board77

My guess as to what is 'normal' Ax would be "no currently running dramas on display". Sometimes the talk is to move past stuff, but do people really want to move past? Maybe the drama is secretly wanted.

Estel wrote:

Everyone seems to be afraid to moderate each other though, including the rangers who are supposed to step in when things really get out of control. I agree that banning anyone is a bad idea. We have the bikeracks - why not use them.

True. I don't know how different things are now, but at least in the beginning, any disciplinary action a ranger did was regarded as unnecessary meddling and abuse of power - even if the reason would have been a very crude personal attack on someone, or a downright fight. No wonder if nobody wants to interfere, if they only get shit thrown at them, even if they act out of need.

Estel wrote:

It's not that [the charter] sucks - it's that it's cumbersome and incomprehensible to people who don't speak legalise. I think that was the main problem with it from the beginning. It was great as an experiment, but to understand it well enough to put it into use, you would have to be Jnyusa or the V-Man or one of the others who understood it. For rangers that get put in through a pool process and who aren't rangers 100% of the time, it would take two weeks to understand it and memorize it before putting it into use and working with it. How many rangers do we have who make sure to read through the whole thing at the start of their term let alone get to know it well enough to use it in day to day rangering? I would be quite comfortable betting $100 that none of them do.

Maybe someone should rewrite it in clear plain English?

Estel wrote:

It's not that it sucks - it's that it's cumbersome and incomprehensible to people who don't speak legalise. I think that was the main problem with it from the beginning. It was great as an experiment, but to understand it well enough to put it into use, you would have to be Jnyusa or the V-Man or one of the others who understood it. For rangers that get put in through a pool process and who aren't rangers 100% of the time, it would take two weeks to understand it and memorize it before putting it into use and working with it. How many rangers do we have who make sure to read through the whole thing at the start of their term let alone get to know it well enough to use it in day to day rangering? I would be quite comfortable betting $100 that none of them do.

EXACTLY the problem with the charter, really no one knows what the heck is in it. We all know it, I have no clue why its stood as it is. Back when I voted on the last thing that came up for a vote, the jokes in the Bike Racks thing, I tried to read through what was being put up for a vote and it was ridiculous there was no way I could even work through that with a dictionary handy, not to mention there being no real reason to. I understand what prompted the charter to be born but really does it need to be in that language? I think that a simplified charter should be introduced, theres no reason for it at all if the general population of the boards don't understand it.

Borry

The charter is the way it is for the same reason the board is the way it is now. People disagree. When people disagree, several things can happen. They can compromise, often in a way that starts getting complicated--as in the Charter. They can be obdurate and keep arguing until they no longer can stand each other's company. Or they can decide the disagreement is not important enough to argue over and drop it.

Very seldom in the history of any board I've been on in the past eight years has the last happened.

Choose the method of your destruction.

If the Charter can be simplified I think that would be a good idea but I suspect it would be a great deal of work that few people have the stomach for now the exhilaration of forming the board has passed. I do sympathise with the Rangers over the complexity. If opinion builds up to simplify it, one way may be to determine what has actually been used in the last couple of years or so and building a short version around those elements then looking at the disused parts section by section and seeing if we still need them at all: if so putting them in an appendix and if not agreeing formally to remove them. They would still be useful as a commentary on how the board should approach a problem without being binding.

But, a very important but; the board works. Rangering has been light and benevolent. There has been very little trouble since the Bike Rack squabble a couple of years back. It feels a very comfortable place to post in. The Bike Racks are a good idea and I think they worked recently. I don't think we need to fear using them if something flares up. If I got in a hissy fit with someone I would understand the reason for having my posts go there for a while.

Another thing, when a discussion like this comes up, people try to think around a perceived problem and to come up with original ideas. The ideas may be good or bad but it is a healthy sign that people are thinking originally. Not every idea is good but I would much prefer to see people remain engaged and contributing their opinions than refrain in fear of undue criticism. Nor is an opinion expressed by one person such as myself the opinion of the whole board and I have seen the board criticised for opinions that actually few people turn out to share. If the idea is bad though or simply not workable one shouldn't excoriate (something for Anthy's word hoard ) the poster or even the board itself. It should be enough to point out the drawbacks without getting offended.

So what I am saying is that things may be a little clunky but it has worked well and I see no urgent need for change.

Tosh wrote:

So what I am saying is that things may be a little clunky but it has worked well and I see no urgent need for change.

Tosh, you put it so well. I also agree with you.

halplm wrote:

4. If Board77 ever intends to be what it was created to be, then a few things need to happen.

First, members need to give people the benefit of the doubt when conflict happens. People cannot assume guilt and treat others based on that assumption. This is a concept I believe is fundamental to the concept of democracy, which is another thing this board was founded on.

Agreed 100%.
Do you mind if I quote you on that?

Quote:

Second, while rangers must excercise their authority to prevent abuse on the board, they cannot be authorized to arbitrarily decide in favor of one side or another in a dispute. They are not judges, or a jury. If they are forced to do something to "maintain peace" they should do so in an unbiased way. Even if it seems one person is central to a conflict, they cannot confine that one person and let others be free... ALL involved in a conflict must be treated the same. If one person feels that 10 others are ganging up on them, they cannot be singled out, but if they and the 10 others are all confined to the "bike racks" or whatever, then there can be no complaint.

Agreed, in principle. In practice, I'd have to hear what people who have been Rangers and have had to deal with these issues have to say about the practicalities.

Quote:

Third, personal attacks and offenses must be based on the perception of the one offended. If a person feels offended or attacked, THAT should be the concern of the rangers. Rangers should not decide one way or another if a statement was REALLY a personal attack or not. If someone feels they have been insulted or attacked, then 99% of the time they have, and it was intentional on the behalf of the attacker. If the attacker can hide behind some technicality or hide becuase they can convince the rangers they were ONLY attacking the opinion, not the person, then we've lost all concept of "mutual respect." At the same time, someone who is quick to claim they have been "personally attacked" should be asked to resolve the dispute without rule enforcement or ranger involvement. If someone claims they are attacked without any attempt to resolve the dispute in the spirit of mutual respect, then they are essentially attacking their percieved attacker with the accusation. The whole concept of B77 (at least as I had thought it) was that we could resolve disputes without rules, technicalities, and moderators (ie. super-rangers).

Okay, here is where it all falls apart for me. Firstly, you have to realize that everyone doesn't perceive "personal attacks" the same way. You and I especially seem to be on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. I very seldom take offense at anything, and am usually surprised whenever anybody else does. You OTOH seem to usually take up for the offended person (even when it's not you), and I'm sure you wonder why people like me just don't seem to get it.

Which is not to say that one of us is right in these perceptions and the other is wrong. It's to say that we need to keep in mind that these things are inherently subjective. People will disagree in good faith and any system for dealing with disagreements must assume good faith. In fact, I just recently read something to that effect...

halplm wrote:

First, members need to give people the benefit of the doubt when conflict happens. People cannot assume guilt and treat others based on that assumption.

Which brings me to some specific things that I think are not a matter of opinion, but are objectively wrong.

Quote:

If someone feels they have been insulted or attacked, then 99% of the time they have, and it was intentional on the behalf of the attacker.

So much for the benefit of the doubt and not assuming guilt. Expecting the Rangers to operate off of this assumption takes the burden of proof off of the accuser and places it on the accused, making him guilty until proven innocent. That's downright un-American.
Unless we move our server to Guantanamo.

Quote:

...personal attacks and offenses must be based on the perception of the one offended. If a person feels offended or attacked, THAT should be the concern of the rangers.

Bullshit.
No, let me restate that:
Bull-fucking-shit.
The Rangers are not therapists. They're not here to deal with people's feelings and perceptions. They are here to deal with people's behavior. Nor can you hold one poster responsible for another poster's emotional response to his posts. You have to look at what was posted and hold the person responsible for that.
Making other people responsible for your own feelings and behavior (generic "you") is a great recipe for emotional dysfunction. Trust me, I've tried it. And I have no desire to replicate that on a societal scale. Each and every person must be responsible for their own emotions and their own actions.

On that note...

Quote:

Maybe it never worked this way, but I always assumed that if "one member" felt mistreated and disrespected, and complained about it, and no one listened, and that "one member" got angry, and lashed out about it, then the first response of the board would still be to treat that person with respect, and try to understand what upset them, and work as a whole board to "fix the problem" not "eliminate the one member."

Well, if "one member" (dunno why we're putting that in quotes, but whatever) got angry and lashed out, then he's wrong for lashing out. His anger is no excuse. Likewise, if "others" (still dunno about the quotes, but it seemed fair) respond to his lashing out by getting angry and lashing back, then they are also wrong. If we've learned nothing else from this little experiment here, it's that there's enough room on this board for EVERYBODY to be wrong at the same time. It's the same point I kept hammering on in the original thread - your actions are your own.

Bottom line - we can do whatever we want with the charter or power rangers or anything else, but it's all irrelevant if people don't grow the fuck up and act like adults. Most of the time, we do okay with that. Which is why I agree with Tosh in not seeing a pressing need to change anything.

One more thing...

Quote:

5. I have been appalled by people's discussion of me. Some have made up their mind about me, obviously, and I have abandoned any hope that such minds could be changed. I have not abandoned Board77, though, because if the principles of the board as it was founded actually are important to the members here, if people here can treat other members with respect, no matter what the disagreement, then people's biases and past abhorant treatment of me doesn't matter... because I can always expect fair treatment and discussion. I have not found this to be the case for a long time. I have felt that any time I wish to present a strong disagreement with people, i am ganged up on, and some pretense is presented for me to be characterized as a troublemaker and instigator, thus nulifying any argument I can put forth for my own opinion.

Who's going to listen to the percieved troublemaker? Who's going to listen to the sick, depressed, asshole who lashes out at everyone and everything just for attention? How can that person have a viable opinion about anything?

This thread was deliberately split so as not to be about you. If you want to talk about your treatment on this board, and you tell me that you're willing to listen to my opinion, I'd be happy to discuss the topic in the original thread.

Angbasdil wrote:

halplm wrote:

4. If Board77 ever intends to be what it was created to be, then a few things need to happen.

First, members need to give people the benefit of the doubt when conflict happens. People cannot assume guilt and treat others based on that assumption. This is a concept I believe is fundamental to the concept of democracy, which is another thing this board was founded on.

Agreed 100%.
Do you mind if I quote you on that?

Absolutely, as long as you don't take it out of context.

Quote:

Quote:

Second, while rangers must excercise their authority to prevent abuse on the board, they cannot be authorized to arbitrarily decide in favor of one side or another in a dispute. They are not judges, or a jury. If they are forced to do something to "maintain peace" they should do so in an unbiased way. Even if it seems one person is central to a conflict, they cannot confine that one person and let others be free... ALL involved in a conflict must be treated the same. If one person feels that 10 others are ganging up on them, they cannot be singled out, but if they and the 10 others are all confined to the "bike racks" or whatever, then there can be no complaint.

Agreed, in principle. In practice, I'd have to hear what people who have been Rangers and have had to deal with these issues have to say about the practicalities.

In practice, one person has been singled out, and punished, and all else is ignored.

Quote:

Quote:

Third, personal attacks and offenses must be based on the perception of the one offended. If a person feels offended or attacked, THAT should be the concern of the rangers. Rangers should not decide one way or another if a statement was REALLY a personal attack or not. If someone feels they have been insulted or attacked, then 99% of the time they have, and it was intentional on the behalf of the attacker. If the attacker can hide behind some technicality or hide becuase they can convince the rangers they were ONLY attacking the opinion, not the person, then we've lost all concept of "mutual respect." At the same time, someone who is quick to claim they have been "personally attacked" should be asked to resolve the dispute without rule enforcement or ranger involvement. If someone claims they are attacked without any attempt to resolve the dispute in the spirit of mutual respect, then they are essentially attacking their percieved attacker with the accusation. The whole concept of B77 (at least as I had thought it) was that we could resolve disputes without rules, technicalities, and moderators (ie. super-rangers).

Okay, here is where it all falls apart for me. Firstly, you have to realize that everyone doesn't perceive "personal attacks" the same way. You and I especially seem to be on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. I very seldom take offense at anything, and am usually surprised whenever anybody else does. You OTOH seem to usually take up for the offended person (even when it's not you), and I'm sure you wonder why people like me just don't seem to get it.

You have misinterpreted both my actions, and my point of view. I am almost never offended by personal attacks. I accept them, I understand they happen on a message board. What has happened here at B77, is that it very quickly became clear that the ONLY way punishment of others was possible was for personal attacks... so suddenly it became necessary to claim being personally attacked, to get ranger involvement.

Quote:

Which is not to say that one of us is right in these perceptions and the other is wrong. It's to say that we need to keep in mind that these things are inherently subjective. People will disagree in good faith and any system for dealing with disagreements must assume good faith. In fact, I just recently read something to that effect...

halplm wrote:

First, members need to give people the benefit of the doubt when conflict happens. People cannot assume guilt and treat others based on that assumption.

And you have taken it what I said out of context, and applied it to a completely different situation. What is or is not a personal attack is entirely subjective, which we will get to in a moment. The fact that it is the ONLY member to member offense that requires any action from a ranger is what requires the rangers to be subjective, and rangers have failed every time IMHO on this subjective judgement, which is why something so central to the "law enforcement" of this board must be defined in a concrete way.

Quote:

Which brings me to some specific things that I think are not a matter of opinion, but are objectively wrong.

Quote:

If someone feels they have been insulted or attacked, then 99% of the time they have, and it was intentional on the behalf of the attacker.

So much for the benefit of the doubt and not assuming guilt. Expecting the Rangers to operate off of this assumption takes the burden of proof off of the accuser and places it on the accused, making him guilty until proven innocent. That's downright un-American.
Unless we move our server to Guantanamo.

You've missed my point. there is no "burdon of proof." If somone feels insulted or attacked, and they feel they cannot resolve the conflict without ranger involvement, the ranger should step in and NOT subjectively decide if it's an insult or attack or not. They should accept that the person was hurt by what was said, and make sure the attacker sits down and knows they hurt the other person, and they should avoid that particular statement or whatever in the future.

In the spirit of mutual respect.

If, on the other hand, the attacker, refuses to acknowledge it's an insult, they now know it hurts the other person, and they know each time they use it in the future, it IS an attack. It's not subjective any more. They are being malicious with the use of something that offends another member. That's not resolving conflict.

If the ranger arbitrarily decides that it's "not an attack" even when they know it has hurt someone (even if it's total BS), then they have "legislated" a personal attack that is ok... without any attempt for the two people arguing to actually resolve things.

Quote:

Quote:

...personal attacks and offenses must be based on the perception of the one offended. If a person feels offended or attacked, THAT should be the concern of the rangers.

Bullshit.
No, let me restate that:
Bull-fucking-shit.
The Rangers are not therapists. They're not here to deal with people's feelings and perceptions. They are here to deal with people's behavior. Nor can you hold one poster responsible for another poster's emotional response to his posts. You have to look at what was posted and hold the person responsible for that.
Making other people responsible for your own feelings and behavior (generic "you") is a great recipe for emotional dysfunction. Trust me, I've tried it. And I have no desire to replicate that on a societal scale. Each and every person must be responsible for their own emotions and their own actions.

You are making the assumption that the rangers will always be objective. That they can recognize everything that somone would find offensive, and that they would always recognize a possibly very obvious but well-veiled attack. THAT is a burden that we should not be putting on the rangers. They are not judges and juries, and scholars of debate. They aren't even asked to MODERATE between two parties. But if there is conflict, and people can't work it out, and someone feels they are being mistreated, and ask a ranger for help... if a Ranger comes in and says... "no, I don't really think you're TECHNICALLY being mistreated here, so I can't do anything..." then the other half of the disagreement can have a field day. There's no point in discussing anything with them any more, because they can just rub that insult in over and over again, and there's no respect any more at all.

Quote:

On that note...

Quote:

Maybe it never worked this way, but I always assumed that if "one member" felt mistreated and disrespected, and complained about it, and no one listened, and that "one member" got angry, and lashed out about it, then the first response of the board would still be to treat that person with respect, and try to understand what upset them, and work as a whole board to "fix the problem" not "eliminate the one member."

Well, if "one member" (dunno why we're putting that in quotes, but whatever) got angry and lashed out, then he's wrong for lashing out. His anger is no excuse. Likewise, if "others" (still dunno about the quotes, but it seemed fair) respond to his lashing out by getting angry and lashing back, then they are also wrong. If we've learned nothing else from this little experiment here, it's that there's enough room on this board for EVERYBODY to be wrong at the same time. It's the same point I kept hammering on in the original thread - your actions are your own.

And you have TOTALLY missed my point again. You are focusing on the result, and placing the blame without actually looking at the problem. You see the symptoms and react to those. There is no mutual respect, there is no trying to understand what has happened, or what's caused this. IT's leap to a conclusion, and punish the side you've decided is wrong.

Quote:

Bottom line - we can do whatever we want with the charter or power rangers or anything else, but it's all irrelevant if people don't grow the fuck up and act like adults. Most of the time, we do okay with that. Which is why I agree with Tosh in not seeing a pressing need to change anything.

Of course, because things work fine, because the people that disagree have all already left or shut up. If that's the way you want it, then by all means, don't ever look to change.

Quote:

One more thing...

Quote:

5. I have been appalled by people's discussion of me. Some have made up their mind about me, obviously, and I have abandoned any hope that such minds could be changed. I have not abandoned Board77, though, because if the principles of the board as it was founded actually are important to the members here, if people here can treat other members with respect, no matter what the disagreement, then people's biases and past abhorant treatment of me doesn't matter... because I can always expect fair treatment and discussion. I have not found this to be the case for a long time. I have felt that any time I wish to present a strong disagreement with people, i am ganged up on, and some pretense is presented for me to be characterized as a troublemaker and instigator, thus nulifying any argument I can put forth for my own opinion.

Who's going to listen to the percieved troublemaker? Who's going to listen to the sick, depressed, asshole who lashes out at everyone and everything just for attention? How can that person have a viable opinion about anything?

This thread was deliberately split so as not to be about you. If you want to talk about your treatment on this board, and you tell me that you're willing to listen to my opinion, I'd be happy to discuss the topic in the original thread.

This thread was split off so people wouldn't feel as uncomfortable talking about me. It was not split off at my request, or in any way that actually changed the fact that it was still about me. TP saw that... it's not that hard to understand. I've been crowned the "Drama Maker" despite the fact I could never do it on my own... how could this thread NOT be about me?

I responded to your post, Ang, because you directly addressed my own, and I think you misinterpreted things. To be honest, I have felt like responding to this thread many times but decided it wouldn't serve any purpose, as people had already made up their minds about me. At this point I wish I hadn't said anything, because I don't think my post did any good at all, and now I just feel obligated to respond, which I don't really want to do as it's obvious the "don't need to do anything" crowd will win out again.

So in the future, for anyone that I don't respond to, it's nothing personal...

Q. How to deal with drama?

A. Get the community to post in the expository mode.