board77

I love the new draft!

It's very clear, and I could read through it within a minute, never having to pause to re-read or think about what something is supposed to mean, like I (still!) have to do with the draft in the first post, which I have read six or seven times now and still find just confusing.

Which of these things we can enforce with a hearing and a penalty will then be stated in the penalty-section.

~~~~~~~~~~

Re my previous points:

Jny wrote:

Din, Holby, Alatar ... and others ... have expressed pretty strong concern that we not try to make disputes of a personal nature a Hearing matter.

I thought that meant disputes, not insults!

Like, when you're in a heated discussion and someone says: "you have no idea what you're talking about" or "if you're that stupid, why do you post here" - these are rude, and the member thus talked to might want to go to the bike racks, but in no way did I say I want these punishable in a hearing!

What I meant was really just direct insult, and even then I think a singular slip wouldn't merit a penalty, only a pattern of such usage!

To me it really is absolutely the same whether someone says "asshole" or "German Nazi pig" - maybe there is a cultural difference here.

~~~~~~~~~~
Imp, thanks! - But I was just quoting articles 11 and 12 from the first post there!

I thought with the suggestion I gave we could define both the kind of style we wish for here and make sure that explicit insults of whatever kind would not be tolerated, all in a brief paragraph.
But Voronwe has a point about making this part of the charter a bit more detailed, I think.

Quote:

To me it really is absolutely the same whether someone says "asshole" or "German Nazi pig" - maybe there is a cultural difference here.

There absolutely is a cultural difference...although in that case it's probably smaller than in others. But what if someone says they feel "gypped" and then another person of Roma descent gets pissed off because to them it's a racial slur, while the original poster has no idea of the etymology of the word? That's the sort of thing I would like discussed and ironed out between posters...the gray area.


PS--The draft looks lovely...

Ax, I would think that in such a case the poster who feels offended would contact the other poster and say what's wrong, and they'd settle it among themselves.

If the person refused to stop using the word, I suppose it could go to the bike racks. However, I think it's still a difference whether someone uses a sloppy way of expressing themselves, which might offend some but is not levelled at a particular poster, or whether someone directs an insult at someone or a group of people in particular.

I've never heard "gypped" - I looked it up, though. I wouldn't have thought it had to do with "gypsy" if you hadn't linked it with Roma. I find it hard to imagine someone consistently using offensive terms of that style, but if so, I think the readers are called upon to exercise a bit of that forbearance we mentioned in the text.
This is the kind of word that is not consciously meant as an insult, it is just a word that links back to a racist mindset, the origins of which are most likely forgotten by most.
Using such a word, therefore, IMO is not offensive, it's just not pc - and I don't think we should be overly particular about pc-language.

Quote:

There absolutely is a cultural difference...although in that case it's probably smaller than in others.

So you think one insult is worse than the other? And what other cases are you thinking of?

truehobbit wrote:

So you think one insult is worse than the other?

If I call another poster a "stupid jerk," I've insulted that poster and started a disagreement. If I call another poster a "stupid faggot," I've insulted all gay men and made the board feel less welcoming to gay men. Insults based on who someone is—race, gender, nationality, sexuality, etc.—necessarily cut a wider swath and do more harm to the board than personal insults.

TH--

I can't believe I'm using him as an example, but Our Fearless Leader, W, once referred to people from Pakistan as Pakis, not knowing evidently it was offensive... mistakes from ignorance that I think should be dealt with gently unless it turns out to be willful and malignant ignorance.

Quote:

I am concerned that people will eagerly read the section on what they can expect and skip over, with a faint shudder, the section on what is expected of them.

Prim, the thing is, this is exactly what I was thinking from the other side of the issue. That the way it was before, with the responsibilities mixed in with rights, people would only see the rights part and not think about what their responsibilities are. That they would skip over that aspect unconsciously. The way I have proposed setting it up, they would have to consciously and actively skip the whole section on responsibilities. If people are going to be that irresponsible, there is no hope for them.

Alatar, I agree with alot of what you say, particularly about fast-tracking the convention. But this is one article that certainly should not get short shrift. And if one looks at what I have proposed in comparison to the articles on the admins and the article on dispute resolution, it still will be very short. If you think it makes things clear (thank you for saying that ) I think that is the most important criteria.

The draft

Well, I think it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

When I first started drafting these, I divided them into rights and responsibilities. Based on the discussion of what we would enforce via hearings and what we would send to the Bike Racks, I re-organized the list before posting it. Both ways are equally acceptable to me, because it is true that the penalties will state what is enforcable.

There is one thing though ... when we vote on this, I definitely want to be able to vote to leave the screen name issue alone until after we open and settle down from absorbing new members.

There are several committee members who have expressed an aversion to multiple screen names, and if we are going to change the existing rule we should be able to vote on it first.

jn

Regarding the new proposed wording of the ballot, I think it is important to differentiate between the enforceable and non-enforceable rights. I think the original wording:

¶1: We enforce the following rights and responsibilities:

¶2: We strive to create a culture and atmosphere that will also ensure the following rights for all members of Board77:

accurately reflects all the work and thought that was put into the Dispute Resolution sections.

Listing all the rights together without differentiation implies that they are all enforceable; this would contribute, IMO, to the perception that the violation of any right listed there was grounds for official redress (which situation many people previously expressed an eagerness and even an urgency too avoid).

If it is a 'right,' then members have a right to it; but we are not guaranteeing all the rights; we are guaranteeing some, and doing what we can to ensure a culture that protects the others. It can only help to state this clearly at the outset, IMO, and it can only hurt not to make it clear. I emphatically disagree with the notion that including this differentiation would be confusing or redundant. Look at the difficulty we ourselves have had in keeping the distinction straight in our heads, even after hours of contemplation and discussion.

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

I think that the moving away from including a distinction in this article of what rights are enforceable and what are not would actually remove the need to resolve the questions that have been raised about which section certain rights/responsibilities would find themselves.

We are just postponing that decision, then, until an actual dispute arises. Much better to grapple with the questions here, IMO, and give a clear indication of which offenses are enforceable, and which are not.


As to the separation of rights from responsibilities, I agree with Prim that it was more organic and informative to have them stated together. Reading the first draft causes me to think and consider while reading, because of the variations in expression and the coupling of concepts; reading the second leads to a more rapid and rote scanning because of its repetitive construct (as per Alatar's comment). By the time I get down to Responsibilities, I'm already tuned out.


It would be interesting to see if Din agrees with this comment of Prim's:
It made the rights seem less like entitlements and the responsibilities less like burdens

IIRC, he expressed some alarm at the initial wording of the ballot. Will he see the new proposed structure as mitigating his concerns, or amplifying them?


Regarding TH's comments re 'asshole' and 'German Nazi pig', which led to a consideration of the use of 'gypped':

I think if someone used 'gypped,' and was told in the thread or through PM that it was an ethnic slur, and refused to remove it, then according to the current (original) draft ballot, the offended poster could PM an admin and request a hearing.

I think if someone used 'asshole' (as in, "you're an asshole"), then an admin would have the right to delete the remark, and the offending poster might be asked to Bike Racks, but currently there is no grounds for official redress with a hearing for this kind of personal insult.

Is that the way others see it? Is that the way we want it? I think we need to decide and lay it out in Member Rights and in Penalties.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm concerned about 'personal attacks' (that is, impugning another poster's integrity, intelligence, etc., rather than addressing their argument), which I saw poison discussions and forums at TORC. Would it be desireable to have some redress against the poster who habitually engages in this kind of conduct?

I can imagine members correcting such a person repeatedly, but would it ever elevate to the level of a community disruption? If complaints were regularly made to admins about a certain poster's conduct, with regard to their persistent use of personal (as opposed to group-targeted) attacks that had a deleterious affect on the atmosphere of a forum, should this be addressable with a hearing and possible penalties? This is currently referred to in Penalties by 'abusive language, which I have proposed changing to 'personal attack', but would need to have something corresponding added to Member Rights enforceable (if we stay with the current construct).

How do others feel about this?

Cerin, in the other thread I agreed with you that a repeated pattern of personal attacks is something that rises to the level of community disruption, so I think that it merits a sentence here as well.

Perhaps it belongs in the clause that Din originally suggested ... regarding the right to express opinions no matter how controversial ... ach, I can't get at the original wording inside this reply box, but there was a contingency about forebearance, etc. which can be expanded to exclude personal attacks.

Let me go up to the first post and modigy that in blue. I guess we should leave both version up if people are debating which approach to use.

Jn

Thanks for your extended comments on my suggestion, Cerin. One point of correction, however:

Quote:

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

I think that the moving away from including a distinction in this article of what rights are enforceable and what are not would actually remove the need to resolve the questions that have been raised about which section certain rights/responsibilities would find themselves.

We are just postponing that decision, then, until an actual dispute arises. Much better to grapple with the questions here, IMO, and give a clear indication of which offenses are enforceable, and which are not.

That's not correct, Cerin. The decision is not being postponed until an actual dispute arises. It is being made in the other discussion that we are currently having in the "Offenses that Merit Penalties" thread. We could easily add a statement to the Member's Rights and Responsibilities article that said something like: "for a comprehensive list of what offenses merit penalties and what the maximum penalties for those offenses, see Article x, section y." That should remove any confusion, without requiring that we repeat the same information in two different sections of the Charter. If we list the "enforceable rights" here why do we even need to have a section on "Offenses that Merit Penalties"?

Based on the initial reactions, it seems that enough people are both for and against the idea that it would make sense to have an interim vote on this issue. In addition, Jn has suggested that we hold an interim vote on the screen name issue. My feeling was to include that vote as part of the overall vote on Member's Rights but I'm happy to do it as an interim vote first. I will prepare ballots for these two issues for everyone's review. Hopefully, we could vote on these by Sunday or Monday, and then hopefully vote on the full article a few days later.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

If I call another poster a "stupid jerk," I've insulted that poster and started a disagreement. If I call another poster a "stupid faggot," I've insulted all gay men and made the board feel less welcoming to gay men. Insults based on who someone is—race, gender, nationality, sexuality, etc.—necessarily cut a wider swath and do more harm to the board than personal insults.

Ok, that's a good point - hadn't seen it like that before.

But it doesn't change the fact that the first one should be just as punishable, IMO.

Cerin, re enforceable and non-enforceable rights in Voronwe's draft - the way I see it, this would become clear from the penalties section!
The member rights list is very clear about what you can expect and what is expected of you. But which failing can actually result in a penalty is for the penalties section to state.
This way we can be much clearer, IMO, than by mixing half the rights and responsibilities in one paragraph, and the other half in a second paragraph.

Quote:

I think if someone used 'asshole' (as in, "you're an asshole"), then an admin would have the right to delete the remark, and the offending poster might be asked to Bike Racks, but currently there is no grounds for official redress with a hearing for this kind of personal insult.

Is that the way others see it? Is that the way we want it? I think we need to decide and lay it out in Member Rights and in Penalties.

Yes, for a single occurrence that's what I meant, but I'm also pretty adamant that in case this is repeated, it should be subject of a hearing.
If someone keeps calling another poster names, even after having had a discussion in the bike racks, they should be in for a penalty.

Quote:

This is currently referred to in Penalties by 'abusive language, which I have proposed changing to 'personal attack', but would need to have something corresponding added to Member Rights enforceable (if we stay with the current construct).

YES!
That's exactly what I said in a previous post!

I think the new draft allows for this, because it doesn't say "ethnic insults are punishable, but personal abuse is not", it says generally to be polite - and then the penalties section as it stands now would make sure that both personal attacks and ethnic insults can result in a hearing.

If we stick to the original draft, we definitely need something added to the enforceable member rights!

Quote:

As I mentioned earlier, I'm concerned about 'personal attacks' (that is, impugning another poster's integrity, intelligence, etc., rather than addressing their argument), which I saw poison discussions and forums at TORC. Would it be desireable to have some redress against the poster who habitually engages in this kind of conduct?

Cerin, I'd be curious what you think of the example I mentioned earlier of dispute versus insult:
(Sorry to quote myself, it's just for ease of reference!)

I wrote:

Like, when you're in a heated discussion and someone says: "you have no idea what you're talking about" or "if you're that stupid, why do you post here" - these are rude, and the member thus talked to might want to go to the bike racks, but in no way did I say I want these punishable in a hearing!

What I meant was really just direct insult, and even then I think a singular slip wouldn't merit a penalty, only a pattern of such usage!

Would you agree that these aren't as bad as my other examples, or would you want the possibility for such behaviour to also result in a hearing?

I'm have difficulty seeing a clear advantage to any of the perspectives. It seems like we are mostly discussing which axis of symmetry is most aesthetically pleasing.

My comments are:

Somewhere, we need to provide a guide for a course of action for a member who feels their rights have been infringed. Thinking of another document, the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" demonstrate the problem. We have constructed an immense number of rules for the first 2, but, after 200 years, the happiness thing is still vague. We nibble at it. Whatever happened to "alienation of affection?"

I think we need to be as clear as we can about which of the rights are considered to be enforceable, and which have more to do with our vision than with our rules.


On the group versus individual issue, I dislike political correctness as much as I dislike cultural offenses. In the US enforcement seems to be selective and spotty. I'm not against it, but I'm not sure of its utility.


Just so I can still call Voronwe an "attorney"

After reading and contemplating all the posts in here (and mind, it's Friday night and I'm a bit zonked) I feel a bit like IS and have difficulty seeing any clear advantage between the two drafts.

But I'm also for keeping enforceable rights seperate from 'guidelines'.

edit (forgot) I'm also with Jny and want to be able to vote re leaving the screen name issue alone until after we open and let things settle down.
_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

The two suggestions being made here are not mutually exclusive, if I understand them correctly.

1. People do want enforcable and unenforcable clearly separated BUT

2. My language in the first-post version is a lot harder to read than Voronwe's is.

Maybe the solution is to leave the structure of the first draft in place but make it's language simpler, and perhaps divide some of the rights and responsibilities into separate points so that they are clearer.

I went to some lengths to make them parallel so that a right-responsibility pair became one clause. That was probably a mistake, since the aethetic of this is less important than its substance. In someplace the parallel construction may be more 'organic', as Cerin says, but it other places it may be simply more confusing.

Let me pull the first version back on to my hard drive and diddle with it a little bit and see if it can be made clearer, using Voronwe's version as my guide. Let's try that first.

Be back in a few minutes.

Jn

Okay, Jn, I will hold off on creating a ballot on that issue until I see what you come up with.

I'll be posting a draft ballot on the multiple screen names issue fairly soon.

Hm ... OK I started this and a couple of observations first off:

1. The rights are quicker to read in Voronwe's version, Hobby, because all the clarifying language the people ASKED ME TO ADD has been taken out. Hmph. You guys - general principle - too many details really do not make things clearer all the time. One should be able to say we can use a foreign language without specifying every place we can use it, eg. posts, thread titles, sigs, ranks, links, etc. So the first thing I really am going to do is just take out everything that is superfluous within the understanding of a reasonable person.

2. There is a lot of redundancy in Voronwe's version, and in the responsibilities section he has used largely my language, and I do confess to writing like a Victorian essayist. So I think that rights and responsibilities can indeed be grouped together to yield an increase in clarity and a reduction in length ... but I want to work on this a bit because I agree with Voronwe that it is the most important Article, and quite likely the only one members will actually bother to read.

Jn

Ok - well, I'm probaby drawing circles in the dust here ... under responsibilities, Voronwe's language was very much like mine, so I simply tried to make shorter sentences all around and borrow his language where I could.

It might be that some of you really prefer to have the Article divided into Rights versus Responsibilities rather than Enforcable versus Desirable. As I said, I have no strong preference either way, a very slight preference for the enforcable division but not enough to argue about. The following is my original structure with an attempt at simpler language. If this solves the problem for some people, fine. If not, we can vote on the alternate structures as Voronwe suggested.

Article 2: Member Rights and Responsibilities

Our purpose in establishing these member rights and responsibilities is to build a vibrant, diverse, supportive community where both conversation and signature pictures reflect our personalities, our humor, our genuine opinions, our artistic appreciation, our creativity, and above all our mutual friendship. [Note: moved to top per V's suggestion]

¶1: We enforce the following rights and responsibilities:

1. The right to post under one registered screen name if you are 13 years of age or older. It is your responsibility to provide a valid email address and to state truthfully your age for board access or entry into any forum with age restrictions. [Note: Still requires voting options so I've left this alone]

2. The right to create and register characters for use in the There and Back Again forum (a role-play forum). They must be recorded in the RP Character Registry. LINK Please post there in a way that does not prevent other characters from participating or unnecessarily stifles the creative options of other posters.

3. The right to post in languages other than English as long as the foreign language is not being used to conceal an insult against other posters or a violation of board rules. Posts should be translated upon request.

4. The right to post in our Thinking of England forum (a forum restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older) without fear that information will be revealed irresponsibly or maliciously in other forums or outside Board77. Post prudently and do not expose yourself to unnecessary harm. Keep that forum free of ridicule, provocation, or demeaning posts and report violations of our by-laws to the administrators.

5. The right to post without fear of personal attacks or intentional insults that target your nationality, ethnicity, religion, native language, gender, age or sexual orientation, and an obligation to refrain from such language yourself.

6. T right to post without confronting advertising spam, pornographic pictures, sexually explicit conversation outside of the age-restricted forum, and pictures or conversations of an offensively violent or distasteful nature. Use good judgment in your own posts and keep them free of gratuitous advertising, spam that would annoy any reasonable person, and pictures that would disgust or dismay any reasonable person.

7. The responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that your own computer is free of internet viruses and you may not deliberately inflict damage on the board or the internet access of its members by hacking or deliberate introduction of viruses.

8. PM capability is a privilege and should not be used to harrass other members of the board.

9. The board cannot be used to solicit or encourage the participation of members in illegal activities, but this does not impinge on your right to speak freely about the shortcomings, ethical or practical, of any given law.

10. The right to post without fearing threats of real life violence or other criminal acts and you may not threaten others.

11. The right to a Hearing if you are accused of violating the by-laws, the right to appeal a Hearing under certain circumstances, and the right to petition for the reversal of a ban under certain circumstances. You must abide by the decisions of our juries and use proper procedure when contesting the decisions of administrators or jurors. Refer to Article 4 of our Charter for a full explanation of your rights under any dispute procedure.

12. The right to petition the administrators for redress if you believe that your other rights have been violated.

¶2: We strive to create a culture and atmosphere that will also ensure the following rights and responsibilities for all members of Board77:

13. The right to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status and the responsibility to treat others likewise.

14. The right to express one’s thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial. Post with respect, forbearance and consideration for the context, the feelings of others, the value of contrasting viewpoints, and without making personal attacks against other posters. This is necessary for worthwhile conversation among adults.

15. The right to use adult language that is generally acceptable in written media, along with the responsibility to refrain from unnecessary cursing or obscenities. We encourage everyone to use language that is clear and contributory (not spam or netspeak) without our having to restrict the expressions that are generally found in adult conversation.

16. The right to post free of disruptions caused by the personal disputes of others; and the right to address a personal dispute with another member in the Bike Racks forum if the other member agrees. You are also entitled to mediation. It is your responsibility to resolve your own personal disputes in a productive fashion, and not to interfere with other members who are doing the same.

17. The right to serve as an administrator, mediator or juror and to run for elected office. It is also your responsibility to participate in the governance of the board whether simply by voting when a quorum is needed, or by serving in some official capacity.

Jn, I really, really like this. Very clear and concise. I agree with Voronwe that this is the most important section of the charter, and as far as I'm concerned you've nailed it.

Quote:

It might be that some of you really prefer to have the Article divided into Rights versus Responsibilities rather than Enforcable versus Desirable.

Raises hand. I still think that some future members will see something like:

Quote:

13. The right to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status and the responsibility to treat others likewise.

and only read the first part. Particularly since it comes under a heading that only mentions rights and doesn't mention responsibilities. If the paragraph title of the second paragraph could be modified to reflect the fact that it includes responsibilities as well as rights, I would be less inclined to have a problem with it.