board77

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

I'm not too happy with the loss of transparency, especially since it is one of the stated goals of this board, but I'll just wait until the committee puts forth the amendment choices and either discuss it there, or vote accordingly.

Given that the actual action that word "Administrator" is attached to is not contestable, I have no problems with leaving it anonymous. If it happens, it happened because it's in the Charter. If it doesn't happen, all Rangers are responsible to make it happen.

Jnyusa wrote:

Others may wish to elaborate on this.

I think the reason I put this in was because this whole incident is so clearly, to me, a matter of some people bs-ing, and for various complex reasons (which isn't meant in any way as a criticism of anyone) other people enabling and accommodating the bs to an extraordinary degree.

If the membership decides a BR devoted to sincere attempts at resolving real personal difficulties is the way to go, then for pity's sake I think the clarification should come with a way to stifle this kind of nonsense quickly and thoroughly. The Administrator provision is one facet in that overall attempt.

Because I contend that we all know damned well when people are really having personal difficulties with one another, and when they are only pretending to do so.

Cerin wrote:

I contend that we all know damned well when people are really having personal difficulties with one another, and when they are only pretending to do so.

Yes. The BikeRacks threads featured people pretending to have disputes with each other.

Everything else that has happened since then features people really having personal difficulties with each other.

I think that we've all received a crash course in the difference.

Amen, tp. Amen.

I know tp doesn't go in for this sort of thing but I have to admit to harbouring a serious sw00000n for her.

Article 3, ¶7 wrote:

Ranger decisions made while exercising routine powers (such as edits, moving threads, etc.) may be contested in the following way:
• The member affected by the action contacts the Ranger by PM or email and requests that the action be reviewed
• If the poster and the Ranger can reach an agreement between them, nothing else need be done. If the poster and the Ranger cannot agree, the poster can ask for an independent review.
• The independent review will be conducted by two other Rangers and one Jury member, and they will decide to overturn or uphold the original decision.

Jnyusa wrote:

I dislike the idea that the action of a Ranger cannot be contested. If you want to 'tighten' the enforcement provision here, I would suggest the following wording instead.

This action may only be contested as provided in Article 3, ¶7.

This doesn't seem to make sense to me (or at least, it seems it might invite confusion) because Article 3, ¶7 (above) lists as the first step, contacting the Ranger by PM; but with the Administrator provision, they (purposely) won't know which Ranger to contact.

I suppose if we're to allow contesting of this, the way to do it would be in the 'Need to Talk to a Ranger?' thread?

Perhaps we should just not mention contesting either way in this spot?

Yes, you're right Cerin. If the Admin i.d. is used then they need to ask in the Business Room for the action to be reviewed.

I'll edit my post in the Jury Room to reflect that.

Jn

Responding to fisssh in the Jury Room:

Quote:

Well, I think this could be problematic. There's a big difference between getting 67% approval on a single choice and getting a 67% majority between two reasonable choices. I think it's more likely that the two proposals will split somewhere around 55-45% or 60-40%. For one to get 67% it would have to be a clear favorite and I'm not sure there is one.

I think what you describe applies to the scenario of a two choice poll.

My understanding of how it was suggested this is different, is that putting each proposal concurrently in a separate poll would allow people to consider them separately on their own merits, rather than as a preference between two opposing amendments. So the dynamic would be closer to a yes/no vote for each, than to a two-choice poll (which would only require 51% to win).

Theoretically maybe. But I think most people will vote yes for the one they prefer and either not vote or vote no in the other.

fisssh wrote:

Theoretically maybe. But I think most people will vote yes for the one they prefer and either not vote or vote no in the other.

Then it will be up to the person creating the poll (likely me) to phrase things in such a way as to make clear that each individual needs to vote on each proposed amendment based on its own individual merits and not based on any other amendments being proposed.

We can't really control the criteria people use for voting ... but actually I'm thinking that if people vote 'yes' for the one they want and 'no' for the one they don't want, it's better for us. It might allow us to eliminate one option in the first round.

Jn

I've been mulling over an idea.

Maybe we could combine a binding vote with an amendment ratification vote.

The question we're trying to clarify is, should or should not mock threads be allowed in Bike Racks.

There could be a binding vote question put forward (I think all the requirements for a binding vote committee are also fulfilled by the Charter amendment committee). A binding vote allows for a two choice poll:

No, mock dispute resolutions should NOT be allowed in Bike Racks.
Yes, mock dispute resolutions SHOULD be allowed in Bike Racks.

We could make it clear that there is a Charter amendment associated with each choice and what that amendment is (list the proposals). If either choice wins a 2/3 majority, then that associated amendment is automatically ratified. If there is a simple majority (51% of the votes cast), then we put that associated amendment up for ratification by itself with the usual yes/no vote and a 2/3 majority required for ratification.

This is from fisssh's summary of the proposals:

Quote:

The Jury Room would also be used for mediated disputes and serious disputes that involve violations of the bylaws.

I don't like this wording (no offense intended, fisssh), because it might be taken to imply that less serious disputes are not appropriate for the Jury Room, but that isn't the case. I also find the reference to 'disputes that involve violations of the bylaws' troubling, because the current Bike Racks language specifically says that Bike Racks is for resolving disputes that don't involve a violation of the by-laws. When a violation is involved, you have a hearing, not a dispute resolution. In other words, once a violation has been cited, you are in hearing territory, not dispute resolution territory and I don't support re-wording the definition of a hearing in this way. I think it is useful to keep personal dispute resolution separate from the hearing process.


I would suggest something like:

The Jury Room would also be used for mediated disputes and would continue to be used for hearings as specified in (list paragraph on hearings).


But the big question is, how do we offer an IRV vote without first amending the Charter section on amendments? Or can we offer both together somehow?

Cerin, I think we're going to have to let the Loremaster rule on this as an exception to the Charter specification of a yes/no vote, and summarize in the thread (and perhaps place it in the Archive afterwards) the reason for doing it this way.

There's no way I'm going to spend 20 days doing a Charter amendment for how to do a charter amendment before putting this amendment to a vote.

In my opinion, it would have been better for the committee to tackle the 'real' issue head on, and come up with one clarifying sentence to add to the charter under a yes/no vote instead of doing this dance around the Maypole ... but we seem to be caught in the twilight zone here, and right now I'd just like to get us out of it as fast as possible.

Jn

Cerin wrote:

This is from fisssh's summary of the proposals:

Quote:

The Jury Room would also be used for mediated disputes and serious disputes that involve violations of the bylaws.

I don't like this wording (no offense intended, fisssh), because it might be taken to imply that less serious disputes are not appropriate for the Jury Room, but that isn't the case. I also find the reference to 'disputes that involve violations of the bylaws' troubling, because the current Bike Racks language specifically says that Bike Racks is for resolving disputes that don't involve a violation of the by-laws. ...

My previous sentence shows that less serious disputes can go into the JR at the members' request. The sentence you quote shows that the other types also go in the JR:

Quote:

People who want a more private environment to settle a genuine dispute may request access to the Jury Room. The Jury Room would also be used for mediated disputes and serious disputes that involve violations of the bylaws.

As for the line 'disputes that involve violations of the bylaws' - that is a direct quote from the full text of the amendment.

Jnyusa wrote:

In my opinion, it would have been better for the committee to tackle the 'real' issue head on, and come up with one clarifying sentence to add to the charter under a yes/no vote instead of doing this dance around the Maypole ... but we seem to be caught in the twilight zone here, and right now I'd just like to get us out of it as fast as possible.

Well, the easiest way to do this would be to add only to the current text (with maybe some other slight tinkering) and have people vote yes/no. We can still do that without too much trouble.

The only problem is if they vote no, the text remains ambiguous. But I guess it would just have to be accepted that a no vote means people want to have joke threads and the current text would have to be interpreted in the future to allow them.

fisssh, what I suggested down in the Jury room is that we do indeed add this as option #4 if we are doing an instant runoff vote. It is, of course, the simplest of all solutions, and if people really don't want that, in an instant runoff they have all the other options to choose from and to rank, so we're not stuck with things as they are now being the only other option.

Jn

Jnyusa wrote:

Cerin, I think we're going to have to let the Loremaster rule on this as an exception to the Charter specification of a yes/no vote, and summarize in the thread (and perhaps place it in the Archive afterwards) the reason for doing it this way.

That's ok by me. I think we should include in whatever we put up, an amendment to the Charter amendment section, allowing other kinds of votes than yes/no.

Quote:

In my opinion, it would have been better for the committee to tackle the 'real' issue head on, and come up with one clarifying sentence to add to the charter under a yes/no vote instead of doing this dance around the Maypole ... but we seem to be caught in the twilight zone here, and right now I'd just like to get us out of it as fast as possible.

You mean like just adding the word 'solely' or something like that? Where did we bypass that as an option?

fisssh wrote:

As for the line 'disputes that involve violations of the bylaws' - that is a direct quote from the full text of the amendment.

My apologies, fisssh. I haven't given the full rerouting amendment the attention I normally would because I think it is such alot of unnecessary fuss for no good reason (even tp, who wrote it, says she has serious reservations about the rationale for further mock threads in BR).

Referring to the full rerouting text:

Quote:

2. The Jury Room Forum
• disputes that are likely to lead to a hearing because, in the judgment of a Ranger, violations of the bylaws are involved in the dispute

I would suggest that this bulleted item simply be removed. It unnecessarily blurs the line between hearings and personal dispute resolution for no reason that I can see. The rest of the text covers all cases, and this just sets up another unnecessary judgment having to be made by a Ranger. Until a hearing has been requested, people should be able to pursue their dispute resolution in the place of their choosing, not of a Ranger's choosing.

Quote:

Well, the easiest way to do this would be to add only to the current text (with maybe some other slight tinkering) and have people vote yes/no. We can still do that without too much trouble.

The tightening proposal basically fills that bill. All it did was eliminate ambiguities in the current wording.

It would make sense to me to just vote yes/no on that because it is only a clarification of what we already have. Whereas the rerouting proposal is a major realignment of forum uses. Are there objections to doing that?


Are there any comments on the suggestion I made in post before my previous last post regarding binding vote plus amendment vote, or is that a non-starter?

Edit

Jn, I've seen your comments in JR that address a couple of these points, no need to repeat yourself.

Cerin wrote:

I've been mulling over an idea.

Maybe we could combine a binding vote with an amendment ratification vote.

The question we're trying to clarify is, should or should not mock threads be allowed in Bike Racks.

There could be a binding vote question put forward (I think all the requirements for a binding vote committee are also fulfilled by the Charter amendment committee). A binding vote allows for a two choice poll:

No, mock dispute resolutions should NOT be allowed in Bike Racks.
Yes, mock dispute resolutions SHOULD be allowed in Bike Racks.

We could make it clear that there is a Charter amendment associated with each choice and what that amendment is (list the proposals). If either choice wins a 2/3 majority, then that associated amendment is automatically ratified. If there is a simple majority (51% of the votes cast), then we put that associated amendment up for ratification by itself with the usual yes/no vote and a 2/3 majority required for ratification.

I think this is reasonable as well. It's similar to hal's suggestion, actually. I thought we couldn't do something like this - but if we can it's worth considering.

I guess we need to wait and see what the Loremaster says we can do.

That's a pretty easy voting model. I like it.