board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Ratification: Amendment to Article 5, ¶1: Bike Racks

Locked   Page 4 of 4  [ 68 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4
Author Message
Rowanberry
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Dec , 2005 5:25 pm
Can never be buggered at all
Offline
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 3:50 pm
 
So, for the second part. It will probably be totally off topic, but I will post it here just because the posts to which I want to answer are in this thread. Feel free to split it and the possible answers to it to a thread of their own, if you think that they're derailing this discussion too much.

I try to be constructive, and hope that the others will as well.
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
I think if you take a look around, people have calmed down on both sides. Some of us caused "trouble", yes, but it happens so infrequently. We're human, not perfect.
Yes, probably the situation has calmed down, but it hasn't come out in any way from the few threads that I've read through. Maybe I just haven't been here to notice it; even if I might have wanted to, I simply haven't had time.
Lidless wrote:
"Professional troublemakers?"

Ironic that such a term is used in a post wanting order and respect for the Charter.

Care to put names to that, Rowanberry?
Did you get the e-mail that I sent to you shortly after you had tried to call me (which I appreciated a lot, thank you)? I mentioned who I mean in that post. (I hope that MariaHobbit did get my answer to the mail she sent to me...)
yovargas wrote:
This was never about the troublemakers vs the rule-followers. It never ever was about that. It sucks that hal made a billion posts on the subject and some people still don't understand what he was trying to say. And since he tried a billion times and failed, I don't think I'd have any success in making yet another post on the subject.
Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was just about what I learned some time ago on a very good lecture about communicating with others:

In 99 % of cases, people don't get offended by what is said, but by what they hear. And, in this case, several people - myself included - heard (or read) an attempt to smoke a few humourless "killjoys" (I don't believe that I'll have to give any names here) out of the site, and reacted to that. And, well... I'm fairly hard to piss off, but when someone manages to do that, I'm very slow to forget.

So, maybe it's about everybody having to consider very carefully how they put something that they want to say, not just what they want to say. (Maybe that would help hal to get his message better through, too...) Otherwise, be the rules strict or lax, or be there no rules at all, conflicts that escalate into ridiculous measures will happen. Because, as Faramond said in another thread some time ago, the root of all problems is that there are people on this site that simply cannot stand each other - and, on a small board like this, it's wellnigh impossible to avoid bumping into them.

You all know that, B77 has never been the only messageboard for me, and not even the most important one. But, as strange as it may sound after everything, I still care about this site - although I probably won't have much time for it in the future - and hope that it will develop into what it was originally meant to become.


Top
Profile
fisssh
Post subject: Re: Ratification: Amendment to Article 5, ¶1: Bike Racks
Posted: Thu 15 Dec , 2005 7:57 pm
White Sox sw00ner
Offline
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu 07 Jul , 2005 2:22 am
Location: Island of Misfit Toys
Contact: Website
 
Jnyusa wrote:
This forum is [solely intended][intended solely] for earnest attempts to resolve bona fide disputes, and threads that are not started for that purpose will be moved.
Since voting starts tomorrow I think the word order in the ballot should be finalized. I'm fine with "intended solely" which is more grammatically correct. No one objected to this minor change so I think you can go ahead and make it, Jn.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Dec , 2005 8:04 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Will do.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Dec , 2005 10:46 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Though it goes against the grain to vote against a proposal that a committee has spent valuable time on for the sake of the rest of the board, I recognise that the proposal was put forward primarily in order to clarify the majority attitude.

I will then have to vote No.

As Voronwe has acknowledged I think the Charter is better for being a loose fit rather than a tight one. Too tight and it will be used to make posters conform to it rather than the Charter conforming to how the posters act. The judgements of Rangers are our safeguard to stop disputes or abuse rather than the Charter.

I have seen the Bike Racks for instance as a resource available for members to use as they think fit. It has been a great shame that there have been different opinions about what is appropriate there, so much so that a poster has felt unable to use that forum. In that event the Jury Room with its controls was pressed into service. That is the advantage of adaptable structures and flexible thinking.

I think that the discussions about the motives of the posters in those threads was offensively intrusive and far more destructive of the spirit of the board than any offence they created themselves. Unwanted intrusions into a Bike Racks thread were seen to be against the interests of the forum; how was this intense scrutiny from outside any less intrusive or harmful? I want a forum that I can choose to go to without having to justify myself at length to people who are not involved.

However, if enough people share my views and this proposal fails but voting still shows that a sizeable number wish for a forum that needs permissions to enter I suggest that either the Jury Room be used or another forum with similar controls be created. In other words we fit the Charter to what people want rather than the reverse.

_________________

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

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile
Fixer
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Dec , 2005 1:30 pm
The Man who Knows his Tools
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 10:08 pm
Location: Near Tallahassee, Florida
 
People shall vote their conscience, and we shall see how the results are.

I shall vote my conscience and I shall not describe what that means.

_________________

[ 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
fisssh
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Dec , 2005 8:00 pm
White Sox sw00ner
Offline
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu 07 Jul , 2005 2:22 am
Location: Island of Misfit Toys
Contact: Website
 
I'm pretty sure the voting should be started by now (though I am notoriously time zone impaired). So would a Ranger please add a poll to this thread? The options should be:



I agree to these changes to Article 5

I do not agree to these changes to Article 5



Thanks!

_________________

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


Top
Profile
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Dec , 2005 9:11 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Yes please..... my plane leaves in 6 hours or so :)


Top
Profile
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Dec , 2005 9:58 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 4 of 4  [ 68 posts ]
Return to “Business Room” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4
Jump to: