board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Wed 21 Feb , 2018 7:05 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 3:47 pm 
Daydream Believer

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Posts: 5778
Location: Pac Northwest
I think the change in the charter is a good thing. I also think that maybe we should realize nothing is set in stone and that if the new charter needs tweaking it can be done. Just thinking out loud here but maybe we should have an annual review the charter week, including a poll to see if anyone wants to change the charter at all. If the new charter does what we want it to, the poll and review will basically be an exercise in futility, but if someone wants to discuss issues then we could do that at that time.

And after reading this I have come to realize I have been to too many committee meetings in RL. :scared:

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

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 3:49 pm 
Frodo's girl through and through
User avatar

Joined: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 10:08 pm
Posts: 989
Location: The Shire
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
Um, see my response to tinwë above. Under the "Charterlette" if the Rangers currently in office believe that a poster needs to be banned, and the membership agrees, the poster will be banned for whatever length of time the Rangers decide.


Sorry. :oops: Yes, of course I see that provision is there.

Quote:
There are two guiding principles that I used in drafting this document. First is KISS. Second (and more important) is "trust the Rangers, for they are us."


I think it's an admirable piece of work. :cool:

I'm all for KISS. :cheers:

_________________
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... " Letter no. 246

Avatar by elanordh on Live Journal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan , 2009 4:19 pm 
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Posts: 5205
Location: at a safe distance
Guys, regarding Ranger powers...

First of all, the Rangers will continue to rotate in the fashion that they have been. This prevents burnout and also, if anything, makes the Rangers more answerable. They're part of the membership wearing spiffy looking shirts for a period of time. When the time expires they're back where they were. It's not like other boards where mods and admins are assigned from on high. We volunteer. We do the job for a while, and then we go home when the next batch takes over. I'm amazed, actually, that it's been working as well as it has for as long as it has (in terms of getting people to do the job).

Second, anything stronger than a two week restriction goes up for a vote. Y'all seem to want that anyway - this last week was not the first time someone tried to vote hal out of here. Any other action can be contested as well.

_________________
"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 1:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Fall River, MA
Something I just thought of, regarding the number of Rangers as outline in this new Charter.

I'm not sure what the requirement is now, but at the moment there are 6 of us. But frankly, only 3 of us have been performing Ranger duties (changing ranks, checking emails, checking the Admin ID, splitting posts, etc). And granted, we've had more to deal with than should be expected with the hearings and all, but I know Holby and I are rather burnt out. And I rather suspect that River's feeling the same way. ;) Given that people volunteer but aren't on the boards much, I worry what would happen if we have only 3 Rangers and one or two of them doesn't pull their weight. Or even worse, if all three don't. I think having a higher and definitive number of Rangers makes more sense, and when one leaves, just try to replace him or her. Having more rangers, to me, also gives less chance of a Ranger with a grudge enforcing their will on another member, which was brought up somewhere. I also think the posting requirements for being a ranger should be more than just 100 posts.

Right now, this is the phrasing:
Quote:
We have a rotating pool of administrators, called Rangers. Rangers serve terms of three months, and are taken from a pool of volunteers. Three to five Rangers will serve at any one time, ideally serving staggered terms. Any member in good standing who has been a member for at least three months and has made at least 100 posts can become a Ranger. To volunteer, simply post here [add link].


I think it should read something more like We have a rotating pool of administrators, called Rangers. Rangers serve terms of three months, and are taken from a pool of volunteers. Ideally six members will serve as Rangers at any one time, with staggered terms. Any member in good standing who has been a member for at least three months and has made at least 500 posts can become a Ranger. To volunteer, simply post here [add link].

Or, instead of 500 posts- "has made at least 20 (? that's one page when you search a posting history :P ) posts in the last month and has made at least 100 posts total" would help ensure that a volunteer is actually willing to continue having an online presence, not just someone who just pops in every few days.


I hope I don't sound bitchy, but it's just what I think would help. :neutral:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 2:23 pm 
Aspiring to heresy
User avatar

Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 6:54 pm
Posts: 16949
Location: Canada
I already voted yes, but I think Rebecca's changes are an improvement, and would prefer to see them implemented.

_________________
Image

Melkor and Ungoliant in need of some relationship counselling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 2:52 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5131
I certainly don't mind. I never meant what I wrote to be an absolute final draft, and even I was surprised that it go approved and put up for a vote so quickly, with no changes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 2:58 pm 
Waiting for winter
User avatar

Joined: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 1:46 am
Posts: 2380
Location: Jr. High
Rebecca wrote:
Or, instead of 500 posts- "has made at least 20 (? that's one page when you search a posting history :P ) posts in the last month and has made at least 100 posts total" would help ensure that a volunteer is actually willing to continue having an online presence, not just someone who just pops in every few days.


I wouldn’t be eligible under that standard. Not that I should be, per se, in fact I declined to serve the last time I was asked precisely because I didn’t feel it would be fair to do it since I wasn’t posting that much. But I just wanted to point out that I would be technically disqualified under that standard. The truth is, even though I don’t post very often, I do still check in every day and read the boards regularly and feel that I am still qualified to serve, and I am still one of the longest serving Rangers on this board. Not bragging or anything. Ok, yes I am.

:cheers:

And Rebecca, you’re far too adorable to sound bitchy. :)

_________________
Image

I am a child, I'll last a while.
You can't conceive
of the pleasure in my smile.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 3:23 pm 
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6642
I don't think Ranger qualifications should be based on post a count, but rather on a continual online presence over a period of time. Which is more difficult to judge I know, but there are posters here who quite often spend their time reading but not posting yet are certainly up to date with the current state of the board.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 3:27 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5131
I would suggest implementing the thing as it has been presented (since most people who will vote probably have already done so), and if it turns out to be a problem, have a vote on revising it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 3:30 pm 
Just keep singin'!
User avatar

Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Posts: 1729
Location: UK
I was just going to say (but V-man beat me to it) that the revised Charter as it stands should pass and all these bits and pieces can be hammered out in the by-laws, which would be the next step after we implement the new Charter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 3:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Fall River, MA
I agree that we can't/shouldn't really change it after most people have voted, but it's just something on my mind as we need to find a new Ranger to replace Don.


And I suppose just going by post count isn't quite the best either, it's just that it's more concrete than "an online presence." Though, I doubt if I'd made 20 posts the month before I became a Ranger, but I volunteered as a way to force myself to post more, instead of just lurking. And I certainly have. :blackeye: (I went and looked....I've made a scary-high number of posts since becoming a Ranger. If I can do math right, and there's a chance I can't, I made 32% of my posts since mid-November when I first started Ranger-ing. And that's out of nearly 4 years of posting here. :Q )


And :kiss: to tinwe.


Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
I certainly don't mind. I never meant what I wrote to be an absolute final draft, and even I was surprised that it go approved and put up for a vote so quickly, with no changes.

I think we were all just a bit tired of discussing things and wanted to finally take some sort of action. :P

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 6:08 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5131
I think the two main qualification for being a Ranger should be a willingness to do the job, and caring about what happens to this place. To use a very different situation, Whistler never posts at HoF, yet his input as a Marshal there is literally indispensible to me. I think that the vast majority of the time, people who both volunteer to join the Ranger pool, and agree to take up the job when their turn comes up, are going to step up and do the job. In the rare instances when they are either unwilling or unable to do so, they can be replaced, as the discretion of the Rangers that are doing the job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 8:14 pm 
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6642
Rebecca wrote:
Something I just thought of, regarding the number of Rangers as outline in this new Charter.

I'm not sure what the requirement is now, but at the moment there are 6 of us. But frankly, only 3 of us have been performing Ranger duties (changing ranks, checking emails, checking the Admin ID, splitting posts, etc). And granted, we've had more to deal with than should be expected with the hearings and all, but I know Holby and I are rather burnt out. And I rather suspect that River's feeling the same way. ;) Given that people volunteer but aren't on the boards much, I worry what would happen if we have only 3 Rangers and one or two of them doesn't pull their weight. Or even worse, if all three don't. I think having a higher and definitive number of Rangers makes more sense, and when one leaves, just try to replace him or her. Having more rangers, to me, also gives less chance of a Ranger with a grudge enforcing their will on another member, which was brought up somewhere. I also think the posting requirements for being a ranger should be more than just 100 posts.

Right now, this is the phrasing:
Quote:
We have a rotating pool of administrators, called Rangers. Rangers serve terms of three months, and are taken from a pool of volunteers. Three to five Rangers will serve at any one time, ideally serving staggered terms. Any member in good standing who has been a member for at least three months and has made at least 100 posts can become a Ranger. To volunteer, simply post here [add link].


I think it should read something more like We have a rotating pool of administrators, called Rangers. Rangers serve terms of three months, and are taken from a pool of volunteers. Ideally six members will serve as Rangers at any one time, with staggered terms. Any member in good standing who has been a member for at least three months and has made at least 500 posts can become a Ranger. To volunteer, simply post here [add link].

Or, instead of 500 posts- "has made at least 20 (? that's one page when you search a posting history :P ) posts in the last month and has made at least 100 posts total" would help ensure that a volunteer is actually willing to continue having an online presence, not just someone who just pops in every few days.


I hope I don't sound bitchy, but it's just what I think would help. :neutral:


There is no definitive way to do this, but I can give you an example of where this is not necessarily a great method.

Rebecca: spamspamspam
Marty: spamspamspam

x 500

Not exactly the ideal online presence. :P

But seriously I think it is rather more important what happens after they become rangers than before. Maybe the wording should reflect what conditions are expected during their term rather than before.
Most people volunteer with good intentions, but have reasons pop up during their term and find themselves in a situation where they can't be available. Don took the right approach.

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
I think the two main qualification for being a Ranger should be a willingness to do the job, and caring about what happens to this place. To use a very different situation, Whistler never posts at HoF, yet his input as a Marshal there is literally indispensible to me. I think that the vast majority of the time, people who both volunteer to join the Ranger pool, and agree to take up the job when their turn comes up, are going to step up and do the job. In the rare instances when they are either unwilling or unable to do so, they can be replaced, as the discretion of the Rangers that are doing the job.



Idealistically yes, in practical terms not so much.
And I ask you how would the situation be if Prim, TP and Wampus were not around much?
In practical terms, regardless of Whistler's value, you would be swamped at times. In other words you can afford that luxury, whereas this has been a problem at times here.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 8:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Fall River, MA
I don't think I like you so much any more, mister. :suspicious:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 8:25 pm 
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6642
Please post to the topic. :P

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 8:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Fall River, MA
I was, until you called me a spammer. :P

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 9:27 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5131
Holbytla wrote:
Idealistically yes, in practical terms not so much.
And I ask you how would the situation be if Prim, TP and Wampus were not around much?
In practical terms, regardless of Whistler's value, you would be swamped at times. In other words you can afford that luxury, whereas this has been a problem at times here.


I would be screwed, no doubt about it. (Particularly Prim :love:) Needless to say the two boards have different dynamics, and different needs (vive la différence!). The bottom line is that the Rangers who are actually holding down the fort at any particular time should have broad discretion to deal with whatever problems arise, including replacing Rangers who are not contributing, if necessary.

And I'm pretty proud that I've managed to stay idealistic through more than 45 years. It helps that I'm as cynical as I am idealistic though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 10:41 pm 
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Posts: 5046
Location: London
I voted no only because there is nothing in there about TOE, and if that forum doesn't have specific protection, I will feel the need to delete every single post I have in there.

I agree with the rest of the statement, but TOE needs protection.

There should also be something in there about the only people having the ability to call for a ban are the Rangers, but that it has to be ratified by a boardwide vote in a poll started by the Rangers.


Here's my thing - we adopt the new charter as our main thing, BUT, if anything questionable comes up, where we do need more detail, we keep at least parts of the old charter as a backup. Not as our main charter - the rules of the board - type thing. More as.... more as a guidebook.

I didn't realize until starting this jury thing just how simple and not at all scary the charter really is. It does need to be tweaked a bit, but it's not at all as scary and detailed and nit-picky as we've thought that it was... or at least, that I thought that it was. I've found it to be incredibly useful over the past week, and....

well, going as simple as we seem to be doing - it's sort of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater type of situation. Let's keep the baby, but do some cosmetic surgury on it - change the eye color, dye the hair, buy a new brand of diapers, but it's still a good baby.

I've been to harsh on the Charter over the past couple of years. I do think we should have something more general to refer to as a rule, but let's keep a tweaked version of the charter simply as a guidebook, rather than a rulebook.

_________________
For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.
- Carl Sagan

Image

Now that your rose is in bloom, a light hits the gloom on the grey.
- Seal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan , 2009 11:26 pm 
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Posts: 5205
Location: at a safe distance
Estel, the committee is in recess right now because we wanted a break but we're going to draft up some by-laws that will include protection for TOE (most likely we'll just cut and paste that from the current Charter). We have no intention of changing TOE in any event - TOE in its current form is part of who we are, just like the rotating Ranger system is part of who we are.

Most of the protection for TOE would fall under the culture of respect thing anyways - it is certainly disrespectful to violate the privacy of TOE or any other private forum (not to mention PMs) without the explicit consent of those involved, or to threaten and belittle anyone anywhere. I realize that those with posting rights in TOE are voted into those rights by the current posters in TOE (sort of a board within the board) and I see no reason why that needs to change given the nature of that forum. However, would it make you and people in general more comfortable if new entries into TOE were suspended for any interim between the new Charter coming into effect and the new by-laws taking effect?

_________________
"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group