expressly prohibited by the text.

If people want to avoid revisiting this issue, then we have to clarify the Charter by passing one of the proposals.


I question the validity of the committee deciding which proposal to put up based on a straw poll.

It seems to me that the committee decided that they could not offer only one proposal for this amendment, because there were two distinct viewpoints represented on the board, and offering only one proposal would seem like the committee was choosing for the membership.

I fail to see why an informal preference poll would change that. It has no validity whatsoever in any official sense.

I think the fairer thing to do would be to offer both propositions at the same time, as has been discussed. I would ask those who favor the rerouting proposal, if they would feel satisfied if the tightening proposal were offered first based on the results of a straw poll.

Duh... Cerin, this isn't official. This is one of those "get a feeling for opinions" kind of poll.

I agree the situation if neither proposal passes would be that the current dispute would continue. Under the current system, the threads CAN be created, and your dispute about their right to exist would continue. If I was unclear on what I meant I apologize.

I started this without any official endorsement from any other Committee member. If you wish to complain about me and that I started a straw poll to get an idea of where people felt we should begin, start a Bike Racks thread and I'll meet you there. If you elect not to do so I will believe you don't care enough to really consider this a serious grievance and are just venting (and there is nothing against venting in the Charter, so go right ahead). I am not sure about you but I actually appreciate listening to other people's opinions and give them consideration. If you believe this to be a waste of time, I fail to see why you are participating.

I'm not participating in the poll, Fixer. However, I thought this would be the appropriate place to state my opinion that the best and fairest route for the committee to take would be to offer both proposals at the same time for consideration.

Fixer wrote:

Duh... Cerin, this isn't official. This is one of those "get a feeling for opinions" kind of poll.

I agree the situation if neither proposal passes would be that the current dispute would continue. Under the current system, the threads CAN be created, and your dispute about their right to exist would continue. If I was unclear on what I meant I apologize.

I started this without any official endorsement from any other Committee member. If you wish to complain about me and that I started a straw poll to get an idea of where people felt we should begin, start a Bike Racks thread and I'll meet you there. If you elect not to do so I will believe you don't care enough to really consider this a serious grievance and are just venting (and there is nothing against venting in the Charter, so go right ahead). I am not sure about you but I actually appreciate listening to other people's opinions and give them consideration. If you believe this to be a waste of time, I fail to see why you are participating.

Fixer, I for one am glad that you started this straw poll. I thought about doing it myself, but I was afraid there would be a backlash if I did. The results so far are confirming what I had already come to believe. At this point I have come to the conclusion that b77 would be better served by loosening the reigns rather then tightening them, because I think that that is what a majority of its membership that cares one way or the other prefers.

Quote:

At this point I have come to the conclusion that b77 would be better served by loosening the reigns rather then tightening them, because I think that that is what a majority of its membership that cares one way or the other prefers.

You may have come to that conclusion, Voronwe, but it is up to the membership as a whole to state our preference through an official vote.

If a straw poll is used to justify offering only one out of two clear choices, then the committee has basically made the choice for the membership, and on the flimsiest of grounds.

That would be extremely distressing.

The choice is still up for a yes/no vote, so nothing has been decided even by this straw poll.

Straw polls are only guidance to hopefully allow a committee to go in one direction or not waste time going in an unfruitful one. If there is a clear majority in favour of one option being put first then that is a hint, no more. The committee could still decide otherwise for perfectly good reasons. If the poll was closer to 50/50 then the hint would be to put both up at once.
Though I have cast my vote I don't want the committee bound by it. If one 'side' feels that things might be unfair it would be better to be openly and scrupulously fair to both opinions. Which would mean taking Cerin's position and offering both at once.
From the ToE experience the offering of a poll to the membership for the guidance of the committee, though potentially useful, is fraught with unseen difficulties and is best chewed over first by the committee generally.

Fixer I'm glad you started this poll too.

By all means express your opinion chances are we already know how you feel, you all wanted a committee so you got one. We are going to carry on the way we think is best for the board.

I'd really like other people's opinions, no offense TED, hal, and Cerin. It seems the same 4 or 5 people keep posting the same thing over and over again. Please, even if it's just to say I agree with so and so, new voices are always welcomed.