board77

Well, let's talk about it. And I mean even talk about it to the point of changing the process of how we amend it. At this point, I think a reasonable waiting period and a majority vote would be sufficient, but I am no lawyer. I'm not sure we even need to have a committee and all of that, with the lower number of active posters.

Here are my thoughts:

1) We need to make the charter more flexible for the rangers to do their job of keeping the peace on the board.

2) We should consider making the charter amendment process a little bit easier.

3) We need to make continued disruption of the board by a member a punishable offense. I'm not wording that very well; it's just a fragment of an idea at this point, but I think you get the idea.

ETA: I would also be fine with focusing on #3 and following the procedure for amending the charter as it is already established.


Lali

I think the best method is to use the existing charter amendment procedure to put into place an easier method of amendment. Yes, I know it will be painful, but if we do it right once, then subsequent changes should be more manageable.

In case you missed my edit:

I would also be fine with focusing on one of those 3, particularly #3, and following the established procedures for amending the charter.

In fact, perhaps that would be the best course of action.


Lali

I think that Alatar's suggestion is also very important. Nobody knows what the future holds and I don't think that we all want to go through the complicated procedure more than once.

I will help in any way I can.

I suggest starting from scratch.

That is an idea, too, hal. I'm not sure I'm for that, but it's worth discussing.

Lily, thanks.



Lali

I agree with Lali's point #3 and that we use that to implement Alatar's suggestion and to implement Lali's points #1 & #2. I am like Lily, I do not want to be having to go through this more than once either. But, put me down to help.

I say we just go back to the original rule of this board - Be Kind to Each Other.

Anyone involved in a dispute - both sides - automatically get a one week temporary ban to cool off, but are welcome to communicate off the board during that week to try and work things out.

If they can't work it out off the board in that time, then they had best accept that it can't be worked out, and try to ignore each other as much as possible.

I never believed in all the rules in the charter. One rule - be kind.

ok, two rules,
1. Be kind
2. Stay the hell out of TOE if you're to young or haven't been here long enough.

Anything more complex than that, and you start getting loopholes and having to deal with weird shit.


As for this thread of "poll banning...."

I didn't realize we could vote people off the island... er, I mean the board

I understand when a lot of people have a problem with someone that they want to do something about it, but that just reeks of high school cafeteria attitude.

I may not like the charter, but we do have it for a reason. You want to ban someone, do it through official channels.

You want to change the charter in order to make it easier to ban someone?

Fine, but it only applies for disputes that occur after that ammendment is made.

It's like a contract - you can't have someone sign a contract, then change it, ratify it and penalize someone for something done before the contract was changed.

I don't know what's going on with Hal, and have no opinion of it. However, I do have very strong opinions on the rules and fairness of this board, and will fight to uphold that no matter what.

You want to ban Hal now? Do it through the official channels that exist now. Otherwise, you had better ban me as well as I don't believe in retroactive rules.

Nice to be back

Stella has the right idea.

The rules governing this place should take up less than a page.

1. Respect each other.
2. Rangers are volunteer and serve for x time
3. What can a Ranger do?
4. What can we do if we disagree with a Ranger?
5. TOE stuff

the longest part should be what can a ranger do, but the most important part (well, outside of the first), is what happens when a ranger does something wrong.

Actually, I was assuming that whatever changes we made to the charter would only apply to future situations. It would be patently unfair to apply punishments retroactively.

Lali

Estel wrote:

but it only applies for disputes that occur after that ammendment is made.

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

.
.

We've been through the charter simplification stuff before. Some of us remember what it was like before the charter. Every tiny little freaking detail of what to do, how to do it, was argued over ad naseum. Procedures were laid out to prevent that from happening over and over and over. There's already enough ambiguity. We don't need even more.

But then again, I feel I'm past caring.

the needs for the board have changed since then, the membership is almost entirely different.

halplm wrote:

I suggest starting from scratch.

Good suggestion. What I would say to someone proposing that is:

"Put your money where your mouth is.

Put up or shut up.

Shit or get off the pot."

Get the idea? I say that to anyone who finds the rules here or elsewhere "too strict", or unfair.

Since no one, as far as I know, is ever forced at gunpoint to join any message board, I think it should be obvious to the meanest intellect that when you DO join a message board you are entering a place where there are expectations and rules. Those expectations and rules are pretty sure to be plainly posted and you have to check a little box that says you read and understood them and that you intend to abide by them.

Try joining "Snopes" sometimes, people. Snopes is a tough guy and one mistake, one infraction and you are subject to severe restrictions. There are no kindly emails from moderators explaining anything, you are left to sort out for yourself what you might have done. Complain and you are GONE. No second chances.


I am 100% in favour of amending the charter. I would not apply a banning "retroactively". No need to. If there is a repeat offender, that offender will almost certainly offend again and we can nail that offender then.

edited so as to remove any "personal attack"

Actually, I'm thinking about when the board first first first started and we didn't have any rules, and everyone got along fine.

It's when people started coming up with rules and started picking on every little detail and rules to cover every single little detail that the problems (and the drama!) started.

Granted, we were all freaking out about TORC at the time

Even so, there aren't enough of us posting to warrant the complexity of rules that exist right now.


edit: and whoa!!! If what's going on is creating this much bitterness and rancour..... just, whoa.

...

Personal opinion time: I'm not really for simplifying the entire charter down to one or two phrases. I think there are parts of it that could use tweaking, now that the shape of the board has changed and now that we've been into the practical, day-to-day operations for a while.

The ranger guidelines have helped me more often than they have tied my hands, so to speak. I do think there's room for change, but I don't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater.

Simplifying the charter to the barest essentials would be great if we could count on people to actually abide by it, that golden rule of "Be kind to one another" or "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."

Frankly, I haven't seen that before, so I don't believe we could count on it in the future.


Lali

vison's post was not at all helpful, but no attack was made upon a person. The comments were made about a person's actions.

Still, those types of posts should not be in here and I'm sure other Rangers will split them out.

LalaithUrwen wrote:

Simplifying the charter to the barest essentials would be great if we could count on people to actually abide by it, that golden rule of "Be kind to one another" or "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."

Frankly, I haven't seen that before, so I don't believe we could count on it in the future.


Lali

I've seen it before - it usually involves people thinking before they type, and not posting if they're feeling really upset until they've had time to calm down even if that takes quite a few days.

Hint hint.

Did I mention


HINT


ahem - love you all I really do.

Can't say I missed this though.

We could do it. The problem is, the charter weakens the Rangers so much, all the rangers think they have to wait until the charter says they can do something before they do it.

Rangers should make decisions based on when they THINK they should step in, not when they think the CHARTER says they should step in.

As long as the rangers are rotated, and there is a method to address when they abuse what power they have, then they should be just like moderators on any other moderated board.

Erunáme wrote:

vison's post was not at all helpful, but no attack was made upon a person. The comments were made about a person's actions.

Still, those types of posts should not be in here and I'm sure other Rangers will split them out.

This idea has GOT to go. when you comment on a person's actions, you're commenting on that person. WHERE did this idea come from that you can attack what a person does and you're not saying anything about that person? It defies every bit of common sense I can scramble together. It's been used as an excuse by every person that has every gotten into a heated exchange with me on any of the boards.

ETA: This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can nitpick and argue the "letter of the law" isn't broken, and you can twist words and hide behind whatever you want, but to anyone with a brain, vison's post is clearly meant to be hurtful towards ME. A ranger should be able to see that, and act on it, not have to hold a commitee and decide what to do.