board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

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

Locked   Page 2 of 4  [ 68 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 8:34 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
We've had two mocking threads in the Bike Racks forum. One was moved, the other wasn't. The way the forum seems to be interpreted right now is that the threads are not forbidden unless they interfere with 'coherence' of the forum - a de facto deferrment to the judgment of the Rangers.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
tolkienpurist
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 9:19 pm
Unlabeled
Offline
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Location: San Francisco
 
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
It is pretty axiomatic that if one attempts to clarify an ambiguous statutory provision to clarify that it means a certain thing and that attempt fails, the alternative interpretation is the one that should stand.
I know this to be true in real life, Voronwë, but I have been so disappointed with this protracted dispute, and people's willingness to continue to engage each other on this trivial point, that I have no confidence that commonsensical statutory interpretation axioms apply here. (I am sorry if calling it trivial offends anyone, but in my opinion, I would be hard-pressed to name something more trivial off the top of my head.)
Quote:
I will for this reason be voting against the amendment, as I believe that the board77 community will be better served by a loosening of the rules then by a tightening of them.
If I do vote, which I probably won't, I will be voting with Lidless, hal, you, and others who favor loosening of the rules. To be frank, the creation of HOF as a moderated community with stricter standards than this one is influencing my view. That that community exists makes me favor loosening the rules to the extent possible on this one, so that people who don't have time for two communities, or for personal reasons only feel comfortable at one, are given two very different alternatives from which to choose.

And that, I think, is the last of my thoughts on the engaging, intriguing, Supreme Court-worthy question of which forum I should use to (check)mate Lidless (and the host of similarly pressing venue questions that might arise).


Top
Profile
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 9:30 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Well, I would only point out that this is not necessarily up to "us," the people who have been vocal on this matter. Maybe there is a giant silent groundswell among the other 275 or so members of this board to fling off the chains of the charter; or maybe most of them would rather keep this place the way it was, with some nods to civility and restraint, and don't feel they should be asked to up stakes to a new board to accommodate the other view.

I honestly don't know. Perhaps we'll find out.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Mummpizz
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 9:32 pm
Gloriosus
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed 08 Dec , 2004 11:10 am
Location: history (repeats itself)
Contact: Website
 
I'm against the "intended solely" bikeracks. Bikeracks are common ground, you can as easily play there as carry out disputes.

If the move is accepted in its "intended solely" form I propose to rename that forum "Soft Cell".

_________________

– – –


Top
Profile
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 9:42 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
I thought this whole tempest in a teapot boiled down to people not agreeing what the BR forum is for.

I'm not sure that it is a tightening of the rules, as much as simply clarifying the intent of the forum's use.

I would think that would be a good thing?

What am I missing?

:scratch:


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 9:45 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Nuthin'.

V-man :love: :love: :love: :love:

Marry me.

And tp has a point now that there are two boards - one that should also influence the committee when the revamp of the Charter takes place.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 9:48 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
No, it should not.

The charter decisions should reflect the people who are members here now. It would be very unfair to blithely assume that a whole set of people with a particular viewpoint will be willing to move to a new board rather than stay where they've been happy up to now. And the new board is a different kind of place, which many may not like for all sorts of reasons. It isn't all about rules.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 9:55 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
No, but now we have the opportunity for different rooms in the house as it were - each with its own distinct atmosphere. As to which room you want to go into at any point is up to you.

But we'll find out from the members.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 10:02 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Anthy, there are two (or more) opinions on what that intent is. This amendment clarifies that one of those opinions is right. That opinion entails tighter rules.

Voting against that opinion, would be voting for the interpretation that has looser rules. It is not really tightenign or loosening anything, merely clarifying that the rules should be tight or loose.

ETA: I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense, I'm very tried.

_________________

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: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 10:04 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Lidless wrote:
But we'll find out from the members.
Yes, we will.

I just think it strikes an unfriendly note to propose basing the committee's work on the assumption that some people will be expected to leave their familiar stomping grounds to keep what they've already got.

This isn't a choice between Party On and Scholarly Tolkien Discussion. There's a big middle ground of people who are happy here and might not be happy in the Hall of Fire, which isn't really open to "spam" or most "chatty" threads, and which also doesn't have the democratic system we have here.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 10:12 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
halplm wrote:
ETA: I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense, I'm very tried.
You're talking about the hearing?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 10:13 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Lidless wrote:
No, but now we have the opportunity for different rooms in the house as it were - each with its own distinct atmosphere. As to which room you want to go into at any point is up to you.
That's kind of how I see things as well, I must admit.


Top
Profile
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 12 Dec , 2005 10:15 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
It was an inside joke, that also fed into your new joke, that will no longer be funny because I'm explaining this. Suffice it to say, I was aware of all the potential humor in such a simple misspelling.

_________________

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
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 13 Dec , 2005 2:07 am
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
I don't think you are missing anything Anthy. My assumption with this ballot was that if it passes... the BR is from this point forward for only bona fide disputes, but if it doesn't, then it is for bona fide disputes as well as whatever else. Since there is only one ballot, I am assuming this because to leave the BR ambiguous again would just make all that work/argument for naught.

I'm not telling anyone how I'm voting.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 13 Dec , 2005 3:17 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
TED: ... but if it doesn't, then it is for bona fide disputes as well as whatever else.

Before people end up voting for something they really don't want, I have to say that "whatever else" is not the interpretation I would give to the Bike Racks if this amendment fails.

There is a logic to mocking the Bike Racks inside the Bike Racks, and this was only disallowed in the first instance because there was a serious mediation going on at the time. But if an Oscar Nomination thread is started in the Bike Racks, I will certainly move it to the movie forum whether this amendment passes or fails. (Speaking as a Ranger.)

If the amendment fails I will NOT be forced to move a satirical thread, for example, that is plainly 'intended' for the BR because of its content. If the amendment passes I WILL be forced to move such thread.

The amendment does not address the forum coherence issue, which still remains within the discretion of the Rangers. Once again, if the members want to remove that routine power of Rangers then they have to remove it from Article 3.

The purpose of the Bike Racks continues to be dispute resolution whether the amendment passes or fails. Again, no one suggested changing the Bike Racks into the Turf. If that had been a serious option, I would have suggested that we abolish the Bike Racks altogether because we don't need a second Turf, a second movie forum, a second ToE, etc.

The only real question on this ballot is the amount of discretion that the Rangers will have. If the amendment passes we will have no discretion. If the amendment fails we will continue to have discretion over what fits and what doesn't, and those individual decisions will probably depend on individual circumstances.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 13 Dec , 2005 3:26 am
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
Quote:
There is a logic to mocking the Bike Racks inside the Bike Racks, and this was only disallowed in the first instance because there was a serious mediation going on at the time. But if an Oscar Nomination thread is started in the Bike Racks, I will certainly move it to the movie forum whether this amendment passes or fails. (Speaking as a Ranger.)
You're right actually. I shouldn't have short cut my post. Of course, I did not mean that the BR could be used for an Oscar Nominee thread or a TTT is a fabulous adaptation of the book thread (although... a balrog has wings thread might have to stay there :P).

If this amendment fails, as I see it, the BR will still be loosely interpretted or at least at the discretion of the rangers. Of course people can still complain if they think a thread is violating the BR, but I would hope the complaints (after all that happened) would end after the rangers make their decision.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 13 Dec , 2005 3:28 am
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
I for one want the Rangers to have 100% discretion. If anything, with a pared down Charter, that will be inevitable.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 13 Dec , 2005 4:14 am
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
Thank you, TED and Hal, for helping me figure out what's REALLY at stake here. I truly appreciate you guys taking your time. And Jn, that post was very helpful.

I still see it as, originally, a problem with more than one interpretation of what the dumb forum was created FOR. If it was created for the resolution of serious disputes, then there you go... it's for the resolution of serious disputes.

Of course, some people seriously didn't see it that way. I never would have put either of those mock threads in there, because I didn't think that's what the forum was FOR. There's lots of forums around here. That one, to me, was for serious disputes.

Not that I ever, personally, cared a whit about (at least the second) mock thread being in there... my entire take on that situation was absolutely equal to :roll:. I wouldn't have done it, but I didn't care that someone else did. I was briefly concerned that it was put there in the spirit of baiting other members, but I have learned that that was not the case. Soooo... there you go. :roll:.

Some people here, though, cared a LOT. The different interpretations of what the forum was for was absolutely freaking people out. (On both "sides!!!) It was, and is, against any predictable level of reason, a huge hot button.

We cannot have ambiguity about the purpose of the BR around here. People's heads explode like Mars Attacks! aliens' brains when there is ambiguity about the purpose of the BR around here.

So I guess I would lean toward defining it more closely to its original intent, because the ambiguity in the definition of the stupid thing is dangerous, apparently, and then let's all go back to marrying each other in Turf.

Sound like a plan?


Top
Profile
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 13 Dec , 2005 4:23 am
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
Will you marry me? :love:
Again? :love:


When I'm calling you-oo-oo oo-oo-oo!
You will answer too-oo-oo oo-oo-oo!
That means I offer my love to you to be your own.

If you refuse me, I will be blue
And waiting all alone;
But if when you hear my love call ringing clear,
And I hear your answering echo, so dear,
Then I will know our love will come true,
You'll belong to me, I'll belong to you!

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 13 Dec , 2005 4:27 am
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
Do I have to wear melon chiffon?

:love:


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