board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Mon 21 May , 2018 12:59 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed 26 Nov , 2008 11:18 pm 
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6642
A question. Hal do you consider yourself as a source or a symptom?

My opinion is that you exacerbate the situation and it amounts to tossing gas on a fire.
We dealt with SF and the posts he made. Then we had to deal with the spreading fire exacerbated by you. You make matters worse and you essentially fight against yourself and anyone that is trying to deal with the situation.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 26 Nov , 2008 11:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
Hal - do you understand the total breadth of ad hominem that you claim empowers you and your views of this situation?

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 26 Nov , 2008 11:24 pm 
b77 whipping boy
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
Posts: 9079
I am not a source.

I suppose you could call me a symptom, as I don't just shut up and go away when I'm harrassed and attacked. I try and get something done about it.

You, and others have labeled these as "disruptions." I would argue that pointing out a problem is not a disruption, but refusing to do anything about it and arguing about how you were right to do nothing, when there IS a problem, is what the disruption is.

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Wed 26 Nov , 2008 11:24 pm 
Insolent Pup
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Posts: 5381
Location: Many Places
I think that my post about the overall point of CG's posts, and my question to rebecca are more interesting than quibbling with hal. I wish I could get some thoughts about it all.

I find the governing side of this board to be intriguing. I said something to that effect back at the m77t that directly preceded the HoF split, and despite all of the bickering, I still think that.

_________________
The 11/3 Project


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 26 Nov , 2008 11:26 pm 
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 7823
Location: Ireland
Yeah. That worked so well last time. Way to go.

_________________
Image
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 26 Nov , 2008 11:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Fall River, MA
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
I think that my post about the overall point of CG's posts, and my question to rebecca are more interesting than quibbling with hal. I wish I could get some thoughts about it all.

I find the governing side of this board to be intriguing. I said something to that effect back at the m77t that directly preceded the HoF split, and despite all of the bickering, I still think that.

This thread is moving pretty fast, you could repost it here or somewhere else. To be honest I have no idea what you asked me. :P

(But I'll go find out now!)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 26 Nov , 2008 11:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
I think TED's referring to this one Rebecca.

The question is the second half I think. I find the first half to be very interesting.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
Not that I want to get involved here, but there is the point that CG is making that the charter doesn't handle: if the rangers act unanimously, but one pushes the button, how would a member call a hearing against all of the rangers when two of them have to agree. If the rangers stand united on a decision, either people may not be willing to push buttons so as to avoid blame, or the membership would be at a disadvantage--democratically speaking. An independent review is supposed to be done by two rangers and a juror. If the issue is with the rangers as a whole, who may be standing united, what would a member do? I suppose we will all find out. Actually, I think this is kind of an interesting issue.

Distraction over.

ETA:
rebecca wrote:
Well, you're one of the only posters who thinks the Rangers broke the rules.


Does there have to be a majority of posters who think the rangers broke the rules?

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 26 Nov , 2008 11:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Fall River, MA
Guess it looks like I missed the edit, sorry TED.


I know Holby posted a bunch of the Charter information about calling a hearing. Afraid I need to get going soon so sorry I can't answer it better.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 12:00 am 
Insolent Pup
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Posts: 5381
Location: Many Places
Rebecca--I asked because my questions can't be answered by the charter. I wasn't asking for some formal opinions, just opinions from members because the charter specifically doesn't deal with the issue that CG has.

_________________
The 11/3 Project


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 12:01 am 
Let the dice fly.
User avatar

Joined: Sun 30 Jan , 2005 8:24 pm
Posts: 3201
Location: Still flying
Technically of course the answer to TED's question is that two Rangers must agree that another Ranger broke the rules.

But somehow I don't think that's exactly the question he was asking.


Edit - I see I was correct.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 12:01 am 
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6642
I know of no reason why charges cannot be brought against all of us. If needed, temp rangers can climb aboard.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 12:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Fall River, MA
Oh right, I was in a hurry and misread it.

Not that I have a well-formulated thought about it at the moment. :blackeye: I'll try to remember to get back to you on it later.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 12:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
Is the committee still being formed about the extraordinary powers issue that was mentioned in the beginning of this thread?

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 12:07 am 
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6642
As far as I know the committee is not yet full. We still have not resolved the issue with the mayor.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 12:09 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
In my opinion, only Eru is qualified for the position at this time.

I must be on the committee. It is nice that you started forming it without me. Since this committe is being created to atack me I need to be on it to defend myself from it.

Under no circumstances should this rule change be made retroactive. None. "The rangers" should not be given the escape of retroactively approving their activities.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 12:11 am 
Unlabeled

Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Posts: 1646
Location: San Francisco
I said most of what I had to say on this topic back in 2005. IOW, the closer the Rangers come to authoritative decisionmaking that averts dramatic meltdowns ("dramapocalypses," as a friend of mine says), the better. Hearings, committees, meta-hearings, temporary rangers ... unnecessary, a waste of holiday goodwill and cheer that should be accumulating this time of year, a waste of talented people's time ... and likely to equal, yet again, a loss of fun on this board.

Here, two members have a persistent (years-long) history of conflict with each other. They're asked to stop engaging with each other directly (many times, nicely, by Rangers and by posters). They don't, the situation reaches a boiling point and all the Rangers agree with the decision to impose a week-long ban on both of them. There is no renegate Ranger here who exceeded his/her authority in a way that even two other Rangers agree is inappropriate (in fact, not even two other MEMBERS have come come forward to complain that the Rangers acted inappropriately ... heck, not even both of the suspended posters agree on that point, seemingly.) None of the Rangers responsible for the decision will be around for more than a couple more months in that role. The disciplined members can actually volunteer to serve as Rangers in the future and be responsible for making the same sort of judgment calls. "Abuse of power" sounds like hyperbole when applied to a small messageboard in the first place -- more so given the previous two sentences.

Even if the Rangers are unreasonable, tyrannical, megalomaniacal, arrogant, absurd, unfair, egotistical maniacs who must be stopped ;) ... at the end of the day, all that happened is they decided that two people (who had access to multiple other boards where they could talk to each other and everyone else, FWIW) didn't get to post here for a week. Perspective check.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 12:32 am 
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6642
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
In my opinion, only Eru is qualified for the position at this time.

I must be on the committee. It is nice that you started forming it without me. Since this committe is being created to atack me I need to be on it to defend myself from it.

Under no circumstances should this rule change be made retroactive. None. "The rangers" should not be given the escape of retroactively approving their activities.



You second paragraph is so out of touch with what is going on, that I find it hard to believe I can help you understand. Seriously I suggest you reread the charter.

The committee has nothing to do with you directly. Nothing whatsoever. Period.
The only interest you have in it is as a member of this board.

The committee has to meet because rangers felt that an extraordinary use of powers was warranted. This is a safeguard not an attack. There is nothing to defend. This is nothing more than an opportunity for the board to amend the charter based on a circumstance that was not accounted for during the drafting of the charter.

That is it, nothing more. This is an effort to help the board run more smoothly as it was impossible to allow for every possible happening down the road.

As for the Mayor's position, that is still to be decided. Since the rangers have performed the mayor's duties for the last two years, it is a reasonable position to state that the mayor be subbed for with a ranger. But that has not been decided.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 12:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14141
What tp said.

This board isn't, has never been, and will never be anything more than a group of people hanging out for the hell of it. To treat it as anything else, to treat as some formal entity of some sort, is an absurdity. All the formality crap, I am fairly certain, causes FAR more problems than it has ever solved.

You do something to annoy people over and over for a long period of time. You're asked to stop doing it and you don't. People kick you out.

That is exactly what would happen in RL and therefore exactly what should happen here. This board should not be "ruled" by any damn formal whatever, it should be ruled by the common sense behavior of people trying to spend some time together. Because this place is nothing more. So if you tick a lot of people off for a while, they might tell you to leave. And hopefully any reasonable adult will leave instead of doing the petulant, immature thing of annoying people even more.


Last edited by yovargas on Thu 27 Nov , 2008 1:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 12:56 am 
Insolent Pup
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Posts: 5381
Location: Many Places
My question would be better answered in its own thread. In a discussion of policy concerning the board. I can take it there because I think it may need to be answered, but I'd rather it not get muddied by the specifics of an issue.

_________________
The 11/3 Project


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 27 Nov , 2008 5:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
Please do start that separate thread. Your question is too important to lost in this thread..

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group