board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Bike Racks: VOTE ENDED

Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 113 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: Bike Racks: VOTE ENDED
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 12:15 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
APPROVED TEXT
Article 3: Dispute Resolution in the Outside Forum

¶1: The Bike Racks Forum


• The Bike Racks Forum is a read and write forum available to all members. It is used for:
•• resolving disputes between individual members when these disputes do not involve a violation of board rules
•• off-topic discussions that are derailing a thread but do not warrant a thread of their own
•• restricting posters who have provided invalid email addresses

• Members may start a thread in that forum to resolve a personal dispute.

• Admins at their discretion may split quarrelsome or disruptive posts and move them to the Bike Racks if they threaten to impinge on member rights

• Bike Rack threads should be titled with the name of the expected participants so that the title is neutral and easy for participants to find.

• A thread in the Bike Racks forum is intended for those members directly involved in the interaction, plus whomever else they designate as participants. Those who have initiated the thread may request that Administrators delete the posts of non-designated members who enter the thread.

• When members involved in the dispute feel it is resolved, they may notify an administrator to lock the thread. Administrators should confirm with all parties that the discussion is concluded before locking the thread.

• If members are having difficulty resolving their dispute they may ask for a mediator. There should be no more than one mediator, agreed upon by the discussants, and chosen from among those jury pool members who have indicated their willingness to serve in this capacity. Service as a mediator in a particular dispute is voluntary.

• The role of the mediator is to offer an objective view of the dispute and help the parties come to an agreement. The mediation may take place in private, by PM or email, if the parties so desire. When the dispute is concluded, the mediator should make sure that all parties are aware that the discussion is concluding, and then notify an administrator to lock the thread.

• Locked threads in the Bike Racks are deleted only if the posters request it to preserve their privacy.

• Bike Rack threads may be summarized and placed in the Archives with the members' names removed if a mediator or Administrator feels that aspects of the discussion might help future members learn the culture of the board. This may be done even if the locked thread remains on the board and does not require the permission of the discussants.

REVISED STICKY THREAD FOR THE FORUM

HOW TO USE THE BIKE RACKS

Board77 is a member-moderated board. We expect posters to behave responsibly and moderate themselves as much as possible.

Have you gotten in a squabble with another poster? Are you and someone else derailing a thread because of an off-topic discussion that neither of you can let go of? Are other posters telling you to “take it Outside”? Perhaps you inadvertently gave an invalid email address when you registered on Board77?

THE BIKE RACKS is the place to bring your minor squabbles and temporarily-off-topic discussions, and it is the place where you will be asked to wait for verification of your email address if we have trouble contacting you by email.

This is a Read-and-Write Forum. Anyone may start a thread here for resolving a disagreement. In addition, if posts in another thread have become quarrelsome or disruptive or seem to be on the brink of violating member rights, you may find that an administrator has split the thread and moved the disruptive posts here until the problems are resolved.

The Bike Racks are intended for use by members directly involved in a dispute and whomever they designate as participants. Uninvolved members should consider carefully before posting comments that they consider to be helpful without the permission of discussants. Sometimes even the most benevolent intervention serves to exacerbate the situation when it is made without the parties' consent or desire. Administrators have the right to delete the posts of non-designated members who enter the thread.

Once you are in the thread, remember that everyone can read what you are posting.

• Open your thread and title it with the names of the posters who are expected to participate. This will make it easy for your fellow-posters to find the right thread and easy for the administrators to monitor the thread and delete posts that do not belong.

• If uninvited and unwanted posters interfere, please contact an administrator by PM or email so that the offending posts can be deleted. You may ask unwanted posters to leave politely, but please do not widen the conflict by arguing with poachers. Current administrators and contact info are listed at the bottom of this post.

• When you feel your dispute is resolved, you may notify an administrator to lock the thread. The administrator will confirm with all parties that the thread is finished before locking it.

• If you are finding it difficult to resolve your disagreement, you may request mediation from the jury members listed as mediators in the second post of this thread. Their participation at any given time is voluntary. If a particular member declines to assist you at this time, please respect their decision and ask someone else. There should be no more than one mediator to a thread, and all participants in the discussion should agree to the choice of mediator.

The role of the mediator is to offer an objective view of the dispute and help the parties come to an agreement. They do not have the power to impose penalites. The mediation may take place in private, by PM or email, if the thread participants so desire. When the dispute is concluded, the mediator will make sure that everyone is aware that the discussion is concluding, and then notify an administrator to lock the thread.

• You may request that a Bike Racks thread be deleted to preserve the privacy of participants. If you do not request this, the thread will remain readable.

• Bike Rack threads might be summarized and placed in the Archives with participants' names removed if a mediator or Administrator feels that aspects of the discussion might help future members learn the culture of the board. As the participants’ names will not appear in the Archive, their permission is not required for this.

Thank you for helping to keep Board77 a member-moderated Board.

To email all administrators: admins@board77.com

To send a PM, the following members are current admins:
Voronwe_the_Faithful (May 1 to July 31)
laureanna (May 1 to July 31)
Primula_Baggins (April 1 to June 30)
Nin (May 1 to July 31)
truehobbit (May 1 to June 30)


[The members thank Jnyusa for drafting the Sticky Threads in the Outside Forum]

Last edited by Jnyusa on Sun 08 May , 2005 1:14 pm, edited 23 times in total.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 12:42 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Looks good to me, Jn.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 6:24 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5172
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
The only question that I have is whether there should be something about bike rack threads being archived.


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 7:01 am
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
Question 4 has caveats that belong in the info thread of the Bike Racks. I don't think they necessarily belong in a constitution.

Voronwe - are you saying to archive threads that are deleted? For what purpose?

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 7:07 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Just a small typo (in case it slips through to the final document).

Question 4 last sentence, ... Sometimes even the most benevolent intervention serves to exacerbate the situation when it it made without the parties' consent or desire.

To be changed to is.

Yes, it is a nit pick. Just wanted to pick that nit now rather than risk it getting into the final document. And that is all folks. :)

All else sounds right to me.

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 9:03 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
I like it.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 9:55 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Voronwe: if I remember right, we did say somewhere along that Bikerack thread should not be archived (unlike the Jury room). They're simply locked at one point, then (according to our choices as per ballot) deleted or kept.
It's 'just' the bikeracks and although very important and valuable I see it much less serious than the jury room I still would go for no deletion at all (transparency) but let old threads stay in there forever, which in a way will then be like an archive, accessible to all, since bikeracks in the first place is accessible to all.

Laureanna: what cave-eats?

Looks good Jny :)
_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]
[ img ]
May is Donuts and Trebuchets month – though I have not the slightest clue as to why you insist on spelling doughnuts – donuts ;) this is not stopping me!


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 1:36 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Voronwe - bike rack threads being archived.

You're right. I forgot to include that but will do so now.

Alandriel - I'm also not sure I will vote in favor of an archive option for the Bike Racks but it probably should be on the ballot because some committee members (e.g. Eru) are pretty committeed to not deleting things once they posted. If we vote not to delete the threads, then adding a summary to the Archives is a neutral option.

laureanna- Question 4 has caveats that belong in the info thread of the Bike Racks. I don't think they necessarily belong in a constitution.

Technically everything that appears in the handbook, stickies and FAQ's should have a basis in the Constitution

Imp - fixed the typo. Thanks. Spellcheck would not have caught that

Jn

Btw - I'd like to have a second counter. Anyone who is willing to do this, raise your hand. If you don't know how to do the instant runoff, I'll send an email explanation.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 6:02 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
I think question nine should have an alternative saying "bike racks threads may not be summarised at all" - no?

Not that I'd think I'd vote for that alternative, but at the moment I'm pretty confused about question 9:
Quote:
If we vote not to delete the threads, then adding a summary to the Archives is a neutral option.
If we don't delete them, then why do we need a summary in the Archives?
I'd think that only if we delete them, we should have an option for summary in the archives.
Or am I getting something wrong here?

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 6:56 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
TH - bike racks threads may not be summarised at all" - no?

Yes! I added that. Sorry. When I wrote in Q.9 I had this feeling that something was missing and couldn't figure out what. :oops: That's what it was.

If we don't delete them, then why do we need a summary in the Archives?

Just for convenience. It's easier to find things in the Archives than it is to find back threads. And how would a member know which back threads to read. The Archive is like a pointer for issues of importance

I'd think that only if we delete them, we should have an option for summary in the archives.

That makes sense. Can you vote for that combination on this ballot? Let me read the options again, and if that combo is not there, then I'll add it.

Jn

Edit: OK - that option isn't really there ... but if I try to add it to all the existing options, things will get complicated. I'm going to take out the option of there needing to be a mediator, because I was thinking that people might not want just any old thread archived (to keep the archive relevant and easy to navigate) but there's no reason why an admin can't make that decision, or make it at the request of the mediator.

I want to leave the permission choice in because right now the archiving of jury room threads does not require permission, but we might want to do it differently with the Bike Racks because people enter there voluntarily.

Let me fix this and see if it's a better choice. Tell me how you like it.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 8:36 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Oh, dear, I'm sorry to be troublesome again! :oops:
I didn't think you'd go and re-phrase things.

Hmmh, I actually think it's very hard to vote for something now, because two of the options depend on the outcome of a previous question.
And there's still no option to reject everything, is there?
I wrote:
If we don't delete them, then why do we need a summary in the Archives?
I'd think that only if we delete them, we should have an option for summary in the archives.
I hadn't meant for any changes to be made to the text, I just thought that maybe you had got the explanation wrong for why there was an option for the archives. So, my second sentence was just what I thought would be the reason for archiving anything - I don't mind having them in the thread and archiving them.
The reason you gave for doing the latter is excellent, hadn't thought of this.
I'm so sorry for causing confusion! :oops:

So, I guess, B and D now mean "only if ..."

Soooo - ok, I don't think anyone would vote for any of these options, but just for completeness, I suppose you are right, there should be one option saying "only if".

My suggestion:
Quote:
Only if Bike Rack threads are automatically deleted, they may be summarized and placed in the Archives with the members' names removed if a mediator or Administrator feels that aspects of the discussion might help future members learn the culture of the board. This does/ does not require the permission of the discussants.
(I guess it's so unlikely anyone will vote for that, because it depends on the outcome of the previous question, one option with preferences to be given in the vote is enough?)

And another:
Quote:
I don't like any of these options and want no archiving at all.
(And I hope I'm not making things more complicated again! :oops: )

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 8:46 pm
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
Alandriel - caveats comes from the Latin phrase caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. A caveat is a warning or suggestion to be careful. These two sentences from #4 seem to me to be advice, rather than law:

Uninvolved members should consider carefully before posting comments that they consider to be helpful without the permission of discussants.

Sometimes even the most benevolent intervention serves to exacerbate the situation when it is made without the parties' consent or desire.

Jn - I agree that all regulations and commentary should flow from the law, but these two sentences can be understood from the sentence before:

But edits and deletions must be done at the request of thread participants and they alone have the right to say who is party to the dispute.

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 01 May , 2005 10:11 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Th: two of the options depend on the outcome of a previous question.

Yes. Hopefully people will vote consistently. If they don't want the threads deleted, but do want them archived, they'll choose that combo in #9. But, since this is not a presidential election or a UN election or anything, if someone does vote inconsistently I can always ask them to confirm that this is the combo that they want.

And there's still no option to reject everything, is there?

There is now! I can't believe I left that off twice, especially since I'm not real enthusiastic myself about Archiving Bike Rack threads.

laureanna: I agree that all regulations and commentary should flow from the law, but these two sentences can be understood from the sentence before

Ah! I thought you meant that all of #4 does not belong in the Charter. Voronwe had suggested some text expressing the rationale behind exlucding non-involved posters and I saw no harm in that. I've shortened it a bit. Technically the rule is clear without that language ... do you feel strongly that such collateral statements should not appear in the Charter? Because we can put it in the sticky and leave it out of the charter. Or, if Voronwe feels strongly that it should be there, I can split it out and we can vote on its inclusion seperately ... actually, since it's getting close to the time to vote, if I don't hear from either of you about it, I will split it out.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 02 May , 2005 12:40 am
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
Could you word it this way?

Question 4A:A thread in the Bike Racks forum is restricted to those members directly involved in the dispute, and administrators may delete the posts of uninvolved members who enter the thread in order to harass the participants. But edits and deletions must be done at the request of thread participants and they alone have the right to say who is party to the dispute.

{Uninvolved members should consider carefully before posting comments that they consider to be helpful without the permission of discussants. Sometimes even the most benevolent intervention serves to exacerbate the situation when it is made without the parties' consent or desire. }

PLEASE SELECT ONE:

A. I approve this text in total
B. I approve of this text, without the part in brackets
B. I do not approve this text


I'm just trying to make the constitution as lean as possible. Sorry to be such a stickler.

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 02 May , 2005 12:45 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
I like Laure's option.

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 02 May , 2005 12:46 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
laueranna, if it's alright with you I think I will split out the extra paragraph and give people the option to include it in the Charter or only in the stickies. That way we won't lose it entirely if people don't want it in the Charter.

Right now there is no explanation in the stickies - just a big red Stay Out of the Thread sign, and I know that people found that confusing in the Mummps-Maria thread because it wasn't clear who belonged and who did not. So there should be something extra in the sticky at least.

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon 02 May , 2005 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 02 May , 2005 12:48 am
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
Do we need to vote on what goes in the stickies?

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 02 May , 2005 1:04 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
laureanna, the original stickies were not voted on - they were just put up for discussion and objections. But since there will actually be a charter text this time, I expect that the rewritten stickies will come up for approval of some sort. I might in fact put them to a vote - haven't thought yet how to do that approval process.

Thing is, there may be people who actually want this language in the charter. Voronwe suggested it so I presume that he does want it. So we might as well have the vote reflect all the choices that people have expressed.

Imp - I'm sorry - we cross-posted last time. As you can see, the ballot has been modified in light of laureanna's suggestion.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 02 May , 2005 2:08 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Looks good now, I think. :)

(laureanna, I think Alandriel was joking about cave-eats ;) And, just for the record, "caveat" is the present subjunctive of the verb "cavere", to take care, beware, meaning "may he/she/it take care". [/language geekdom])

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 02 May , 2005 2:08 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5172
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Yes, he does.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 113 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: