board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Continued: Charter Amendment Committee

Locked   Page 5 of 6  [ 120 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 05 Dec , 2005 10:28 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
The loremaster has repeatedly said that anything other then a yes/no vote is not allowed. The only exception that I ever said was allowed was to have more then one yes/no vote at a time.


Top
Profile
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 05 Dec , 2005 10:33 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Ok. Sorry Voronwe. I didn't start following this very closely until Ax left. My mistake.

Jn


Top
Profile
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 05 Dec , 2005 11:28 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Comment on Jury Room discussion, Sass's post:

Could we use a qualifier such as "disputes that are disruptive or have led to member complaints"? That has been our standard for when Rangers step in for most other problems. Member complaints could be anything—in the thread or PMed to Rangers—we don't have to spell it out.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 8:50 am
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
In all the discussion in the last day I hope the amendment committee is not considering abandoning the 'rerouting' proposal in favour of just asking a loaded question about allowing mock threads in the Bike Racks or not. The rerouting proposal satisfies the different points of view in this matter.
If I ever have to start a thread in Bike Racks I would not want the whole board discussing my intentions for a month. To my mind it is 10 times more offensively intrusive than having an unwelcome post or two in the thread itself. To me, when you go into the Bike Racks, providing you do not use the licence to insult others, it is going Outside and what is said is no one else's business.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 1:21 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
Well said, Tosh.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 4:13 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:
If I ever have to start a thread in Bike Racks I would not want the whole board discussing my intentions for a month.
Why would the board be discussing your intentions for a month if you started a thread in Bike Racks according to the clearly stated uses of the forum? They wouldn't. They would only be discussing your intentions if you started a thread in Bike Racks that wasn't in accordance with the clearly stated uses of the forum, and rightly so.

Quote:
In all the discussion in the last day I hope the amendment committee is not considering abandoning the 'rerouting' proposal
And I hope they are finally abandoning the senseless proposition to rewrite an entire section of the Charter so as to re-define the uses of two forums when all that is needed is a clarification of the current wording, and to put that clarification before the membership.

Quote:
in favour of just asking a loaded question about allowing mock threads in the Bike Racks or not.
Why is it a loaded question? Because we're afraid to say the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes? It is precisely the question that needs to be asked. That is what this entire song and dance has been about.

Quote:
The rerouting proposal satisfies the different points of view in this matter.
The rerouting proposal goes to absurd lengths to accommodate a use of Bike Racks that the writer of the proposal has already stated she sees no further rationale to support.

The rerouting proposal re-defines the uses of two forums to accommodate the use of Bike Racks for mock disputes. Mock disputes can be held in any number of other forums on the board; we do not need to rewrite the Charter to re-define the use of two forums to accommodate this particular activity. Can you give any logical reason why intelligent, reasonable people would do such a thing?

Can you give any logical reason why, you, Tosh, personally require the rewriting of an entire section of the Charter to re-define the uses of two perfectly functional forums so that you can pretend to have a fight with someone? Please explain.

Edit

And I would ask anyone else who personally feels they require the rewriting of an entire section of the Charter to re-define the uses of two perfectly functional forums so that they can pretend to have a fight with someone, to please explain themselves as well.


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 4:17 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
And can you, Cerin, give any logical reason why you need to have the charter rewritten at all to clarify that the way you WANT the bikeracks wording to be interpreted as the way they MUST be interpreted.

_________________

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
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 4:23 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Please, let us not reopen this dispute.

This thread is for offering feedback on the actions of the committee in the Jury Room. Given what we just emerged from, I am personally pleading with people not to use this thread to argue with each other. I will split to the Bikeracks any irrelevant, derailing, or acrimonious discussion.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 4:26 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I don't want the Charter rewritten. I want the language clarified (which can be accomplished by adding a single word to the current text) so that everyone understands that Bike Racks is intended for dispute resolution (something I believe we all understood before), and a note informing that threads that don't represent a real personal difficulty between members will be moved to the appropriate forum.

There is no other way to interpret the current Charter language, protestations to the contrary. It was suggested that because mock threads were not specifically prohibited, they were permitted. There is no Charter language (no words in the text) that can currently be interpreted to mean that the forum was intended for mock disputes; it was an absence of prohibitory language that was used to justify that use of the forum.

Edit

Cross-posted with Prim. I will not comment further except to respond to JR comments.


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 4:31 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
:damnfunny:

_________________

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
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 4:34 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
If I ever have to start a thread in Bike Racks I would not want the whole board discussing my intentions for a month. To my mind it is 10 times more offensively intrusive than having an unwelcome post or two in the thread itself. To me, when you go into the Bike Racks, providing you do not use the licence to insult others, it is going Outside and what is said is no one else's business.

Tosh, thank you for expressing your feelings about this. The second paragraph which I've quoted in italics here ... I understand your first paragraph but not the second.

Could you explain more specifically what it is in the current jury room proposal that you think would lead to board discusssion of dispute threads?

Just by the way, we are going back to the root of the matter because we cannot find any way of holding a vote on this that will give us something like an unambiguous majority.

Jn


Top
Profile
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 5:03 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Quote:
I want the language clarified (which can be accomplished by adding a single word to the current text) so that everyone understands that Bike Racks is intended for dispute resolution (something I believe we all understood before)
Emphasis mine. Please stop saying that. It is not true.


Top
Profile
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 5:17 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Quote:
If I ever have to start a thread in Bike Racks I would not want the whole board discussing my intentions for a month. To my mind it is 10 times more offensively intrusive than having an unwelcome post or two in the thread itself. To me, when you go into the Bike Racks, providing you do not use the licence to insult others, it is going Outside and what is said is no one else's business.

Tosh, thank you for expressing your feelings about this. The second paragraph which I've quoted in italics here ... I understand your first paragraph but not the second.

Could you explain more specifically what it is in the current jury room proposal that you think would lead to board discusssion of dispute threads?

Just by the way, we are going back to the root of the matter because we cannot find any way of holding a vote on this that will give us something like an unambiguous majority.

Jn
There are several Jury Room proposals but that paragraph of mine referred to what the board has done in the last month, not to what might happen in the future.
How does anyone know what would be given an unambiguous majority? I would certainly wish for a chance to vote on a proposal that gave us an informal Bike Racks that was used at the judgement of the members (without the board interfering) and another formal forum under the control of the Rangers. What is the problem with a solution that satisfies both sides unless one side feels it has failed if the other side's needs are recognised?

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 5:18 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Emphasis mine. Please stop saying that. It is not true.

Yov, I'm going to ask that we not re-open the discussion of whether or not Cerin's strict interpretation of the Charter is the only one permissable.

The fact is that the purpose of the Bike Racks is stated clearly and unambiguously in the very first sentence of that Article. There is in fact no question in anyone's mind that the Bike Racks was established for dispute resolution and not for casual posting.

The only question here has been whether it can or should ever be used to poke fun at itself.

If we continuously descend into this argument where people claim that no one really knows what the Bike Racks was created for, I personally will find it necessary to depart both the amendment process and the board. It is an affront to reason and an affront to fellowship to have words used to purposely obfuscate an issue so we can all pretend this fight had to do with something other than the dislike certain posters feel for other posters.

If we have to tighten rules because people are not able to follow them voluntarily, so be it. If we decide that the rules were never intended to be so tight, and the discretion should be left to the Rangers, so be it. The membership will decide this by vote.

The one thing we will NOT do is pretend by perverse insistence that words have no meaning.

Jn


Top
Profile
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 5:19 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Please, can we try not to argue with each other here.

This thread is a potential flash point. I am personally begging, as a b77 member and not as a Ranger, that people not light matches in it.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 5:20 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
:damnfunny:

_________________

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
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 5:23 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
I am not arguing anything. I am merely stating a fact - that is not how I understood it and I believe it's how those who created threads understood it. I saw the BikeRacks exactly as I see the Symposium and TED/Lidless' thread exactly how I saw the Lutefisk thread. I am not arguing whether this is how it should be. I am arguing that this is how I, and likely others, viewed it. Cerin saying that she thinks I understood it her way is false, and that she still thinks that way after all this shows a serious lack of...something. Again, not arguing anything. Just clarifying. At this point, I couldn't care less what happens to the BR.


Top
Profile
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 5:26 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
This is how it starts. That's my problem.

You have stated your point clearly. Now can we please drop it without further exchanges?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Fixer
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 5:34 pm
The Man who Knows his Tools
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 10:08 pm
Location: Near Tallahassee, Florida
 
Everyone will have their chance to debate on the amendment when we get it out. Until then, information in this thread is for clarification or edification purposes only. Arguments are not helpful and (as Prim has offered) will be removed.

Part of problem or part of solution.

_________________

[ 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
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Dec , 2005 6:04 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Quote:
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:
If I ever have to start a thread in Bike Racks I would not want the whole board discussing my intentions for a month.


Why would the board be discussing your intentions for a month if you started a thread in Bike Racks according to the clearly stated uses of the forum? They wouldn't. They would only be discussing your intentions if you started a thread in Bike Racks that wasn't in accordance with the clearly stated uses of the forum, and rightly so.
You believe that the tone of those Bike Racks threads were disrespectful. Don't you see that some people feel that the intense discussion by people outside those threads is in its way as disrespectful of the privacy of the people in those threads. I anticipate your reply that they don't deserve privacy or respect but I submit it was none of our business, just as intruders into a Bike Racks thread (and I was one) have no business there.
Quote:
Quote:
In all the discussion in the last day I hope the amendment committee is not considering abandoning the 'rerouting' proposal


And I hope they are finally abandoning the senseless proposition to rewrite an entire section of the Charter so as to re-define the uses of two forums when all that is needed is a clarification of the current wording, and to put that clarification before the membership.
'Senseless', now that word is a trifle inflammatory in the circumstances of recent weeks.
This is fine if your position was the only one but that is not so, so the proposal is not senseless if it can satisfy both sides.
Quote:
Quote:
in favour of just asking a loaded question about allowing mock threads in the Bike Racks or not.


Why is it a loaded question? Because we're afraid to say the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes? It is precisely the question that needs to be asked. That is what this entire song and dance has been about.
Because it is a question designed to get a single answer. With a little time I expect I could come up with a question designed to elicit an opposite answer.
Quote:
Quote:
The rerouting proposal satisfies the different points of view in this matter.


The rerouting proposal goes to absurd lengths to accommodate a use of Bike Racks that the writer of the proposal has already stated she sees no further rationale to support.
'Absurd' is another use of inflammatory language that is not welcome at this stage. It was one that was used unfortunately at the start of this dispute. An argument that you disagree with might strike you as absurd but the use of the word is not particularly helpful in debate. Imagine your reaction if other people said your views were absurd.
Quote:
Can you give any logical reason why, you, Tosh, personally require the rewriting of an entire section of the Charter to re-define the uses of two perfectly functional forums so that you can pretend to have a fight with someone? Please explain.
I personally do not need a forum to have a pretend fight though such fights are part of the culture of this board. I think I am bad at them. What I do have need of is a forum that I can go to that I can have a one to one with someone else that is under our control, that is on our terms, without asking 'permission' from anyone else or having to face interminable comment from outsiders. Always providing we show standard good behaviour to each other and to other board members. In other words not using it as a cover to yell abuse at people elsewhere.
I find that logical.

I am sorry I have used this quote technique to answer Cerin's points as it is not my usual way but I have used it as a politeness to Cerin as I believe that is her preferred way.

Hal, I don't think interjections would be helpful by the way. If you could hold off I would be grateful.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


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