board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Convention: Admin Powers

Post Reply   Page 1 of 24  [ 461 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 524 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: Convention: Admin Powers
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 3:35 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Edit: June 18, 2005 The numbering of the article on Administrators was changed to Article 3 to give more logical order to the charter. References to Article 2 in these threads about Administration all refer to what is now Article 3: Administrators. Thread titles have been changed to reflect correct Article numbering to avoid confusion.

***Original Post begins here

Convention Members:
The second post contains the current portion of the agenda.
The third post contains the language that we will be voting on.

All Members:
The following is an outline of the charter. Article numbers are temporary and will be changed to give the charter a logical order once we know how many article numbers are needed. (Paragraph numbers will not be changed.) The Items listed in red have already been completed. The items under current discussion and up next are noted in blue.

We are also discussion renumbering the Articles before they are presented to the Members for ratification. The reason for this is to give a logical order to the final Charter. The Outline below has been edited to reflect to proposed new numbering system.

Part I. Our Mission
Part II. Our Principles
Part III. Ownership of B77
Part IV. Our Goals
Part V. Our Administrative and Governance Procedures
Article 1: B77 is a member moderated board
Article 2:Member Rights and Responsibilities
Article 3:Administrators
¶1: Number of Administrators and Terms of Office
¶2: Eligibility of Members to Serve as Administrators
¶3: Selection of Administrators
¶4: Routine Powers of Administrators

¶5: Special and Emergency Powers ¶ voting now
¶6: Code of Conduct for Administrators
¶7: How to Contest the Action of an Administrator

¶8: When is an Administrator Removed from Office ¶ still voting
Article 4:Office of the Mayor
Article 5:Resolution of Disputes Article discussed next

Article (.): Ratification of the Constitution

Last edited by Jnyusa on Sun 19 Jun , 2005 5:35 pm, edited 28 times in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 3:36 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
AGENDA

PART II. Completing Those By-Laws that have already been begun:

***** As of April 11, 2005: *****
See third post for discussion taking place in this thread

A. Administrators
...4. Special powers and Emergency powers:
......a. automatic bans / perhaps rephrase to 'immediate bans' ?
......b. temporary suspension of posting rights, by forum. Suggested:
.........i. refusal to participate in a requested arbitration
.........ii. refusal to abide by an Arbitration Decision
.........iii. invalid email address
..........iv. multiple-IDs used for non RP purposes à posting rights only in RP forum (discussed and mostly been agreed upon but not voted on of course)
......c. cancelled registration: Question: Admin Power or Member Rights issue?
.........i. posters who register and visit the board once in order to post ads or spam and do not respond to email contact about policy may have their registrations cancelled after 30 days.
.........ii. Members who have been asked to participate in an Arbitration, or a Hearing on a Ban, and who simply disappear rather than participate, may have their registrations cancelled after 30 days.
.........iii. Inactive members
......d. Editing posts
.........i. that affect the page display (stretchy pages)
.........ii. that contain objectionable content (define)

......5. Procedures for using routine, special and emergency powers
.........b. Procedure that must be followed before suspending posting rights

......6. When can an administrator be removed from office; How is an administrator removed from office. GO TO:
Admin Removal


......7. How to Contest the decision of an admin. GO TO:
Contest Admin Decision

Last edited by Jnyusa on Fri 15 Apr , 2005 10:26 pm, edited 13 times in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 3:38 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
A Draft Ballot has been posted here:
Special Powers

Please take a moment to compare the discussion points below to the draft ballot.

Admins have power to Edit Posts
• if they affect the display of the page, e.g. stretched pages, after notifying the poster
• if they contain objectionable content, for example: abuse of another poster, defamatory remarks, pornographic, violent or distasteful content, or advertisement of products

Admins have power to enact an Immediate Ban
for the following offenses if the poster has registered within the last seven days:
• Spamming the board with ads
• Spamming the board with porn
• Hacking the board
• Refusing to abide by the Decision of Jury in an Arbitration
• Threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against members
In all other cases the poster has the Right to a Hearing, and if the poster registered more than seven days ago they are considered a member of the community and have a right to a hearing for these offenses as well, but their posting rights will be restricted to the Jury Room for the duration of the hearing.

Admins have power to temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a forum
• In the Invite Forum, if information about the contents of an invitation thread has been revealed to a non-member, access can be suspended [this provision becomes void if the Invite Forum is removed]
• In the Jury Room, if poster has interfered with an Arbitration or Hearing on a Ban, board-wide posting rights can be suspended until the Arbitration or Hearing is concluded
• In the There and Back Again forum, if more than one complaint has been made against the way an RP identity has been used, posting rights can be suspended until an arbitration can be held regarding the continuation of that identity.
• In the Thinking of England Forum, if more than one complaint has been made about the way a poster has been posting there, posting rights can be suspended until an arbitration can be held to determine the right of continued access to that forum.
• If a sig pic is arguably pornographic, violent or distasteful it can be removed. If the poster persists in reposting it, posting rights outside the Jury Room can be suspended until an arbitration decision is reached.

Admins have power to convene a hearing on a ban
• Whenever a bannable offense is called to their attention.
Offenses that actually warrant a ban, and all other 'penalties' for breaking by-laws are covered under member rights.

Admins have power to convene a hearing to reverse a ban if the following three conditions are met:
• if the duration of the ban was not specified
• at least (a)two weeks (b) one month (c)six months (b) one year has elapsed since the ban went into effect this original read 6 mos/1 year, but since all immediate bans are suggested to require a hearing, we need shorter options
• the banned poster has requested a new hearing in writing

Procedures for using special and emergency powers
• An immediate ban is of unspecified duration. A Hearing must be convened to reverse it.
• When posting rights are suspended, an arbitration must be held and the jury will decide the duration of the suspension, not to exceed the maximum duration specified here:
This section has been eliminated from the ballot and will have to be taken up in the next portion of the agenda
Invite Forum open board is automatic limit?
Interference with an Arbitration duration of the arbitration plus ... ?
RP Forum six months
England Forum need input from users
Objectionable Sig Pics one month

Extraordinary Powers of Admins
Recognizing that unforeseen events may occur which require a quick response, Board77 administrators are expected to use their best judgment in emergencies, and to take whatever action they believe necessary to protect the board. An emergency would be an event which threatened real and immediate harm, but which is not otherwise addressed by this charter. In such an event, the administrator(s) in question would be expected to explain the circumstances and consult with the board membership as soon as possible. Such measures are temporary by their nature and subject to review by some body as yet to be determined,

Last edited by Jnyusa on Sun 17 Apr , 2005 7:11 am, edited 70 times in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 4:29 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Observations from where I stand:

The list of offenses for which summary banning may take place needs to be spelled out carefully, and to be limited primarily to activities that jeopardize the site legally . (existing powers, see also A.4.a)

I do not think The Watch should have any special privliges when it comes to proposing banning. Everyone should have that ability, if this is a self-policing board. (existing powers)

A.3.e and f: What does "initiating" mean here?

A.2.a and b: Wide time-zone coverage WHEN POSSIBLE is a good idea, but for a self-policing board, not essential. I'm not sure what "cultural diversity" means in this context, except possibly guaranteeing that both revisionists and purists are represented. :D This board is in many ways as color-, gender-, and nationality- blind as it gets.

A.5.b: The procedure must be straightforward, clear, and fair. It is impossible to avoid all subjective measures of behavior, so it is necessary to compensate by requiring an explanation to any affected poster, and to use as many specific examples of bannable offenses as possible to help people "connect the dots."

I am severely conflicted on the issue of privacy for the banned, since it has been so grossly abused in other arenas. How much is real and how much is cover for bad decisions?

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 4:49 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Ax,

I'll refer you to the stickies in the Jury room for fuller explanation of some of these issues, bearing in mind that some of the unresolved items in those stickies are further down in the agenda under "Outside Forum"

A.3.e and f: What does "initiating" mean here?

It means two different things, actually. Because the jury room is read only, admins must enable posting right when an Arbitration or Hearing on a Ban commences. I believe that is what Alandriel was thinking of when she put that in the agenda, and it's probably repeated elsewhere in the agenda, too.

But Arbitrations and Hearings are different in that anyone can ask for an Arbitration to take place, whereas only an Admin can convene a Hearing on a Ban. That's how it stands now, at least.

I would not like Hearings on a Ban to be intiated by just anyone because I'm afraid this would be used in retaliatory fashion. Restricting this power to admins gives us some control over 'frivolous lawsuits.' The power of the membership in this regard comes from the fact that anyone can request an arbitration, and arbitrations can be required by the admin if the problem is recurrent, and multiple abuses in which arbitration decisions are repeatedly ignored by recidivist posters are likely to lead to a ban.

I'm not sure what "cultural diversity" means in this context

Nin had suggested that we try to make sure we always have a non-native speaker admin on board so that problems arising from language difficulty will be better understood.

I don't think personally that there needs to be a rule about this or about time zones, but I see no problem with including guidelines in the charter ... e.g. diversity is desirable both to give good coverage across time zones and to assure that language difficulties will be taken into account

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 5:00 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I actually think that if anyone can request a banning hearing, it will happen less. If such a request would be viewed by the membership at large as frivolous, how many people would be so out of touch as to request? And even if they did, would the immediate response not tell them? Not to mention that filing speciousrequests would, in my mind, make one a target for a not-so-specious request, and very likely not from a previous target, but an outraged onlooker or five.

To some extent it comes down to a game of reverse Mexican one-punch: whoever throws the first blow is likely to lose, unless their case is very, very strong.

Now, a Watch member would have to open the thread, as you state, and I do think a duty of the Watch should be to ask someone if they are really, really sure they want to do this.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 5:22 pm
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
Regarding the method of selecting admins...

I don't think it should be a popularity contest. If it is, there are a lot of people - I'm one of them - who will never offer themselves for the job. There's something very disheartening about thinking through how to juggle your RL responsibilites, making a mental committment to undertake the work, and then not being selected because another name on the ballot is more familiar than yours.

If you're all really dedicated to the idea of having quarterly elections for admin, I'll shut up about it. I just don't think the qualities we'd want in an admin are necessarily identical with the qualities that lead one to participate in a popularity contest.

What I would suggest instead is that people willing to undertake the job offer themselves as volunteers, then are voted on - maybe 2 or 3 times a year - as "acceptable" or not. If they are "acceptable" they go into the volunteer pool; if not, not.

Then I would suggest, as openings come up, that people are assigned out of the volunteer pool on either a random or "first volunteered, first used" basis.

I think I'd make a good admin, and I would be willing to devote the time. But I am not a politician. I speak of myself because I've recently been thinking of this, but obviously I mean it in a wider sense. I suspect many will feel as I do.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 5:25 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Ethel--

So it's sort of like a jury pool? That's not a bad idea, especially if it can take into account when someone has seasonal availability, eg, a teacher who is off during the summer. I do think having elections for what are basically custodians is silly at best, harmful (as you note) at worst. Especially if more power is given to the posters at large, so as to reinforce the notion that the admins/Watch are just folks doing a mundane job, not judges of character and executioners of writ.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 5:52 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I suppose I should cut and paste my previous comments into this thread:

"My farewell post to TORC really got me to thinking about what an ideal structure for a government would be in an ideal community. It occurred to me that my comments about the Shire were not purely poetic licence. I honestly belief that a structure that matched that described by Tolkien would work extremely well here. It would have a "Mayor" w hose function would be mainly ceremonial, but who would preside over banquets (e.g., speak for board77 in the rare occassions where the board might need to have a spokesperson) and would oversee the Messenger Service and the Watch. The Messengers would be those who would oversaw the technical aspects of making sure that the board runs smoothly and that messages were able to be successfully passed among the community. The Watch would consist of two functions, those performed by the Shirriffs and those performed by the Bounders. The Shirrifs would be responsible for dealing with those rare situations where people got out line, or otherwise were wayward. The Bounders would be responsible for making sure that undesireable outsiders would be kept outside (e.g. Trolls and people who can't learn to get along with others). "

"One really significant advantage that I see in this idea is the fact that as board77 grows and its standing in the internet world increases, there will be more and more need to have a person who acts as the board's spokesperson. Now, we could just delegate this task to lidless as the owner, and I think everyone would be confident that he would do a great job of it, but I also think he would be the first to agree that such a delegation would be contrary to the democratic nature of the place. I think it would be more appropriate to have people act in this role on a rotating basis, elected by the membership for a fixed term. People well respected by all, who people would be comfortable to have speak for them, but who also have no real power to do anything else while they hold this position. The anti-Monarch, if you will.

Also, to answer Viv's point, what I have in mind would not at all involve mods in the TORCian sense of people chosen by the owners and exercising power in an arbitrary and hidden way. As someone else pointed out, it would be more like the existing b77 admins, but with the tasks more divided up (and thus putting less pressure on each individual). It would also have an addition component of people working to keep undesirables out, which I think will be very important when we open (as we will inevitably have to do).

Finally, the one thing that binds us all together, even more then a common past at TORC, is the love of Tolkien's work. Whether old m00bs, are manwe-ites, or Talkers, or RPers or what have you, whether a fan of the films, or their biggest critic, we all come from a common background of loving Tolkien. I for one am attracted to the idea of emphasizing that common ground, and using it to help define what b77 is about (particularly since, to be completely honest, the name board77 does not really itself help define the place, as most names do). "

One thing that I'll add is that, while it is not on the agenda, one thing that we will need to decide is how new members are going to come in: are we going to continue with the current invite process, open to the general public with no restrictions, or something in between. My personal opinion is that it should be somewhere in between. More importantly for these discussions, my opinion about the various powers of the admins (or whatever we end up calling them), how they are selected, and how disputes and such are dealt with would be different depending on the answer to this question. So I would really like a resolution of it first.


Top
Profile Quote
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 6:00 pm
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
I want this to be an open board. That's how the internet as I know it works. That's how I want it to be here. Trolls and spammers can be dealt with fairly easily, and I don't imagine there's too huge a public out there clamoring to hang out with a bunch of ex-TORCers.

I'm aware this opinion is not universally shared, but for me it's pretty important. The exclusive, hothouse feeling that comes with a closed board - however pleasant - make me very uneasy.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 6:32 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I am more interested in the board being self-policing and self-governing than being absolutely open. However, the present invite system is unwieldy and a little too navel-gazing for my personal taste.

I would suggest that anyone who inquires or is suggested by a current member be invited unless someone vetoes them. That way there is still a barrier for dealbreakers (and yes, they do exist) but otherwise the board is effectively open...but only to people interested or connected enough to ask.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 6:45 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
So, Ax, if I understand correctly, there would still be a waiting period during which someone can register a serious objection before the registration is completed? Or would the veto be able to be exercised after the person already registered?

I think its a good idea.

And I should also add that my interest in seeing this be decided was stimulated in part by seeing a couple of examples of why the invitation process, which was great when b77 was smaller and less known, really is not suited to a time when the membership has already grown significantly, and the board's profile has become much higher. I don't think any of these situations were anyone's fault, I just think they were the product of the board having outgrown the system.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 6:47 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Vetoes would have to be before someone came aboard. Otherwise we would just look rude. And the waiting period would be shorter.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
gimli_axe_wielder
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 6:56 pm
The easily amuse-OH SHINY!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3120
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:09 pm
Location: So Cal er... Cave systems..
 
I'm with Ethel on the board being completely opened, and also about the admin situation. I like the idea of just allowing anyone who wants to to put their name in, and the only voting needed is in considering if a person is qualified or not. If we set out the reasons to be removed from the position, then we really shouldnt have much to worry about.. if the person doesnt break any of those rules then they are doing fine, if they do, then they can be removed. This way there are no hard feelings. The persons own actions will determine if they should or shouldnt be an admin. If we have a group of them, then there shouldn't be a great problem, the others would just pick up the slack.

Why do i have this funny feeling I would have been the first admin officially removed for inactivity! :Q :LMAO:

I am a bit confused about the difference between sheriffs and bounders. I understand the difference, but I would think that neither is a particularly time consuming thing so why do we need seperate people for it? I'm thinking mostly of the bounder. On the rare occasion that there is a troll or something they could be delt with very quickly. I think we would end up having two groups of people doing little when one group could handle it pretty easily with all the eyes and ears of posters around to help them spot the problems.

The reasons for a banning (ToS) or what ever you want to call it seems to be a pretty tricky thing to me. I think you are damned if you do, damned if you dont. I would be more infavor of a short list of things that are absolute and anything else the membership votes on on a case by case basis. If we put 76 different things that are against the rules, then when someone finds the loophole we are kinda screwed.. if we just give a few things then it would be easier for the board to say ok, thats out of line, we are going to let the members decide. Oreo comes to mind. Everyone knows what he is doing, but he manages to get just under the ToS anyways... I dunno, its a slippery slope. Be to strict and people will slip through, be to leniant and you leave it open for abuse. I think the key is to make it dependent on the members of the board to decide. That protects the admin from people claiming the rules are to wishy washy and anything can be justified for a banning.

I know a lot of us post at other messageboards and so forth, maybe we should all take a look at the policies at them and compare here? I think this is going to be one of the most difficult parts of the whole thing to work out.

_________________

Things and stuff.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 6:57 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Warning! MEGA POST COMING UP :Q To make it a bit easier on the eye, I've done my suggestions in blue. Hope you don't mind.

Voronwe: I hear you on the NO MOD issue ;) :D
The weekend is approaching fast and for me that means once again only peeking here and there and trying to stay caught up reading. So, forgive my brevity and directness once more please

Initial questions:
1. Should existing procedures be revisited first?
I don't think the existing procedures need to be revisited but they need expanding of course.

2. Separate powers of Admins from Member rights - please review agenda for this distinction
Absolutely. Each member status (however many we end up creating must be defined separately e.g. definitions/boundaries/rights etc. for Admin (or whatever name they'll get), members (possibly different tiers), owner (which technically is Lidless), possibly treasurer.

3. Additions to agenda?
In the a.)Administrator category of the agenda the only topic I don't see is and would suggest to be added
9) Code of conduct for Admins. A start on this was already attempted amongst the current admins in the thread
Admin code of conduct discussion.

1. Eligibility
a). simply x amounts of minimum posts coupled with x amount of membership time

- Jny suggested 15FEB 100 posts and/or 1 or 2 months: link
- Alandriel in same thread 24 FEB: 6 months and a minimum of 500 posts when b77 public


b).creating different membership 'levels' (in view of having the board public):see post Ethel 21Jan: link
Still relevant for consideration would be the possibility of having a differentiation of membership types(excerpt from Ethel's post)

Tier 3: Voting Member (6 - 12 months)
After 6 months, they would be eligible to vote in disciplinary procedures (or be chosen to serve on a voting council or some such)

Tier 4: Full Member (12+ months)
After a year they could also be part of the group from which 'acting admins' were chosen (could volunteer).

I would like to see such a tier system to determine voting members (right to vote after certain amount of time/participation) as well as full member (again with definition) and generally like the time-frame initially proposed by Ethel. Full members can volunteer for Admin, jury duty etc.

- keeping the experimental board going for 'future' Admins' to hone their skills if necessary
link

c) Duration & voting:
I really like Ethels idea ! :D
Quote:
What I would suggest instead is that people willing to undertake the job offer themselves as volunteers, then are voted on - maybe 2 or 3 times a year - as "acceptable" or not. If they are "acceptable" they go into the volunteer pool; if not, not.
It would be the active Admin's responsibility to 'double-check' with the volunteers before and election if they were still available (e.g. PM) and then would pick in order of who volunteered first and is available. However, some consideration for distribution amongst major timezone should also be given to achieve a balance.


2. Suggested number expressed perhaps as a proportion of the membership?
Currently approx150 registered members – approx. 7 claimed/known RP IDs – we have 4 active admins (+2 temp help) = approx 2.8% // Percentage however does not really make sense, e.g.
2% admin with 500 members = 10 Admin. / Suggestion: max number limited to 7 but possibility of getting temporary help from previous admin pool if necessary. Duration of temp help one week renewable.

.........a. suggested guideline for distribution by time-zone?
An 'equal' spread if possible across the two major timezones US/Europe taken into consideration when choosing Admin replacements

.........b. suggested guideline for cultural diversity?
Without prying into volunteers backgrounds but rather according to the personal information volunteers offer of themselves (see suggested Code of conduct for Admins, 'How X "ticks") to be taken into consideration when choosing Admin replacements


3. Routine powers:
Agreed with all proposed. No further additions/suggestions from me at this point.


4. Special powers and Emergency powers (currently in discussion is the following:)

.........a. automatic bans / perhaps rephrase to 'immediate bans' ?
Immediate bans rather than automatic. / NO immediate bans not even for trolls but rather confine posting rights to bikeroom first, possibly deferr (if escalating) to jury room / advise to that effect via email – procedure to be detailed – see agenda 5b

.........b. temporary suspension of posting rights, by forum. Suggested:
............i. refusal to participate in a requested arbitration
............ii. refusal to abide by an Arbitration Decision
............iii. invalid email address
............iv. multiple-IDs used for non RP purposes à posting rights only in RP forum (discussed and mostly been agreed upon but not voted on of course)

Yes to all of the above

.........c. cancelled registration: Question: Admin Power or Member Rights issue?
Members right as well as Admin power. In case of necessary purge of member names Admin power to remove posters with 0 postcount (once the board is open to public) after 6 months. Members can request to cancel registration any time via email to Admins.

............i. posters who register and visit the board once in order to post ads or spam and do not respond to email contact about policy may have their registrations cancelled after 30 days. – YES -
..........ii. Members who have been asked to participate in an Arbitration, or a Hearing on a Ban, and who simply disappear rather than participate, may have their registrations cancelled after 30 days. – YES -

..........iii. Inactive members
see [c] above.



5. Procedures for using routine, special and emergency powers

.........a. Procedure for creating a new forum
upon membership discussion/approval and vote according voting results re duration/consensus etc. unless revisted by panel

…….b. Procedure that must be followed before suspending posting rights
- in case of obvious trolling, delete thread, restrict posting rights immediately -> open thread in bike-room -> inform poster via email quoting link. If no response within max 72hours, delete thread in bike-room and ban poster (NOT delete poster until there's necessity for a purge see further below)

- in case of member disruption: other members need to complain first via PM to an admin quoting thread-reference. Only when asked can admin interfere (or in case an Admin is personally affected) --post in affected thread(s) that members need to take it to bikerack. If sorted out between posters, no further interference. However, if any of the involved posters take the problem back outside (snide remarks, insinuations that further inflame the other party/ies, then, and again only upon member complaint restrict posting rights to ALL involved parties to bike-rack or jury room until the situation is sorted


6. When can an administrator be removed from office
.........a. neglecting their duties
needs to be defined, suggestion e.g. absence for more than 3 (or 4) consecutive weeks

.........b. not getting things done in a timely fashion
needs to be defined, e.g. not responsive to PM requests for more than 72h, neglecting to 'hand-over' pending tasks to other admins and/or failure to inform them (again if absent for e.g. more than 72h)

.........c. trying to take the board into a place not consistent with its purpose
.........d. flaunting authority
.........e. bragging about their 'leader' status
.........f. giving special treatment to their friends
.........g. favoritism
.........h. discouraging members from joining other boards

Yes to all the above but concrete complaints have to be brought forward by the membership, first via PM, if unresponsive within 72h e.g. in the bike room, the concerned Admin needs to be informed (email as well as PM, other means of contact e.g. phone)

- other issues that would make a removal possible:
upon clear violation of constitution and it's bylaws (needs to be spelled out ;) )

7. How is an administrator removed from office.
Suggested: will take the form of an arbitration; a decision against the admin will result in the immediate removal of admin powers and being barred from admin position for one year.
Yes – in the interim of the hearing replaced by a temp admin during the time of the hearing from the pool of previous admins on a voluntary/availability basis. Temporary Admins lasting one week at a time with possibility of (repeated) renewal for another week if necessary.


8. How to Contest the decision of an admin.
Public hearing in the jury room.

9. Code of conduct for Admins
Formulation of a 'job description' . If the panel members think this to be a valid point of discussion then please have a look in the Admin forum thread Admin code of conduct discussion where some points have been raised and may be included into the agenda.


You still alive? :Q
;)
_______________
Resident witch [ img ]


Edited by admin (Primula_Baggins), 11 April at 00:20 GMT, to fix long URLs stretching page


Top
Profile Quote
gimli_axe_wielder
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 7:05 pm
The easily amuse-OH SHINY!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3120
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:09 pm
Location: So Cal er... Cave systems..
 
yes, but you didnt have to shout at that one part... :Q

_________________

Things and stuff.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 7:07 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I'm OK with tiers, but would lower the time to 3-6 months and 6+ months. Remember--this board hasn't been in existence 6 months.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 7:20 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Ax: But I have a 'feeling' it will be by the time we open to the public ;) and currently we have an adequate pool of volunteers :D

Sorry Gimli
_______________
Resident witch [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 7:44 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Folks, I'm going to ask everyone to stick to the agenda and not get sidetracked into a discussion about opening the boards. This issue keeps coming up - it's been discussed about 8 times in the three months I've been here - and a moment's reflection should reveal that whatever we may want to do, what we cannot do is open to the public without an administrative structure in place. What we are doing now has to be done first.

You should go forward with the understanding that a sizeable number of the members want an open board, and we are designing our structure with that circumstance in mind. There is no need, within the context of current Charter issues, to talk about things like the invite process because that will likely be terminated and will not appear in the Charter at all.

Similarly, juries etc. appear on the next agenda item. The only thing we have to discuss/decide at this point with regard to conflict resolution is when the admins can ban or suspend membership without consultation and when a hearing is required. The exact terms of the ban/suspension will be discussed later.

Alandriel -

Thank you for making a post that was entirely relevant ;) The one prior decision that I thought we should probably revisit is the way we vote for admins, since people are already discussing that, and members via PM and the Business Room threads are expressing dissatisfaction with the current system.

Duration & voting ... I really like Ethel's idea !

So do I. Personally I prefer some kind of rota - - people become eligible, they are asked if they are willing - then, if we want membership approval we can have a "yes/no/ask again in 3 months" vote on qualifications, and then they take their turn without being voted on again.

Tier 3: Voting Member (6 - 12 months)
After 6 months, they would be eligible to vote in disciplinary procedures (or be chosen to serve on a voting council or some such) [color = blue] jury duty, perhaps [/color]

Tier 4: Full Member (12+ months)
After a year they could also be part of the group from which 'acting admins' were chosen (could volunteer).


I like this system very much. All of it. Both the idea and the times you have suggested.

Jn

edit: Could everyone please check their pics and sig and figure out why this thread is ten feet wide. My arm is killing me. Thank you.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 18 Mar , 2005 7:50 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Quote:
You should go forward with the understanding that a sizeable number of the members want an open board, and we are designing our structure with that circumstance in mind. There is no need, within the context of current Charter issues, to talk about things like the invite process because that will likely be terminated and will not appear in the Charter at all.
jny--gotta disagree. The majority of polled posters last time I checked were not in favor of a totally open board. Thus, we need either to come up with a very flexible structure, or a decision on board openness sooner rather than later.

edit to add--

I favor the former, btw.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 24  [ 461 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 524 »
Jump to: