board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Discussion Article 2: Member Rights

Post Reply   Page 8 of 9  [ 171 posts ]
Jump to page « 15 6 7 8 9 »
Author Message
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 20 May , 2005 10:31 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Well - I think what made Voronwe's version better reading for me was not the language, but that his version seemed to "flow" more organically. Not sure how to explain this.

I guess I've read this so often now it's getting difficult to say what I like better - I had no problems reading it now, but I also didn't see any great differences.

I don't really absolutely prefer one version over the other.

BUT - this new version still leaves the problem which I've pointed out twice and Cerin once!
Unless people here say it's not a contradiction to have personal attacks lead to a hearing in the penalties section, but only under "guidelines" in member rights, it needs to be in the enforceable section!

This was not a problem in Voronwe's version because there was no distinction between the two, that's why I'd still prefer that one.



Edit to suggest inclusion of personal attack as offense:
Quote:
6. The right to post without confronting advertising spam, pornographic pictures, sexually explicit conversation outside of the age-restricted forum, personal abuse 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.

_________________

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: Fri 20 May , 2005 11:49 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Hobby,

You're right. I added it earlier to #14 but that is still in the wrong place if we want it to be enforcable. I've added it to #5 instead of #6:

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.

It is still in #14 as well. Does it bother anyone that it appears in both places?

Voronwe -

You're also right. Both paragraphs should refer to both rights and responsibilities and I did add that to paragraph two.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 2:14 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
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.

YES! That does it for me. Thank you, Jn!


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 4:01 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I apologize for this at the outset. Words are to me what math is to Faramond, so I am compelled to work things out until they make sense to me.

We are formulating a list of rights, rather than rules, for the same reason I assume, that we preferred to reference a hearing on a community disruption (rather than a hearing on a violation of by-laws) -- because the rules are to serve the community; the rules are to protect the rights of the members, and it's the community and the members, not the rules and the rights that we wish to emphasize?

This would be a rule: you may not speak discourteously to another member.

We aren't establishing that rule, because we have decided we can't enforce that rule. It isn't a rule, it is a hope and expectation for a standard of behavior.

Yet we say we have a right to be treated with courtesy and respect. If we can't enforce a right, what sense does it make to refer to it as a right on a messageboard?
Quote:
right - 2 : something to which one has a just claim b : a power, privilege or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession

d (1) : a power or privilege vested in a person by the law to demand action or forbearance at the hands of another : a legally enforceable claim against another that the other will do or will not do a given act : a capacity or privilege the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law
Lumping all the member rights together bothers me, because it seems to me we are talking about two different meanings of the word 'right'. Lumping them all together isn't accurate, and it doesn't reflect the reality of the board, IMO. It is misleading.

Some of the rights are guaranteed, and allow for redress if they are violated. Others are not guaranteed, and there is no mechanism for redress if they are violated. I simply don't understand the objection to laying out these rights in a way that reflects their nature.

Voronwe wrote:
Cerin wrote:
Voronwe 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.
Thank you. As far as I can tell, assigning a certain action a penalty in the Offenses section means we are saying an enforceable right has been violated.

You seem to be saying, it's too hard to say what is an enforceable right in the Member's Rights section, but it's not a problem to say what is enforceable in the Penalties section. I simply don't see the difficulty in determining what is enforceable and non-enforceable in Members' Rights, since that is exactly what we are doing by defining in Penalties what offenses merit a penalty.
Quote:
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"?
We are not repeating information. The penalties arise from what we determine are rights we can and should guarantee our members (i.e., rules we can enforce), they are not the rights themselves.

What I would suggest, if you are for some reason opposed to differentiating between enforceable and non-enforceable rights in the Members' Rights section, is to simply eliminate all the enforceable rights as rights (I feel it is somewhat contrived to refer to them as rights anyway), and refer to them as rules (the breaking of which is subject to penalty).

To illustrate what I mean, I have copied (with some changes of wording I think, I didn't keep track) the enforceable rules from Jn's first draft, and the non-enforceable rights and responsibilities from Voronwe's proposal. (I see no reason to separate those Rights and Responsibilities into two lists.)


Article 2: Board Rules, Member Rights and Responsibilities

¶1: B77 Rules

1. You may post under one primary registered screen name if you are 13 years of age or older, and you may post under one or more secondary screen names if admins are informed who the screen name belongs to at the time of registration. Secondary screen names will end with an asterisk (*) so that other members will know they are not a primary screen name.

2. You may create and register characters for use in the There and Back Again forum (a role-play forum) as long as they first record them in the RP Character Registry. LINK It is also your responsibility to post there in a way that does not prevent other characters from participating nor unnecessarily stifle the creative options of other posters.

3. You may post in languages other than English in your threads, ranks or signature texts, as long as the foreign language is not being used to conceal an insult against other posters or a violation of board rules. Posts in foreign languages should be translated upon request, preferably by several members, and the translations of posters should be trusted.

4. When posting in the Thinking of England forum (a forum restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older) it is your responsibility to post prudently and not expose yourself to unnecessary harm, to keep that forum free of ridicule, provocation, or demeaning posts, and to report violations of our by-laws to the administrators. You may not irresponsibly or maliciously reveal information from this forum in other forums or outside Board77

5. You may not engage in personal attacks or intentional insults that target another poster's nationality, ethnicity, religion, native language, gender, age or sexual orientation.

6. You may not post advertising spam, pornographic pictures, sexually explicit conversation outside of the age-restricted forum, and pictures or conversations of an offensively violent or distasteful nature. You have a responsibility to 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. Your own computer should be 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. You may not use PM capability to harrass other members of the board. PM capability is a privilege and it can be turned off if it is abused.

• You may not use the board to solicit or encourage the participation of members in illegal activities. (Note: This shall not impinge on a member's right to speak freely regarding the shortcomings, ethical or practical, of any given law.)

9. You may not make threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against any other member.

A violation of these rules will be subject to the procedures and penalties outlined in the Charter.


¶2: Member Rights and Responsibilities (kept old numbers for the most part)

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

2. You have the RIGHT to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status; you have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat other posters in the same way.

3. You have the RIGHT to express your thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial; you have the RESPONSIBILITY to show respect, forbearance and consideration for the context of the post, the feelings of others, and the value of contrasting viewpoints, when expressing one’s thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial, as this is necessary for worthwhile conversation among adults.

4. You have the RIGHT to use adult language that is generally acceptable in written media; you have 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.

5. You have the RIGHT to post free of disruptions caused by the personal disputes of others; you have the RESPONSIBILITY to resolve your own personal disputes in a productive fashion, and not to interfere with the resolution of other members personal disputes.

6. You have the RIGHT to serve as an administrator, mediator or juror and to run for elected office; you have the 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.

Again, I don't really grasp the significance of telling people they have rights on a messageboard when they aren't guaranteed redress if those rights are violated. That's why I included the wording Jn used to introduce her non-enforceables.

Thank you for your patience.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 4:48 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin, I'm not sure how that differs from the distinction between rights/resp. we will enforce and rights/resp. we desire for all members given above ... or do you feel that the change of wording offers a compromise between two different structures for the article?

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 5:07 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
¶2: We strive to create a culture and atmosphere that will also ensure the following rights and responsibilities for all members of Board77:
This still doesn't quite work for me. We ensure that the rights are preserved by each living up to our responsibilities Can I suggest this:
Quote:
¶2: We strive to create a culture and atmosphere in which all members can expect to enjoy the following rights and all members are expected to live up to the following responsibilities:
To be honest I still prefer my formulation, but I would be willing to except Jn's approach with the above edit (or something like it) without requiring a vote if that seems to be the consensus of the group.

Cerin, I'm afraid I can't except your basic premise. This is an article about rights and responsibilities, not rules. The rules go in the other article on dispute resolution. There is no reason why something cannot be the subject of both a right (or responsibility) and a rule.

I suppose we could still have an interim vote that chooses between the three different approaches, but this is starting to get unwieldy to say the least. If everyone suggests a different approach, we will have chaos.

Let's see what the rest of the committee has to say. If there is continues support for my approach, and/or support for Cerin's approach, let's do an interim vote. If everyone can live with Jn's original approach, then we can just vote on fine-tuning what it says.[/quote]


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 5:38 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Cerin,

I think your changes to the headings are an improvement. I still prefer Jnyusa's wording, although I wouldn't object to your slight structural changes in the rule/responisbility tuples.

Edit:

I posted without seeing Voronwe's post. I agree this is getting unwieldy. Cerin's heading arrangement addresses the issue I brought up earlier about clearly distinguishing between what is enforceable and what is a fond desire. As I said then, it needs to be addressed somewhere and you are correct that it is addressed elsewhere. I have no problem reverting to some form of Jnyusa's approach.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 9:22 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Once again I can only nod after IS

have you been eating orangettes again? I have - maybe that's why we're on the same wavelength

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 2:44 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
How would it be if I added a short paragraph that comes after the opening paragraph but before ¶1 to explaing the difference between ¶1 and ¶2 ... e.g.

¶1 contains those rights and responsibilities that administrators and jurors have the power to enforce and for which the charter specifies penalties. ¶2 contains those rights and responsibilities that rest on the determination of all members to keep Board77 a pleasant place for all to post.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 3:28 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
It seems to me that when dealing with rules or penalties we need to be specific and accurate. When dealing with rights however I believe we can be less stringent and open more open ended.
I believe member's rights needs to be a separate agenda from rules and responsibilities. Never the twain shall meet.
In the amendments to the US Constitution (Bill of Rights), there is nothing pertaining to responsibilities of the people.
Cerin that is I guess where I have issue with what you wrote.
Here is a portion of your post.
Following is my edit.

¶2: Member Rights and Responsibilities (kept old numbers for the most part)

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

2. You have the RIGHT to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status; you have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat other posters in the same way.

3. You have the RIGHT to express your thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial; you have the RESPONSIBILITY to show respect, forbearance and consideration for the context of the post, the feelings of others, and the value of contrasting viewpoints, when expressing one’s thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial, as this is necessary for worthwhile conversation among adults.

4. You have the RIGHT to use adult language that is generally acceptable in written media; you have 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.

5. You have the RIGHT to post free of disruptions caused by the personal disputes of others; you have the RESPONSIBILITY to resolve your own personal disputes in a productive fashion, and not to interfere with the resolution of other members personal disputes.

6. You have the RIGHT to serve as an administrator, mediator or juror and to run for elected office; you have the 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.

MMY EDIT
_____________________________________________________________

¶2: Member Rights and Responsibilities (kept old numbers for the most part)

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

2. You have the RIGHT to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status;

3. You have the RIGHT to express your thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial;

4. You have the RIGHT to use adult language that is generally acceptable in written media;

5. You have the RIGHT to post free of disruptions caused by the personal disputes of others;

6. You have the RIGHT to serve as an administrator, mediator or juror and to run for elected office;

The community's rules, responsibilities, penalties et al, should be kept separate from these member's rights.
IMHO of course.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 3:28 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Cerin, I'm not sure how that differs from the distinction between rights/resp. we will enforce and rights/resp. we desire for all members given above ...

It doesn't really differ, Jn.
Quote:
or do you feel that the change of wording offers a compromise between two different structures for the article?

As I was catching up on the thread and responding to various comments, I got to thinking about the difference between rules and rights, and the relationship between rights and penalties. I guess I was just trying to work things out for myself and understand the objection to differentiating between enforceables and non-enforceables (I understand we don't have to reach consensus, but it is still nice to understand another person's thinking).

No, it isn't a compromise, except perhaps as applies to the combination of rights and responsibilities, as they are worded just as Voronwe had them, they just aren't physically separated.

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:
We ensure that the rights are preserved by each living up to our responsibilities.
That's why it is so helpful to have each right juxtaposed with the responsibility that preserves it!

In the case of the non-enforceable rights, this is correct. That's how we ensure them. In the case of the enforceable rights, we ensure them through applied penalties when they are violated.

The difference between the two reflects our decision, that some rights must be guaranteed if b77 is to exist, and others can't be guaranteed if b77 is to exist as we envision it. It is an essential (of essence, not necessity) statement about who we are. That's why it puzzles me so much, why you seem so intent on hiding the distinction in the text enumerating rights.
Quote:
¶2: We strive to create a culture and atmosphere that will also ensure the following rights and responsibilities for all members of Board77:

¶2: We strive to create a culture and atmosphere in which all members can expect to enjoy the following rights and all members are expected to live up to the following responsibilities:

But Voronwe, you are losing the distinction again! You seem determined to lose this distinction. Are you concerned that by acknowledging the distinction, people will give shorter shrift to the unenforceables?

The essence of the first version (p.2 statement) is that it applies to the non-enforceables, and we have to say this is what we strive for, because we can't guarantee that this is what people will experience, because we can't enforce those rules (rights). Yet the others can be enforced, and therefore we can guarantee that this is what people will experience (or have redress when they don't). I just don't get why you don't want that indicated in the statement of rights (and resp.)

Quote:
Cerin, I'm afraid I can't except your basic premise.
That's fine, Voronwe. I really just brought in the idea of rules as an attempt at clarification (for me, in understanding your point of view on this). There is no need to add my example to the mix.

But what do you think of the combining of your Rights and Responsibilities wording, to juxtapose each right with the responsibility that preserves it? Do you think set up that way, that it is still possible to overlook the responsibilities?

I think that your approach should be voted on, Voronwe. Several people have expressed support for it. We've never made consensus our goal before, and I don't see the need to do so now.

Jnyusa wrote:
¶1 contains those rights and responsibilities that administrators and jurors have the power to enforce and for which the charter specifies penalties. ¶2 contains those rights and responsibilities that rest on the determination of all members to keep Board77 a pleasant place for all to post.

I see no problem with this, but I had no problem with the previous differentiation either.

Voronwe, perhaps this suggestion of Jn's will provide some enlightenment, if it is more preferrable to you than the other, and if you can explain why it would be more preferrable.

Again, you seem to object to differentiating between enforceable and non-enforceable rights in the text that enumerates rights. Is this the case? Can you explain why you object to differentiating between them? (Not so that we can reach consensus, just so that I can understand what you are thinking.)


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 3:46 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Holbytla wrote:
It seems to me that when dealing with rules or penalties we need to be specific and accurate. When dealing with rights however I believe we can be less stringent and open more open ended.
I believe member's rights needs to be a separate agenda from rules and responsibilities. Never the twain shall meet.
That's an interesting observation.

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:
This is an article about rights and responsibilities, not rules. The rules go in the other article on dispute resolution. There is no reason why something cannot be the subject of both a right (or responsibility) and a rule.
But are there rules in the article on dispute resolution? I mean, rules about how to conduct oneself on the board? Shouldn't we have a list of rules, the existence of which guarantees the rights we've enumerated? Or are we just saying, our rules for conduct are implied by the rights we've enumerated? Or are we saying, the responsibilities are our rules?

If the responsibilities are our rules, then it makes more sense to me, per Holby's statement, that they be kept separate from the rights.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 4:04 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I'm basically in agreement with what I consider to be Holby's two main points.
Holbytla the Perspicacious wrote:
It seems to me that when dealing with rules or penalties we need to be specific and accurate. When dealing with rights however I believe we can be less stringent and open more open ended.
I would agree with this, but I would apply it to responsibilities as much as to rights. The Rights are those things that members should have a right to expect, even if they are not all things that can be appropriately covered by "the rules." The Responsibilities are those things that should be expected of all members, again even if they are not all things that can be appropriately covered by "the rules."
Quote:
I believe member's rights needs to be a separate agenda from rules and responsibilities. Never the twain shall meet.
In the amendments to the US Constitution (Bill of Rights), there is nothing pertaining to responsibilities of the people.
This I think is where there is the most basic disagreement. I agree with Holby that Rights should listed separate from Responsibilities. To me, doing so emphasizes the importance of BOTH the Rights and the Responsibilities. I continue to believe that mixing them blurs the significance of both. The Rights are important in and of themselves. The responsibilities are important in and of themselves.

Cerin the Ever Questing wrote:
Are you concerned that by acknowledging the distinction, people will give shorter shrift to the unenforceables?
Yes. I do fear that.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 4:24 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of a member who fears that we are getting mired in rules and that the place will be very difficult to post in without getting into trouble.

For a member with that outlook, distinguishing between the rights we enforce and have rules and penalties to back up, and the ones that are ideals we strive for to preserve the atmosphere of the board, is useful because it makes quite clear that there are not tiny punishable infractions everywhere. In other words, for many members, I think it this distinction that will actually do the work of "preserving the atmosphere of the board"—making clear that it is an atmosphere members cooperate to create, that is not just built on rules.

That in fact we are not trying to enforce things that are impossible to enforce.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 4:35 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Well, this article actually achieves two different things, in my opinion.

We've had to draft things one item at a time, and that has necessarily created some overlap. The rules we've created for admins and juries have also created de facto rules (and also rights) for the members.

I think the first purpose of this article is to gather in one place all of our expectations from the member's perspective, as opposed to the perspective of admins, juries etc. which are covered in other articles.

This means that some of the items in this article are going to be actual rules gleaned from other places in the charter. I believe this is why it was suggested very early on that the article be framed as both rights and responsibilities.

But because this is the article aimed at members, we want to include our cultural expectations as well, not just the rules that we know will apply because we have already written enforcement procedures for them. Hence the next suggestion that we distinguish between what we can enforce and what we must simply hope for.

I do not believe it is necessary to have two separate article for members - one that states what we will enforce and another that states what we hope for. This will be redundant over the Mission Statement and Key Principles, for one thing. And I also think it should be possible to make this distinction sufficiently clear within one article.

There seems to be a sense that the word "responsibilities" implies something which is unenforcable, whereas the word "rules" is unambiguous. If that is the distinction that is causing discomfort, then I suggest that we refer to the first section, ¶1, as Rules and Rights that we Enforce ... or however that is worded (can't see it from here) ... in other words, in ¶1 substitute the word Rules for the word Responsibilities.

In the second section, ¶2, where they are indeed unenforcable, refer to them as Responsibilities.

The phrasing can also be changed in the following manner, if you feel it adds to clarity ... you see, it seems obvious to me that if members have a right to courtesy then all members must behave courtesously, but perhaps that is not obvious. Perhaps in ¶1, each phrase should begin with "all members have the right to ..." so that the individual reading it does not have the impression they are being handed a personalized gift that belongs to them and no one else?

As a matter of aesthetics ... a matter of tone, I guess ... I prefer not to frame this particular article as a list of rules divorced from the collaborative logic behind them. I very much prefer to frame it in a way that emphasizes why each member's guaranteed right is all other members' enforcable rule. If the right were not important to us, the rule would not exist.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 5:39 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I think the best thing to do is to let this discussion go on for a couple more days, as it is definitely helping to refine our collective perspective on how to approach this issue. Hopefully, we'll here from some of the other committee members who have not spoken up yet.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 5:39 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Primula_Baggins wrote:
I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of a member who fears that we are getting mired in rules and that the place will be very difficult to post in without getting into trouble.

For a member with that outlook, distinguishing between the rights we enforce and have rules and penalties to back up, and the ones that are ideals we strive for to preserve the atmosphere of the board, is useful because it makes quite clear that there are not tiny punishable infractions everywhere. In other words, for many members, I think it this distinction that will actually do the work of "preserving the atmosphere of the board"—making clear that it is an atmosphere members cooperate to create, that is not just built on rules.
I feel this is an extremely important point, and one for which I recall strong concern being expressed in the dispute resolution discussions.

Jnyusa wrote:
As a matter of aesthetics ... a matter of tone, I guess ... I prefer not to frame this particular article as a list of rules divorced from the collaborative logic behind them. I very much prefer to frame it in a way that emphasizes why each member's guaranteed right is all other members' enforcable rule. If the right were not important to us, the rule would not exist.
Can you spell this out for me? How is it achieved? Are you referring to the separation of the rights from the responsibilities?


I have a serious suggestion (of a re-draft) that I would like you all to consider. This doesn't mean I insist that it be included as an option, but just that I would like it assessed to see if it would merit being included, if it answers the concerns people have expressed.

Please note that it attempts to address Voronwe's concern that the non-enforceable rights might be given shorter shrift than the enforceable ones (in the modification's to the introductory paragraph), and addresses Holby's concern that rights be kept separate from responsibilities, and addresses the concern that enforceable rights and responsibilities be differentiated from non-enforceable ones.

This is pieced from Jn's second draft and Voronwe's proposal.


Article 2: Member Rights and Responsibilities

Some rights and responsibilities are enforceable by procedures and penalties outlined in the Charter; others rest on the determination of all members to observe them. All are essential to our purpose of building 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.

¶1: Rights and responsibilities enforceable by procedures and penalties outlined in the Charter

A. Rights


1. The right to post under one primary registered screen name if you are 13 years of age or older and the right to post under one or more secondary screen names if admins are informed at the time of registration that the screen name belongs to you, and if the screen name ends with an asterisk (*) so that other members will know it is not a primary name.

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

3. The right to post in languages other than English in threads, ranks or signature texts.

4. The right to post in the 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, and to be free of ridicule, provocation, or demeaning posts in that forum.

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.

6. The 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.

7. The right to post without fearing threats of real life violence or other criminal acts

8. 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.

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

B. Responsibilities

1. The responsibility to state truthfully your age for board access or entry into any forum with age restrictions and inform admins at the time of registration of any secondary screen names that the screen name belongs to you. Secondary screen names do not have the right to vote in polls or by email and will not be admitted to the Business Room.

2. The responsibility, if posting in the There and Back Again role-play forum, to do so in a way that does not prevent other characters from participating or unnecessarily stifles the creative options of other posters.

3. The responsibility not to use foreign language to conceal an insult against other posters or a violation of board rules. Posts in foreign languages should be translated upon request, preferably by several members, and the translations of posters should be trusted.

4. The responsibility not to reveal information from the Thinking of England forum irresponsibly or maliciously in other forums or outside Board77, and if posting in the Thinking of England forum, the responsibility to post prudently and not expose yourself to unnecessary harm, to keep that forum free of ridicule, provocation, or demeaning posts and to report violations of our by-laws to the administrators.

5. The responsibility not to engage in personal attacks or post intentional insults that target another member's nationality, ethnicity, religion, native language, gender, age or sexual orientation.

6. The responsibility to use good judgment in your own posts and keep them free of pornographic pictures, sexually explicit conversation outside of the age-restricted forum, gratuitous advertising, spam that would annoy any reasonable person, and pictures that would disgust or dismay any reasonable person.

7. The responsibility not to make threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against any other member.

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

9. The responsibility to not use the board to solicit or encourage the participation of members in illegal activities.

10. The responsibility not to use PM or email to harass other members of the board.


¶2: Rights and responsibilities that rest on the determination of all members to keep Board77 a pleasant place for all to post.

A. Rights


10. The right to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status.

11. The right to express one’s thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial.

12. The right to use adult language that is generally acceptable in written media.

13. The right to post free of disruptions caused by the personal disputes of others.

14. The right to serve as an administrator, mediator or juror and to run for elected office.

15. The right to address a personal dispute with another member in the Bike Racks forum, if the other member agrees.

B. Responsibilities

11. The responsibility to treat all posters with courtesy and respect, regardless of their status.

12. The responsibility to show respect, forbearance and consideration for the context of the post, the feelings of others, and the value of contrasting viewpoints, when expressing one’s thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial, as this is necessary for worthwhile conversation among adults.

13. 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.

14. The responsibility to resolve your own personal disputes in a productive fashion, and not to interfere with the resolution of other members personal disputes.

15. The 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.

Last edited by Cerin on Sat 21 May , 2005 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 5:42 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Cerin, I absolutely love that. :love:


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 6:00 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Jnyusa,
Quote:
As a matter of aesthetics ... a matter of tone, I guess ... I prefer not to frame this particular article as a list of rules divorced from the collaborative logic behind them. I very much prefer to frame it in a way that emphasizes why each member's guaranteed right is all other members' enforcable rule. If the right were not important to us, the rule would not exist.
I agree the tuple form is both more elegant and informative. My affection stems from my work, which is taking disorder from the real world and finding patterns in it. I don't expect everyone to share this appreciation. Separation is what I normally find and the job is to map the separate groups. I happen to have spent the last week mapping roles/personnel/activities provided in separate unnconnected lists for a project. The unmapped separation creates incredible confusion when trying to understand the whole. Of course, its far more complex than our issue.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 7:32 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Glad you like it, Voronwe! :)


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 8 of 9  [ 171 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 15 6 7 8 9 »
Jump to: