[NOTE: just noticed some of these posts went missing when the board moved to our new .org site.]
*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:52 am
Would anyone - other than *E* who would probably protest - actually have a major problem with that?
Estel Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:28 am
Holbytla Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:03 pm
When I wrote what I wrote above, I was assuming E* would remain as she has been, ie. that she would remain on permanent status.
As for the rest, well the charter is what it is for a lot of reasons. One of the reasons was to see that bias in making decisions was avoided as much as possible. Another was so the responsibility of taking an action didn't fall squarely on someone's shoulders. The Rangers here were just doing their job according to the charter and the wishes of the community.
There have been a number of board disruptions here over the years and that isn't likely to change. Same for pretty much all boards. There will be disruptions. What will be the new method for handling those disruptions? Will the responsibility fall to whoever is in charge? Will they be the arbiter of what to do and when according to their discretion? Will those decisions cause further disruptions?
We can ask people treat each other with kindness and respect, but some won't and people will have their own interpretations of that. How do you insure continuity in decision making?
There isn't a lot of activity here, and there aren't a lot of circumstances that require action or extensive rules, but there aren't zero either.
As much as a pain as it is and as much as an effort in futility as it may be, some basic rules and procedures should be written out and followed. If for no other reason than to give whomever happens to be in charge something to fall back on.
Elian Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:28 pm
I was talking to *E* just the other day and said she was basically the only one I'd go for as a permanent Ranger. She didn't like the idea then either.
So, from what Stella and Holby are saying, perhaps we should keep most of the basic ideas from the Charter, just drastically simplified?
Holbytla Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:37 pm
The Rangers should have
some measure of power to act in a pinch and that power should be detailed somewhere.
I would just hate to see someone trying to do the right thing and have it come back and bite them in the ass. I also don't think not being able to do anything works very well either. A nudge in the direction of common sense and some basic common sense rules and powers may be a good place to start.
TheEllipticalDisillusion Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:11 pm
What about instead of simplifying (it has be tried and fizzled out) we write a new charter?
The Watcher Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:17 pm
The Rangers should have some measure of power to act in a pinch and that power should be detailed somewhere.
I would just hate to see someone trying to do the right thing and have it come back and bite them in the ass. I also don't think not being able to do anything works very well either. A nudge in the direction of common sense and some basic common sense rules and powers may be a good place to start.
Well, having powers would help, but I do think that the rangering here works mostly for the good. Yes, we have had our testing points, and there are going to be those that challenge us, but, in the long run, everyone who did not like this site basically left it. So, who are we changing for? I ask that seriously. If one is not going to post here unless we come up with some more clarified rules, then fine, state what one thinks those rules should be.
We are never going to be a HOF replica. Some like that and some do not.
I am not going to answer for what the differences are, but, we strive to be open and non-judgemental as rangers and let everyone have their say within reason, we do not go off editing out people's posts or splitting them off into new forums or putting them in the "debate room" when things get too hot, except for some really egregious circumstances.
So, different strokes for different folks, I guess. I am not saying that B77 does not need to change, we do! But, we need to still be welcoming and non-critical if a new member does not subscribe to a status-quo, which is the exact thing this board was designed to avoid.
Holby, to be honest, you only post here in the business forum. Fine, but, I guess you do not care about anything else. I personally do not feel like taking on some of the threads here which are clearly much "younger" than I am, but that does not mean that I do not appreciate the energy that those people inject, and that their humor and insight is not sometimes really funny and insightful in a way that I no longer understand.
yovargas Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:58 pm
By vote is, as it's so very long been, to stop caring about all this kind of stuff. If we all got together to hang out at a park, we wouldn't need charters or mods to do it. I firmly believe the same applies here.
That will hopefully be the last I say on the matter.
tolkienpurist Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:59 pm
Holby, to be honest, you only post here in the business forum. Fine, but, I guess you do not care about anything else.
If you look at the past two "pages" of posts made by Holby on this board, a very small minority are in this forum (as opposed to Turf and Symposium...)
The Watcher Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:56 pm
Holby, to be honest, you only post here in the business forum. Fine, but, I guess you do not care about anything else.
If you look at the past two "pages" of posts made by Holby on this board, a very small minority are in this forum (as opposed to Turf and Symposium...)
TP/Nerdanel -
Over what date range are we looking at? I again would also ask the same questions to you. This IS where I primarily hang out, so it is nice to always hear input from some members that are hardly ever here as to what we could do to improve it. But, I am not seeing that. I agree that current rangers need a bit more broader powers. But, I do not want this place to turn into a HOF wannabe, because that is NOT what we are. IF we permanently lose those who desire a highly regulated MB, well, then, that is a personal choice.
It sucks if we lose some members, but, I frankly think we do need to be different.
Posting once or twice a month is hardly the same as being here every week. And, not faulting you personally, but, where have you signed up for ranger candidacy?
Holbytla Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:28 pm
Watcher, I am unsure how I managed to completely fail to communicate what I was thinking, but judging from your post I did indeed fail miserably. What I am thinking and feeling is totally incongruent to how you seem to be taking it.
So, who are we changing for?
Alatar bumped this thread for what he called obvious reasons, so I was responding to that. It has been pretty apparent to me and others over the last couple of years that the current set of rules leave something to be desired for some members here. There doesn't seem to be the appetite here to go through the trouble of using the charter as it stands, and it has in fact got in the way at times in how things have been handled.
So to answer your question, I would guess the topic was broached because members here feel a change has been needed and now may be a good time to do just that.
If one is not going to post here unless we come up with some more clarified rules, then fine, state what one thinks those rules should be.
I don't know who the "one" is you are referring to and I will only speak for me. Nobody has ever accused me of being shy about stating what I think, and if I fell into the category you described, I am pretty suire I would have made it known. I have experienced what I would call an untenable set of rules for the current atmosphere of this board and I have heard others say the same. The charter as of now is pretty much words in a document and little more. They don't match this board and haven't for a while. There has been talk of changing them for a long time, but nobody could ever seem to get into anything without a major spat occuring.
I have hardly been specific in anything I have written because that was never my point. My point is, no rules don't work and too many rules don't work. My point is, match the rules to the way the board is because they have been lacking to what the needs of the board have been. If I wasn't going to post here because of the way things are handled here, rest assured I would have made that very clear to all.
We are never going to be a HOF replica. Some like that and some do not.
This is so far out of left field I can't even remotely think of a response. What does HOF have to do with anything that has been written here? Anything?
I am not going to answer for what the differences are, but, we strive to be open and non-judgemental as rangers and let everyone have their say within reason, we do not go off editing out people's posts or splitting them off into new forums or putting them in the "debate room" when things get too hot, except for some really egregious circumstances.
Who is the we you are referring to? Am I part of the we or are you speaking to me as an outsider? I am well aware of how the two boards operate and I am aware of the differences. I see no point at all in stating this to me like I am from Mars or something. I have seen no words from anyone here who was even remotely trying to make one like the other or compare one to the other besides you.
Holby, to be honest, you only post here in the business forum. Fine, but, I guess you do not care about anything else.
Well first things first. I'll post where I want when I want and in what forum I want, and that should have no reflection on me whatsoever. And that is mighty presumptuous of you to try and "guess" what I care about.
You have seen a few posts from me the last few days, and made a whole bunch of misguided assumptions. You are so far off the beaten track it is absurd. You have assumed why I have posted here scarcely of late, you have assumed the reasons why and you have assumed my motivation for my latest posts.
we need to still be welcoming and non-critical
Well we do agree on something anyway. This does apply to me as well right? Or am I the unwanted guess returning to stir some things up in your eyes?
I didn't bump the thread. I didn't suggest the move or a revision of the rules. Was I interested? Sure. I was maybe even enthused by the news of the move and seeing people start to act on some things because I thought maybe this would breathe some new life into the board.
That's it. That was my whole motivation. I don't have any perversed fixation with drama nor have I been away from here for any reason more sinister than boredom.
I swear someone stole your computer and wrote that post for you, because that so doesn't sound like you. You have always been far more rational than that.
tolkienpurist Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:32 pm
TW - not sure what the issue is. I've posted several times in the past week (not in this forum until my post earlier today.) I check this board daily and post when I have something to say.
I don't have a strong opinion on the Ranger powers question, so I didn't express one. I've made my views on messageboard governance well known, and from 2005, those views have been out of sync with the majority of the board. This is a democracy (of sorts), so my minority view doesn't fly. I don't mind and defer to whatever the majority wants.
I do not have time to contribute to this board as a Ranger or to post more than I currently do. I don't understand what on earth your point is on either front.
Holbytla Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:32 pm
I have made 106 posts between 12/02/07 and a c ouple of days ago.
Six were in the business room.
I have made 5429 over the last 3 years and 10 months in total.
Is there a specific body of work you would like to refer to? Am I not posting enough to be considered part of the board in your eyes?
Have I not served my share of ranger terms or participated enough in the setting up of this board?
Do I need a note excusing my absence, or would you like to review my recent medical, psychological and personal states to determine if my absence should be excused?
Don't bother to answer because I don't care if I don't love up to anyone's expectations. I am what I am and if that doesn't suit anyone here, frankly I don't give a damn. If I have something to say, I will say it where and when I please. And if I don't feel like posting I won't. Yet I will have a voice whether you or anyone likes that or not.
The Watcher Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:34 pm
Whatever.
To both of you.
I have been here through the negatives and the positives. I have been here when most of you baled out for a different site.
I do see where you both post and I appreciate it, but, you are no longer preaching to the choir. I mean that most respectfully.
:(
And with that I also need to shut up.
LalaithUrwen Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:43 pm
I like the idea of setting up some basic guidelines on how to deal with certain situations that have arisen here in the past (and continue to arise from time to time). I'm sure it just seems like it, but whenever I'm a ranger it feels as if I'm dealing with at least one major issue each time. Then I feel like I'm scrambling with how to deal with the issue; my common sense tells me what to do, but I don't want to overstep my authority (such as it is).
I'm left scouring the charter for guidance. Sometimes it is helpful; oftentimes it is not really that helpful. Then I'm always afraid to do what it is that I really think needs to be done (and I truly try to be as fair and impartial as possible), for fear of overstepping my bounds.
I actually wrote something and put it in the post with the charter (the thread that's in the forum management thread) one of the last times I was a ranger. It's in there as a suggestion, but I did the best I could to support it with things from the charter. It was my (hopefully) commonsense guide for what to do if someone was causing a board-wide disruption.
TheEllipticalDisillusion Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:51 pm
If a guide is to be written then the guide should focus on describing the powers and culture that is prevalent on b77 today rather than what "might" happen tomorrow or what we can imagine might happen.
TheMary Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:57 am
Or as Yov suggested (in so many words) we just chill and hang out as we have been for months without incident.
When we start talking about this stuff we actually have problems, so let's not a say we did?
Certain people seem to show up and certain times, generally when there is discord, it's kind of insulting. These are not the people I want dictating a board I post on regularly (for the most part, life and all that). If I post this is where I post.
*E* for President of California?
Lidless Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:52 am
*E*'s experiential effects are more consistent than those produced by most psychedelics, and her euphoria appears to be distinct from most stimulants. It is also considered unusual for her tendency to produce a sense of intimacy with others and diminished feelings of fear and anxiety. These effects have led some to suggest she might have therapeutic benefits to some individuals. Before she was made a controlled substance, *E* was used to aid psychotherapy, often couples therapy, the results of which are poorly documented. Studies have also recently been initiated to examine the therapeutic potential of *E* for post-traumatic stress disorder.
Estel Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:24 am
Most of the people here are friends.
We're a very small group.
Usually, when a ranger feels the need to step in, no one on the board has a problem when they do so.
The only board wide fights we've had here have been related to what the rules should be.
To be honest, if you want rules, old or new, go ahead and make them up and the rest of us will probably end up doing what we've been doing for months and months with the charter.
And to be blunt, I have never once referred to the charter when I've been a ranger, and I have made mod type "stop that!" posts when I've been a ranger - there's never been a problem.
You want rules?
Fine, here you go. (
feel free to correct spelling and grammar)
1. You are responsible for your account
- Keep your log-in details private. You are fully responsible for all activities that occur under your identity.
2. You can only have one account/identity.
- With the exception of ID's used for RP's, you can only have one identity on the board. Any extra ID's will have their permissions removed.
3. You are to remain kind, respectful and civil.
- (a) Flaming and personal attacks are not allowed.
- In other words, it's ok to criticise a post, but personal attacks against a poster are not allowed.
- (b) Privacy first in rangering
- -- If a ranger has to mod a member, they should first do so in a private PM before any public action is taken.
-- Also, if you have a problem with the moderating type action of a ranger, first take it up with the ranger privately.
-- Only if private action doesn't work should public action be taken
(c) Don't troll - posts that have no purpose except to annoy or anger aren't allowed.
4. Don't post personal information of other people
- Addresses, phone numbers, birth dates, etc. If people want that stuff posted, they will do so in the members lounge.
5. Restrictions for TOE
- (a) You must be over 18, a member of the boards for 3 months and have at least 100 posts to apply to be a member of the TOE forum.
(b) Once you have applied for TOE, the Rangers will post in the forum that you have done so. Members of the forum may have objections to you be allowed. If any member has an objection, you will not be allowed access to the TOE, but may reapply every 3 months or 100 posts should you wish.
(c) Once a member of the forum, you are expected to follow the TOE forum specific rules listed in the sticky at the top of the forum.
(d) You may not post anything from inside the TOE outside of the forum at any time no matter what the circumstance. Doing so will result in immediate loss of access to the forum. You may reapply for access after 100 posts or three months.
6.Any breaking of the rules will result in the following occuring in the order which you see:
- (a) Private Moderation by a Ranger
(b) Public Moderation by a Ranger
(c) Temporary Restriction to the Bike Racks for up to, but not extending past, two weeks
(d) Temporary banning from the forum for one month
(e) Temporary banning from the forum for three months
(f) Temporary banning from the forum for one year
(g) A permanent ban with the ability to ask for readmission after one year.
- Any of the actions a through c are at the discretion of a Ranger.
Action d must be agreed upon by the majority of the rangers and the board will be informed of said temporary ban by the rangers in the business room. The rangers decision will not be up for debate or discussion.
Any banning action that lasts three months or more must be instigated by three of the five current rangers and voted on by 20 or more members of the board over the course of one week with a simple majority deciding. A poll vote is sufficient. The member in question will be restricted to the Bike Racks during the week of the vote. The thread for the vote will be removed to the moderators private forum once the vote is complete.
Readmission of a permanently banned member will be decided by a posted vote of 20 or more members who were members of the board at the same time as when the permanently banned member was active. The thread of posted votes will be removed to the moderators private forum.
A member who has been banned, even temporarily, will be removed from the ranger pool for a minimum of 1 year.
7. Debate means action
If there is any debate on whether or not a post/action on the boards
could be considered unkind, uncivilized or disrespectful and therefore in need of moderation, that means that a post/action on the boards could
be considered unkind, uncivilized or disrespectful and therefore the Rangers are free to proceed in a moderating action according to, and in the order of the actions listed above.
8. This is a member moderated board.
- If another member of the board should PM or post to you asking that you be more kind, civilized or respectful, please listen as you would to a Ranger. If you don't, the other member(s) may ask that the Rangers become involved.
9. Any disputes that are not able to be resolved through these means will be referred to *E* for ultimate moderation.
There.
Done.
Anything more detailed than that and we get into unnecessary rules, debates, disagreements about rules and a tendency towards a boardwide fight.
Let us NOT do that yet again.
Can we stop fighting, debating and all that jazz now.
please?
With how small this community is, that should be sufficient, and if a rare situataion comes up where it isn't, we can trust in and rely on *E* to decide the right thing.
ToshoftheWuffingas Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:33 am
QED
Yes, the Charter is overcomplex. The creators were trying to nail down all sources of abuse while still maintaining control. I very much doubt if much of it is used but if it's there in the background it can be referred to for guidance. The voting requirements which are crucial to the democratic nature of the board are precisely the reasons why it is so cumbersome to change.
I can't see the problem with keeping things as they are. It has worked extremely well for several years. If the rangers think one or two parts make life difficult then present an amendment. It is likely to be accepted.
Piecemeal alteration is the answer I think. If we tried to start afresh, new rules would still have to be written and the discussions would eat up an awful lot of energy.
Estel Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:03 am
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote: |
QED
I can't see the problem with keeping things as they are. It has worked extremely well for several years.
To be honest, I think it has worked mainly cause we haven't been using it.
I think half the reason we even discuss rules for the board is just so we have
something to discuss
That would be fine, but it always seems to turn ugly.
Turning ugly seems to be one of the main reasons for getting rid of the charter and starting over. Just the name "The Charter" evokes bad memories of a very ugly time on the boards both for people who post here, and for people who have left. Leaving the Charter behind when we move is more symbolic of leaving those ugly times behind than it is for getting rid of all the rules.
It may have been a good idea, and it may have good ideas in it, but just mentioning it sends a memory based shudder up my spine, and I'm not even close to the only one.
Basically, those who want to keep it probably don't want to go through all that crap again, at least subconsciously. Those who want to get rid of it want to get rid of the memories of the fights that occured during its creation, at least subconsciously. Those who want to avoid making new rules want to avoid having those fights and ugly times again and those who want to make new rules are likely to find them doing it on their own cause of avoidence of fights.
The charter was good, the intentions behind the creators were good, but the making of it turned into a complete fubar of a situation in the end.
My reason for wanting a new status quo when it comes to the rules is to leave all of that behind.
My reason for wanting the new rules to be as simple as possible is based on something my dad used to say a lot...
"keep it simple, stupid." (
no offense is meant by that - it's just a phrase)
If people want to keep the charter or make up a new complex set of rules, go ahead, but I'll ignore it all in favor of trying to be kind just like I've been trying do and I don't think I'm the only one.
Alatar Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:22 am
For whats its worth, I agree with Estel's Basic Charter and would vote for it with one proviso.
The final authority should be voted on. I have no problems with E* but she should not be presented as the only choice. It makes it very difficult for anyone who does have an issue to say so. While she may appear to be the obvious choice to some people, others might disagree. Its unfair to put her in that position.
Estel Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:42 am
Oh, let's not call it a charter - please
Call it rules or a code of conduct but please, not charter - I wasn't kidding when I said that word gives me shivers now - it really does. It's turned into a four letter word for me