board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

¶3 Hearings & Selection: VOTING CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 3 of 4  [ 69 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 3:07 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Question 1:
A. I approve the substance and the text of this paragraph

Question 2:
#1= B
#2= A
#3= C


Question 3:
B. Three

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
TORN
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 4:06 am
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
Offline
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 2:30 am
 
*sigh*

Don't mind me, really . . .

Question 1:
B. I do not approve the substance and the text of this paragraph [see below for my rationale (or irrationale?)]

Question 2:
#1=A
#2=C
#3=B

Question 3:
A. Two

**********
I fear I may have cast my ballot with excessive ignorance of the particulars as, although I've probably read most of the posts on this topic, I suspect that very little of the particulars have stuck in my mushy brain, so what I say below may be completely off-track or may have been fully explained away before, but in any event:

The procedures themselves are reasonable enough, but I don't really understand the necessity of having two different types of hearings for posters -- having two separate types of hearings will, I believe, likely facilitate a fairly wide range of enforceable by-law offenses, which I strongly oppose -- my view is that only a very limited number of very serious offenses should call for proceedings, such that the same proceedings would be appropriate for ban-able offenses as for other offenses that might give rise to lesser but still serious consequences. As for admins/mayor, although I think a better approach (which I admit I did not broach because I just thought of it) would be more like a no confidence vote rather than a hearing with jurors -- however, if this were my only objection, it would not have been strong enough for me to vote "nay".


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject: Re: ¶3 Hearings & Selection: NOW VOTING
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 6:14 am
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
BALLOT
Question 1:
I approve the substance and the text of this paragraph

Question 2:

#1= B
#2= A
#3= C


Question 3:

B


I am sorry for not taking part im the discussion lately. Like TH I reach the limits of my English, I have to look up words, and by the time I have read up, there are new suggestions and changings, and ususally so much smarter than whatever I could think of. I read faithfully, though, I use my free hours at school, I try to keep th thread separated in my mind, but this section is the most difficult so far.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Dindraug
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 7:11 am
Tricksy Elf!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:20 pm
Location: Tanelorn
 
Question 1

A. I approve the substance and the text of this paragraph

Question 2

#1= C
#2= B
#3= A

Question 3

B- Three

_________________

'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from delusion, it is called Religion'.

~Robert M. Pirsig


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 12:59 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Question 1:
A. I approve the substance and the text of this paragraph


Question 2: These kinds of Hearings should be called:
C
B
A


Question 3:
A. Two

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 1:25 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
BALLOT

Question 1:
A. I approve the substance and the text of this paragraph

Question 2: These kinds of Hearings should be called:

#1= B.
#2= C.
#3= A.

Question 3: Members in a hearing will have the right to contest the following number of potential jurors:
B. Three

Sorry I've missed a lot of the discussion on this. In essence I agree with TORNs stance but I see no added values in voting against the procedure quoted above. I simply hope that it is only used as a last resort.

Alatar

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 2:35 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Question 1:
A. I approve the substance and the text of this paragraph


Question 2:
#1= B
#2= A
#3= C


Question 3:
A. Two

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 3:00 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
BALLOT

Question 1:
A. I approve the substance and the text of this paragraph


Question 2:
#1=A
#2=B
#3=C


Question 3:
B. Three


TORN, as I understand it, you are saying that a hearing on a non-bannable offense (Hearing on a Violation of By-Laws etc.) should have been lumped together with a hearing on a bannable offense (Hearing on a Ban)? Is this correct?

The proposed text for Hearings on a Ban begins with this:

Hearings on a Ban are convened and conducted in the same manner as Hearings on a Violation of By-laws/Community Disruption, except that a recommendation by a jury to ban a member is not final.

So we have said they are essentially the same, the distinction is in the kind of offense being considered (not in the procedure). Are you suggesting that because we've distinguished between a hearing for a non-bannable offense and a hearing for a bannable offense, that we have essentially expanded the set of possible offenses that will be considered for hearings, and this is what you object to?


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 3:20 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
The point of distinguishing the two was to require that a boardwide vote be held to confirm a jury's verdict to ban someone. This would be overkill for any lesser offense, I think, but is an appropriate protection against a small faction being able to get someone banned out of spite.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
TORN
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 4:03 pm
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
Offline
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 2:30 am
 
Forgive me for the following rambling and possibly incoherent post:
Cerin wrote:
TORN, as I understand it, you are saying that a hearing on a non-bannable offense (Hearing on a Violation of By-Laws etc.) should have been lumped together with a hearing on a bannable offense (Hearing on a Ban)? Is this correct?

The proposed text for Hearings on a Ban begins with this:

Hearings on a Ban are convened and conducted in the same manner as Hearings on a Violation of By-laws/Community Disruption, except that a recommendation by a jury to ban a member is not final.

So we have said they are essentially the same, the distinction is in the kind of offense being considered (not in the procedure). Are you suggesting that because we've distinguished between a hearing for a non-bannable offense and a hearing for a bannable offense, that we have essentially expanded the set of possible offenses that will be considered for hearings, and this is what you object to?
May I direct your attention to the following?
TORN the befuddled and uninformed wrote:
I fear I may have cast my ballot with excessive ignorance of the particulars as, although I've probably read most of the posts on this topic, I suspect that very little of the particulars have stuck in my mushy brain, so what I say below may be completely off-track or may have been fully explained away before
Thank you for explaining that to me -- I had completely missed that the distinction was so small -- I trust my vote will have no impact on the final outcome. However, I do remain concerned (and I realize we have not yet gotten to the point of enumerating Board member rights & what are considered "enforceable" rights) that we may drift toward too many "causes of action" -- i.e., too many things that can give rise to an official proceeding, and what I was specifically referring to in my prior post was that by creating two categories, we may feel compelled to come up with things to justify the existence of two categories.

For the record, I think having a jury trial, followed by a board wide vote, for bannable offenses make sense certainly as far as permanent bans are concerned. What other penalties do we envision? Short-term bans? Restrictions from or to specific fora? I personally urge that we do not allow proceedings for an "offense" if that offense cannot result in a punishment (i.e., if the only thing that can come of a proceeding on a particular offense is an admonition, then that offense is not worthy of a proceeding, in my view). And I strongly urge that punishments be meted out only for particularly egregious circumstances.

One observation I'll make about the whole public procedure for dispute resolution is that there is a real potential downside -- I fear that public jury trials in such a small community as this (and I still have not seen any scenario that realistically foretells an extraordinary growth in the size of this community) might in some cases, depending on the specific facts, cause more harm than good in hard feelings, embarassment, etc. Many offenses will involve one poster doing something that was probably aimed at one or a few other posters, and a public jury trial may drag everyone involved through the muck. I wonder if any thought has been given to allowing the accused to request a "bench" trial (i.e., waive a right to a jury and instead have an admin "try" the case, possibly in private) or allowing settlements to be reached where the accused poster agrees to be banned (this option brings to mind prior discussions on this board about allowing people to request a self-ban -- my personal opinion is that I see nothing wrong with fulfilling a requested self-ban, even if it might tangentially help that poster to make a point that is contrary to the established position of the board).

Out of curiosity, putting aside any woeful activities of TPTB at TORC or at B77 (okay, just admins here), how frequently do you folks think what is being cooked up here would have resulted in a formal proceeding if these nascent procedures had been in place back at TORC and from Day 1 here? In other words, how often did you find in the past that there was a need to formally protect posters from other posters? For me, I can't off the top of my head think of any situations in all my years of LOTR messageboarding, although I suspect that there in fact have been a small handful of cases. I don't think we want to inadvertently create a "litigious" culture by bestowing too many enforceable rights.

Finally, it is interesting for me to consider how different my views are about the nature of the protections that should be put in place for B77 as compared to my view of such protections in the general civil society -- although I would characterize myself as rather strongly liberal, I suspect that my views on this committee might be viewed to the contrary -- go figure!!! (the difference, I believe, is in the difference between the general civil society in which every aspect of one's life is lived and a smaller voluntary association that, no matter how meaningful, is only a small sliver of one's life).


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject: Re: ¶3 Hearings & Selection: NOW VOTING
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 5:08 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
A. I approve the substance and the text of this paragraph

Question 2: These kinds of Hearings should be called:


PLEASE RANK YOUR CHOICES, with #1 being most preferred
#1= C
#2= A
#3= B


Question 3: Members in a hearing will have the right to contest the following number of potential jurors:

B. Three

I also must apologise for my lack of participation anywhere except in the "easier" threads. It's less a matter of not knowing the words for me, but of being unable to follow the complex ways of thinking in long and involved posts on so many different topics at once.
Unlike Nin, I read far from everything - indeed, I've started on the introductory posts in the "Assembling hearing procedures" thread four or five times, but haven't even got through to the end of those yet. :oops:
The complexity of those texts, combined with their length, just throws me half way through each time. (I tried to read the discussion in spite of that, but that didn't seem right, either.)
I hope to do better with the next round of discussion! :)

_________________

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
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 5:19 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
TORN wrote:
I personally urge that we do not allow proceedings for an "offense" if that offense cannot result in a punishment (i.e., if the only thing that can come of a proceeding on a particular offense is an admonition, then that offense is not worthy of a proceeding, in my view). And I strongly urge that punishments be meted out only for particularly egregious circumstances.
TORN, I think the following clarification Jnyusa offered earlier in the thread (toward bottom of page 1) seems to be quite along the lines of what you are saying. My current understanding is that any violation of member rights that did not attach to an offense with penalty specified in the by-laws would be 'non-enforceable' and therefore a matter to be handled in the Bike Racks, if individual members wished to address such situations.

Jnyusa wrote:
What I am trying to do is tie the member rights and responsibilities to specific things we've already forbidden and for which we have specific penalties so that the rights and responsibilities will not be vague additions to things people can be persecuted for, if that makes sense.

Nothing that we've assigned penalty so far has anything to do with arguments among members. It all has to do with things that would significantly alter the character of the board, hence affect the community.

What I've put under 'desirable but not enforceable except by member displeasure' (not titled as such) are things like courteous and respectful treatment of others, the right to express opinion on topics no matter how controversial but respectfully, the right to use adult language coupled with responsibility to post in a contributory manner .... this is not the exact wording, but you get the drift.

Edit

May I just add that I think everyone's contributions are of great importance, not to mention the pleasure and support of everyone's simple presence here, regardless of verbosity.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 5:37 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Cerin, I agree - normally I enjoy the discussions here a lot! And that's because of their high level of thought! :)
But when I find myself tiring reading the recent texts of the ballots, that's a matter of some concern to me.
It's quite immodest, I know, but (also unlike Nin ;) ), I don't doubt my own abilities in English. I do think that my command of the language is better than many an average native speaker's, so that when I find myself having trouble following the train of thought, I think things really are getting too complicated!
Everybody involved in the discussion here of course has an extremely high command of language and an extremely high intellectual level, which really is an ideal, of course - but I do fear that this might lead to more complicated texts than an average reader would be able to handle.

_________________

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
TORN
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 5:37 pm
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
Offline
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 2:30 am
 
Cerin wrote:
May I just add that I think everyone's contributions are of great importance, not to mention the pleasure and support of everyone's simple presence here, regardless of verbosity. (emphasis added)
:x :x :x HEY!!! ARE YOU TELLING ME I TALK TOO MUCH!?!?!? WELL, I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO MEET YOU AT THE BIKE RACKS!!! :x :x :x

SIGNED,

THE RESIDENT MISERABLE POLTROO
(J/K -- ;) )


Top
Profile Quote
TORN
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 5:40 pm
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
Offline
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 2:30 am
 
But seriously, folks, not to add to the process, but with things being approved sequentially, it seems highly likely that the pieces will not entirely fit together perfectly -- it might make sense if, once the full document is done, a small committee were to review the whole thing for internal consistency and for streamlining.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 6:32 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
TORN: What other penalties do we envision?

This is really the next item on the agenda, and I hate to jump in front of the horse, but perhaps this is needed to calm people down as to what these hearings can actually impose. Within the confines of what's already in the charter we can:

• Suspend PM priveleges
• Temporarily suspend posting rights in individual forums
• Permanently suspend posting rights in individual forums
• Temporarily confine someone to the BikeRacks (a board-wide suspension of rights)
• Temporarily ban someone
• Ban them without specifying duration, so that they have to petition to have the ban reversed (after min. of 30 days)

More important, I think, will be the definition of offenses for which a penalty can be imposed, and I have to say that they are not terrible broad: spam advertising, spam porn, threats of violence, hacking, defamation (of ethnicity, religion, etc), on-board solicitation of illegal activity, harrassment by PM or email, persistent posting of offensive stuff that has to be edited by admins (porn, violence, disgusting pics), and then there are forum-specific rules devised by those participants - TOE, RP and Outside.

I wonder if any thought has been given to allowing the accused to request a "bench" trial

What a superb idea. I'm going to recopy your whole paragraph about this into the other thread where the Hearing paragraphs are being assembled.

how frequently do you folks think what is being cooked up here would have resulted in a formal proceeding if these nascent procedures had been in place back at TORC and from Day 1 here?

I don't expect to use these procedures very often at all. But I understand the sensitivity of posters wanting procedures - and not just vague TOS statements - by which the rulers themselves are ruled.

it seems highly likely that the pieces will not entirely fit together perfectly

Absolutely right. I have given some thought to this, because already there are things in the Admin article that no longer fit what we have devised here. But I'm going to let that go through ratification, and when the Jury procedures and member rights hit ratification, I will add a paragraph for the changes that have to be made to the admin article to make it conform. So far everything is inconsequential, such as changing the word 'arbitration' to 'hearing.'

If there are real procedural conflicts, then I agree that some subset of the committee should look at it them, resolve them, and put them through the voting and ratification process.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 7:24 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
1. A

2.
#1=B
#2=A
#3=C

3. A

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 12:48 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED

And the results are posted below. Fifteen people voted on this ballot. 8 votes were enough for simple majority.

Question 1: We approve the text
A=14
B=1

Question 2: The first kind of hearing will be called Hearing on a Community Disruption
B=9
A=6

Question 3: Two jurors may be rejected by the member subject to a hearing
A=9
B=6

Approved text now appears in the first post

We will leave the thread open because discussion about ¶4 has smeared over into the voting threads, and I will try to keep all threads on this topic open until we have concluded voting on the procedures for all Hearings.

Thank you!

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Tue 10 May , 2005 12:52 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
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 12:51 am
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
I apologize for missing this, but I mistakingly thought this would be open all through Monday.
Sorry.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 5:38 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
TORN wrote:
HEY!!! ARE YOU TELLING ME I TALK TOO MUCH!?!?!? WELL, I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO MEET YOU AT THE BIKE RACKS!!!
:D :D :D

Not at all. I was hoping to reassure those who feel they aren't saying enough.

:D :D :D


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 3 of 4  [ 69 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Jump to: