board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Simplification Committee Comment Thread 2

Post Reply   Page 7 of 9  [ 179 posts ]
Jump to page « 15 6 7 8 9 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 6:28 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Thank you, TED.

For me, at least, that is a big help.

So, am I correct in assuming from the agenda that the committee has already decided to present a ballot for deleting the ownership provision, Article 11 and Article 10?

I only saw two committee members comment on this so I want to make sure I understand whether you consider those topics closed or not at this point.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 6:34 am
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
The ballot is something we've been discussing in private because we are unsure how we want to proceed with the ballot. There have been some preliminary discussions of the ballot already. One suggestion has been to propose the deletions now which get them out of the way. The second has been to propose it all at once later on. Fixer hasn't said this is unacceptable yet, which is why no proposals have been proposed.

I haven't said the topics were closed at all.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
Elian
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 6:59 am
Let the dice fly.
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3201
Joined: Sun 30 Jan , 2005 8:24 pm
Location: Still flying
 
I've been lax with posting in the jury thread myself because I was trying to figure out what the hell was going on in here before I did. I should really get on that.

_________________

What does it take
to stop getting carried away
by the force of my love...


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 7:41 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Thanks, TED.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Farawen
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 1:37 pm
Far out
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:11 pm
Location: State of Confusion
 
yovargas wrote:
Quote:
We can always see what the results are.
:spam:
Are you saying that you'd contribute spam? Or are you saying that you believe others would only contribute spam?

If so:

*blinks*

Okay!


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 1:40 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
I'm pretty sure I was trying to say anything except be funny. I doubt I succeeded. ;)


Top
Profile Quote
TheMary
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 1:53 pm
I took the stars from my eyes, and then I made a map, And knew that somehow I could find my way back; Then I heard your heart beating, you were in the darkness too - So I stayed in the darkness with you
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 7067
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:44 pm
Location: On my tush!
 
Okay I thought we did have an agenda. Go through the charter and strip away extraneous information.

I really hope people vote to stop working on the charter :pray:

_________________

Lay down
Your sweet and weary head
Night is falling
You’ve come to journey's end
Sleep now
And dream of the ones who came before
They are calling
From across the distant shore

Why do you weep?
What are these tears upon your face?
Soon you will see
All of your fears will pass away
Safe in my arms
You're only sleeping


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 7:27 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Okay I thought we did have an agenda. Go through the charter and strip away extraneous information.

Mary, I was thinking in terms of the order in which the Articles were going to be addressed. The Charter is so big it is impossible to handle it as a single piece.

TED, since I decided to involve myself at all in the discussion, I feel I should continue with anything that might constructively help as it occurs to me. This has to do with the Agenda.

TORN has posted in the other thread about the fact that our various reactions to authority are foundational emotional issues, and I believe that this is true. One of the last statements that Holby made in the past few days was that as a Ranger he could not bring himself to 'moderate' his friends. I believe that is probably true of most members. They are happy to do the routine work of Rangers but they do not want to be in the position of telling their friends what to do, and especially not having to rebuke them. So the idea that Rangers might be enforcers of any sort is probably not going to work for us.

There have been two cases of a 'hearing' on this board in the past year. The first was before the creation of the Charter, under the old arbitration system - the one and only time we used it. The second was the recent hearing under the new system, which was made more detailed to avoid some of the problems we encountered under the old system. Both times, the membership broke out in a rash over the jury decision. The first time the anger was because the member had not been banned outright. The second time the anger was because any penalty had been imposed at all.

Once your work on ownership, 10 & 11 is completed - whatever way you decide to handle that ballot - I would suggest that the committee go straight to Article 5 and really put their teeth to this issue.

No one is dying because the key principles are too long or because the Ranger schedules aren't coming out properly. If the board is dying, it is dying because members are at a loss how to enforce (and thus achieve) the mutual respect required of a board without a top enforcer.

Generally I don't want to see the whole Charter thrown away, but I would certainly support what Mary called a "radical" approach to this particular article because it is plain to me that our members are not able, emotionally, to serve as judges over one another or to submit to the judgment of their peers without rancor. Our whole dispute system relies on this ability which does not exist and therefore I don't believe that much of it can be saved. This is one area where completely new ideas and new approaches are needed.

I also think it will cut down on the bickering if this central emotional issue is handled first and the member discussion is allowed to flow, instead of saving it for last while member dissatisfaction with the handling of disputes clouds the discussion of every other issue.

This is only a sugggestion. As you already know, I am all for the "now" approach over the "later" approach and prefer to tackle the real problem before it can cast too long a shadow.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
TheMary
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 7:31 pm
I took the stars from my eyes, and then I made a map, And knew that somehow I could find my way back; Then I heard your heart beating, you were in the darkness too - So I stayed in the darkness with you
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 7067
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:44 pm
Location: On my tush!
 
Jny wrote:
Mary, I was thinking in terms of the order in which the Articles were going to be addressed. The Charter is so big it is impossible to handle it as a single piece.
Ah, that makes sense. I just feel that whenever I think I'm in the right place it turns our I went right when everyone else went left ;)

_________________

Lay down
Your sweet and weary head
Night is falling
You’ve come to journey's end
Sleep now
And dream of the ones who came before
They are calling
From across the distant shore

Why do you weep?
What are these tears upon your face?
Soon you will see
All of your fears will pass away
Safe in my arms
You're only sleeping


Top
Profile Quote
elfshadow
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 7:41 pm
Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Offline
 
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue 09 Aug , 2005 2:27 am
 
Considering Rangers moderating their friends...I've never been a Ranger, but I am a moderator on another site and I know how difficult it is to moderate friends. But we do have to have Ranger/moderator figures on the board, to attempt to keep things under control. Maybe some way we could alleviate some of the feelings surrounding this is to change the administrative way the Rangers are set up. Could we have seperate Ranger accounts instead of giving moderator privileges to the individual poster's account that would make them a Ranger? So if I was a Ranger, my own account (under elfshadow) wouldn't have Ranger privileges, but I would be able to post in a specific Ranger account. So it would be like the Mayor account. We'd still know who the Rangers were, but maybe it would be easier to moderate if the Rangers weren't doing it from their own usernames.

Don't know if this is appropriate here, just something I thought of and I don't know whether it's been discussed before.


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 7:53 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
I don't like that, elfy, it seems like a good idea but it's actually just going around the problem. If a person can't manage to mod their friends under their own name, giving them a 'cloak' is just making them think they can do more in disguise, when in fact their attitude should remain the same. It'd be that 'now I'm talking to you officially, now I'm not' dance...that can mess with people's minds a lot. I think the better idea is for people to just work on getting used to their friend having responsibilities.

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 8:21 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
First off, Ro, I love your signature picture, where else would a Dwarf take a date?

Second I like the idea of a cloak covering for rangers. That might have some merit. Just have the user name as Ranger with nothing else and have it available to all Rangers on duty.

_________________

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

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 8:37 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
I don't like secret IDs. They were a problem at TORC and they will be a problem here as well.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 8:48 pm
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
As a current Ranger, though not for long, it is difficult to moederate one's friends and peers. Nothing like what Holby and Jn had to deal with, but admonishing people just wasnt' fun. However I would prefer to do it under my own name. A "Ranger" ID would create too much anonymity (sp?), more of an institution than a person. Honestly, I think it would feel weird and although I see Elsha's point, I'm don't agree.

Member moderation only works if it is the members moderating, not an anonymous id.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 10:51 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
Thanks, Ara. :) I'll try and post more photos from there soon...

I would not trust a secret identity ranger. If one is prepared to mod this community they need to think past their comfort- that's the only advantage I see to cloaking, some comfort for the ranger. And this comfort would be based on acting undercover...I can bet you rangers would assume an alternate personality while posting under that ID. It's much easier to become corrupt when our actions are not connected to our person.

Then, obviously, to be a true cloak, it would have to be a single, anonymous ID for the use of all rangers (because with the system we have now, the board knows who and when serves a term). That's not practical at all, and would cause a lot of suspicion and confusion if a conflict between poster and Ranger happened.

In general I just don't think Rangers need a cloak to tempt them to change their behaviour in ways they wouldn't choose when everyone knows who they are. Occasio facit furem- chance makes the thief.

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
elfshadow
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 11 Jan , 2006 10:58 pm
Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Offline
 
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue 09 Aug , 2005 2:27 am
 
I can see what you guys are saying with the problems of having a seperate Ranger identity. The last thing I would want was for people to feel like they had the ability to do about anything with their Ranger powers, just because they weren't posting with their regular ID and people wouldn't know exactly who they are. I would hope that no one on the board would cause any problems with having a seperate, quasi-anonymous Ranger ID, but as we've seen so often, anything is possible from anyone in the heat of anger. It was just a suggestion, I know how hard it is to moderate your friends...and at the board I moderate (though it's very small) I do use a seperate ID. It's still hard.


Top
Profile Quote
oldtoby
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 12 Jan , 2006 12:33 am
Cuddly Studmuffin
Offline
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 10:41 pm
 
Erunáme wrote:
I don't like secret IDs. They were a problem at TORC and they will be a problem here as well.
And not likely to remain secret long anyways, some members would spend their time trying to "out" the ID, not out of any evil intent of course, but just cause they would wonder which one of us it was. And soon enough the secret rangers regular ID will be known.

All the MBs I am on have mods who use their regular ID when modding, works just fine as far as I can tell.


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 12 Jan , 2006 3:07 am
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
Jny, thanks for the suggestion. Since my poll is not over yet (week's time about), I will gladly go to article soon, right after articles 3 and 4 which I think can be completed fairly quickly.

As to my knowledge, there are no final decisions on exactly how the ballot is going to be done, so I put it out there to you all. Which ballot would you prefer: (A) strictly deleted items voted on first, then changed/simplified items afterwards? (B) all at once? (C) or a potential third where each article's simplification or deletion is presented as a ballot?

Here are my thoughts on these options:

(A) gets things accomplished in a quicker fashion. It also seems quite logical since that was the two main actions the committee is taking against the charte. The only problem is that it's two votes as opposed to one to discuss and consider.

(B) gets things done at the end which takes more patience from the members and the committee, but at the end everything is instituted at the same time. The only problem is that if one piece is to convtroversial, the whole thing might not pass. But this method does help if you are afraid of losing things to deletion and then simplification not passing.

(C) is just a lot of votes. I'm not a fan of this myself.

Obviously, I'm open to other types, but these are the the main ones that I can think of which are viable.

All votes will be decided by supermajority... quorum will decided when a proposal is brought to vote.

I might not have a specifically designed structure for the committee, but that's just not my style. Sorry, folks. I'm an informal person for the most part. I can be formal when it is required of me.

Just for the record, the only reason I started at Article 1 and key principles and mission statement is because I was going top-down since at the time no one had made any requests for specific articles to be handled right away (until Eru). Since Eru has asked for the mayor article to go next, it will be next along with rangers since those two are close enough.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 12 Jan , 2006 4:08 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
TED, since you've asked all of us, I would prefer to vote as soon as possible on the elimination of: ownership, A.11 and A.10. I would also suggest that 11 and 10 not be put on the same ballot because I am not confident that the majority of members feels that goals (10) are as unimportant as the committee thinks they are; but I am pretty sure that all of us would like to get rid of the article that is redundant in its entirety (11).

If it were up to me, I would probably put the two no-brainers on one ballot and the elimination of A.10 on a ballot of its own - both votes to run simulataneously - so that members can discuss whether goals have any practical use to us.

Simplification of A.4 is important to Eru and I have no objection to doing that first. I agree that it is not controversial and should go quickly.

I do not agree, though, that A.3 will go quickly, and since it has no immediate impact on the community my recommendation would be to do it after A.5 rather than before.

All IMO, of course.

How many votes you will actually need depends on the complexity of the proposals you come up with. Hard to predict in advance how it should be done. If you really feel that holding too many separate votes is burdensome, I think my recommendation would be to go straight to A.4, finish it, and then put all three of those relatively quick votes up at one time, as three separate ballots voted on simultaneously [ownership + A.11 -- A.10 -- A.4]

I wouldn't mind waiting until A.4 is finished to vote on the hygienic stuff, but I'm afraid if you save up all these votes and run, like, 10 all at once, it will be overwhelming for the members. Not to mention the fact that composing the actual ballot takes some time and it will be a huge job for the committee at that point. My suspicion is that it will not be practical to put all of this on one ballot for the reason you've suggested: the baby may well go out with the bathwater and your work will have been in vain.

Again, all this is IMO. Committee has to decide what it finds most practical .... just, you know, think about the practicality for the members as well. :)

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 12 Jan , 2006 4:23 am
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
I'll take that into consideration, Jny. I'm trying to devise a practical way to settle these votes. Perhaps I should wait until after my little poll is over?

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 7 of 9  [ 179 posts ]
Return to “Business Room” | Jump to page « 15 6 7 8 9 »
Jump to: