board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Continued: Charter Amendment Committee

Locked   Page 1 of 6  [ 120 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Axordil
Post subject: Continued: Charter Amendment Committee
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 7:48 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Continuation of the previous 35 pages. The old one will stay sticky for ease of reference.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 7:50 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin--

The piling on factor is indeed important to consider in cases where people may want to be supportive, but will only end up aggrevating things.

All right, mutual it is.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 7:54 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Responding to Cerin:

No, I did not end up deleting those posts. I deleted the ones where I was arguing with hal because he came in univited. Those posts were not helpful because they did not pertain to the dispute between Estel and truehobbit. All of my posts that did pertain to that are still there.

What happened is univited people posted and that wasn't considered helpful. truehobbit didn't seem to have a problem with me posting and Estel didn't have a problem with Jewelsong posting.

Ax, I do not think it needs to be mutual. Estel and truehobbit's case shows that it doesn't have to be.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 7:58 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Dammit, now I have to go read the fool thread to puzzle it out for myself. :Q :help: :D

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
fisssh
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 8:05 pm
White Sox sw00ner
Offline
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu 07 Jul , 2005 2:22 am
Location: Island of Misfit Toys
Contact: Website
 
I can't find the text we're talking about :help: but couldn't we say something along the lines of letting people join at the invitation of one participant, subject to the other's approval. Like, if the other person vehemently objects they can veto?

_________________

We only wish! To catch a fish! So juicy sweeet!


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 8:06 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I thought about that too, fisssh, but is that different from mutual agreement? I suppose it's more mutual aquiesence...

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Nov , 2005 8:13 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
If you find it more palatable put in those terms, by all means.

That resolution should be there in Bike Racks for all to read. I would suggest asking two questions:

If a mutual agreement had been required, do you think anything would have changed?

If a mutual agreement were not required and one party chose to bring in all sorts of people hostile to the other party and who backed their point of view, could it harm the process?


Top
Profile
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 01 Dec , 2005 12:04 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Having been involved in one BR thread (an experience I will never repeat - I learnt that I cannot perform in a goldfish bowl), I strongly urge that third parties should only be allowed to enter by mutual consent of the principles.

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 01 Dec , 2005 8:15 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Responding to the Jury Room discussion:
Quote:
If a user or group of users post disruptive off-topic posts in a thread, the Rangers may be requested by any participant to spin them off to Bike Racks and give a warning specifying the users in danger of being suspended to Bike Racks for their participation in the disruption.

I believe this is too precipitous.

I believe the Charter already allows that if a thread is being disrupted by personal dispute, the Rangers may choose at their discretion or by request to put those disruptive posts in Bike Racks.

I do not believe a warning is in order in such a case. That would be treating our members like children, in the expectation that they are childish and recalcitrant and will act accordingly. This is modding.

I believe if the disruptive posters choose to return to the originating post and continue disrupting there rather than attempting to resolve in Bike Racks or walk away from the dispute, then another split of posts and a warning would be in order, that if they do so again, they may be suspended to Bike Racks for whatever time period.
Quote:
If any users specified are involved in another disruptive off-topic set of posts in any thread in a given day, the Ranger can immediately spin those new posts off to Bike Racks and suspend all users previously named to the Bike Racks for 24 hours as being disruptive.
Rangers can currently split any personal dispute derailments to Bike Racks.
I think the same comments I made above should apply here. Posters should not be warned the first time in a given dispute, they should be warned the second and confined the third.

I do not think a separate incident should be related to the original as grounds for suspension. Every separate discussion has its own separate dynamic. So I think the second part of the paragraph is unnecessary.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 01 Dec , 2005 8:25 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin--

Noted.

All--

Posts can be moved to the BR. Right now, posters cannot, so far as I can see in the Charter, except for providing a bogus email address. Posters can be locked OUT of various forums for problems in those forums, but confinement is more problematic.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 01 Dec , 2005 9:37 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
I would think a first warning would be a good idea. How else would one know one was on their second warning, esp?

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 01 Dec , 2005 9:54 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I was saying, I don't think the first instance of a disruption being moved to Bike Racks should be accompanied by a warning of possible suspension to BR.

I'm saying that if the disruptive posters returned to the thread they were removed from to continue disrupting it, that then it would be appropriate to warn them of suspension to BR if they do it again.

So there would be just one warning in either case, the question is, when should the warning be issued?


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 01 Dec , 2005 10:20 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Jnyusa wrote:
If you are going to do anything, I would suggest making it mandatory for the Rangers to confine someone who interferes a second time. That's really the only way to take favoritism out of the mix. A complaint can be brought against the Ranger if they fail to enforce something they are required to enforce.
This to me would be alright, because you aren't treating our members like children by assuming that when being alerted that their conduct has disrupted others, they need a warning of punishment to help persuade them not to do the same thing again.

Axordil wrote:
Any poster may request that a Ranger split off-topic and disruptive posts in a thread off to the Bike Racks, and upon determination that the posts are disruptive and off-topic, the Ranger shall do so.
AAAAUUUGGGHHHH!

Please, do not include 'off-topic' here. Yes, off-topic derailments that don't involve a personal dispute can certainly be requested to be split, but not to Bike Racks. Surely these should go in the originating or some other appropriate forum.

I would suggest '... that a Ranger split personal disputes that are disrupting a thread off to the Bike Racks, and upon determination that the posts are disruptive, the Ranger shall do so.

Quote:
If a Ranger receives another such request for the same thread after the first split, the Ranger will remind all poster(s) involved in the thread of their responsibilities under Article II and split off the new disuptive threads.
I would suggest 'original' rather than 'same' because I think it is a bit clearer which thread is meant.

Quote:
If disruptions continue a Ranger will split further posts into the Bike Racks, and will also suspend posting permissions outside the Bike Racks of those involved for 24 hours.
I would suggest a rearrangement:

If disruptions continue a Ranger will split further posts into the Bike Racks thread and will also suspend posting permissions of those involved for 24 hours outside the Bike Racks.

Quote:
I emphasized that the process starts with a poster. Posters who happen to be Rangers should probably ask another Ranger to do the split.
:scratch:

Why can't it also start with a Ranger. There is already that clause about Rangers being able to do that at their discretion.


Top
Profile
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 01 Dec , 2005 11:38 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
nevermind.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 02 Dec , 2005 12:32 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin--

1) It says "off-topic AND disruptive." I don't want to limit that to a personal quarrel.

2) Original is probably a tad clearer than same in this context.

3) I tried the rearrangement you suggest first and like mine better. :P

4) Rangers are posters too, so they could request it just like anyone else. But I don't want a Ranger to put stuff in the BR without a request from someone, because I can think of threads where a Ranger might wander in and see a fracas and not know it's page 8 of a spammy fake fight.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 02 Dec , 2005 12:37 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thank you, Ax!
Quote:
1) It says "off-topic AND disruptive." I don't want to limit that to a personal quarrel.
Why don't you want to limit that to a personal quarrel? That is, would you want a non-disputive off-topic derailment (which is in itself by nature disruptive to the original thread topic, but not because of disruptive personal interactions) put in Bike Racks?

That is, would you want an amical derailment focussing on the interstate commerce clause that threatens to disrupt/derail a conversation about Alito put in Bike Racks, or do you agree that that should be put in Symp along with the original Alito discussion?

This is the distinction I'm trying to get at, and the, I believe, mistaken use of Bike Racks that I'm trying to prevent.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 02 Dec , 2005 1:17 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I wouldn't call an osgiliation disruptive. But some might. And that's the one call the Ranger gets to make after they show up.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 02 Dec , 2005 4:51 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I strongly object (no offense intended) to fisssh's suggestion to put the current Charter amendment procedure on hold until others act on a stated intent to amend the Charter in other ways.

This committee was convened in response to a Ranger exercising extraordinary powers to protect the welfare and even continuation of the community. I believe this proceeding is legitimate and necessary, and to discontinue it now because other members have expressed an intent to also follow the proper procedure to amend the Charter makes no sense to me.

We have no idea what the other suggested proceeding will bring if it is undertaken, but the fact that others wish to amend the Charter does not in any way undermine or invalidate this proceeding (which has already advanced a great way toward a vote).


Top
Profile
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 02 Dec , 2005 4:59 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I completely agree.

Why stop trying to solve the problem? There is no guarantee that the new proposal will ever get anywhere.

The charter has not been suspended because a few people wish it were.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 02 Dec , 2005 5:03 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
A few people?

Soooooooooooo tempted to start a poll.


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 1 of 6  [ 120 posts ]
Return to “Business Room” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: