board77

Looks excellent Jny

Sorry, still catching up from the weekend. Will zoom over to the other thread asap.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

The world is…….. a donut

Something tiny I keep meaning to mention: In Question 3, 1(d), advertisement of products "for self-aggrandizement"—shouldn't that be "for personal profit"? Self-aggrandizement means "ego feeding" to me.

Otherwise I like the way this looks. It seems clear.

Personal profit - yes, I can change that. Maybe, "for personal gain?"

I wouldn't want the person to shoot back that they personally don't make a profit from it, just because they're on the payroll instead of being an owner.

Jn

Sure, personal gain is fine with me.

I just didn't want "self-aggrandizement" to be outlawed. I mean, where would we be?

Fine with the 'personal gain' change.

Fixed.

Jn

I'm back.

Jn, its fine that you posted the ballot here.

Quote:

(I'm looking at what I sent Voronwe, and I see that I did not allow an option for removing "personal attacks" from that clause while leaving the rest of it intact, but we can make that revision when Voronwe posts a draft ballot.)

I added the option, Jn, plus an option of including or not including the phrase I suggested about the responsibility to remove unintentional insults that target the various protected classes that we list when they are pointed out.

However, if that phrase were approved, it would be an example of an enforceable right that would not need to be added to this section because it would only be enforced by editing out the insult without any penalty attached.

it would only be enforced by editing out the insult without any penalty attached.

Voronwe, there are a few other things that fall into that category, where the enforcement is simply the correction of the error without any additional penalty ... e.g. getting on to the board or into TOE by lying about your age ... presumably we would simply disable the posting rights until the person turned 13/18, but we wouldn't stand them at a hearing. Same with secondary names.

I have not bothered to put those into this paragraph because they do not result in a hearing, and therefore no jury will have a crack at imposing one of the penalties listed above.

Members may want to approach this with a different philosophy and add in those things, specifying that they do not go to a hearing. What do you think?

For my part, we can do it either way. Whatever the members prefer.

Jn

In the spirit of keeping things simple, I like your approach, Jn. If there's no hearing, I don't see why the problem can't just be handled in a commonsense way.

No hearing, no penalty, not in this thread.

Agreed.

Ballot looks good to me.

The ballot is as concise as it could possibly be while still covering the essentials.

Can the two ballots (Rights and Penalties) be run concurrently though? Because if some of the clauses in the Rights are removed, it makes no sense to be voting on penalties for abuse of those rights at the same time.

Impy, the plan currently is to run the two ballots concurrently.

Imp, if something is removed from Member Rights it will be removed from this ¶ automatically.

There should not be any penalties listed here that are not for offenses specified as such elsewhere.

Jn

I was confused as to the mechanism of removal: if we are voting concurrently, then we won't know which clauses in the members' rights are removed until both votes are closed.

We may then be in the odd (and probably unlikely) position of having accepted penalties for the trespass of rights which were not accepted. Will we then remove any anomalous penalties? After the vote?

Logically speaking, people are unlikely to vote 'no' to a right, and then vote 'yes' for the penalty - but it could happen, and we won't know it until after all the votes are tallied.

Will we then remove any anomalous penalties? After the vote?

Yes. This vote is contingent upon all of these things actually being considered offenses.

The penalties shown here are maximum penalties. The jury still has discretion within that penalty. So if the committee says in effect that there should be no penalty at all, then it would have to come out from here.

It does happen sometimes that members vote in ways that appear (to me) to be inconsistent, but it is unlikely that someone who want insults, etc. taken out of the member rights clause will agree to the penalty shown over here.

I allow for that possibility, but I don't think it is going to happen.

Jn

Holbytla wrote:

I am just saying we don't need to keep getting bogged down in specifics when there is enough language to cover the basics.

Thank you Holby, that was what I was trying to say. We don't need to know all the spacifics now, they will be dealt with on a case to case basis.

You are right, I am a stupid donkey sometimes

I should be hung like one

I do agree with the clause that says we should not be abused on grounds of race, sexual orientation, gender etc, but I think that is all we need. Just the list of things for people who come here to post that people have to keep in mind when posting with folks.

Can we add that preaching or attempts to convert to ANY religion on the board will be frowned upon? (personal bug bear)



Can we add something to Question 4 part 1 about the ‘There and back again forum’.

This is something specific to role play, but for none Rper’s what we are doing is writing a story with plot and beginning/middle/end etc. Normally you find that the originator of the thread has plans for the story that will suffer when somebody barges in and it can disrupt or kill a thread which is really very stressful considering how much time and effort and energy goes into writing a post (they can take months).

So when we say…

Quote:

1. In the There and Back Again forum, repeatedly posting in a manner that prevents another character(s) from participating or greatly circumscribes their activity

Can we change it to;

1. In the There and Back Again forum, the thread should be seen as under control of the thread/story originator, and the unfolding of the story told is theirs to ‘control’. Repeatedly posting in a manner that disrupts the thread owners story or posting that prevents another character(s) from participating or greatly circumscribes their activity, in line with the story.
2. In the There and Back Again forum, participation in a RP thread (as opposed to an OCC thread) is at the discretion of the thread originator. If a poster posts in the thread without the consent of the thread originator the post will be deleted at the request of the thread originator.

Sorry my language skills have not woken up today so they will need a rewrite, but I hope that is clear. I would suggest that if a complaint comes to light, then the thread originator is contacted by Admin and told that a complaint has been made. If it is against the thread originator, then they should know there is disquiet, but it often happens when somebody has a bright idea not in line with the tale told.

I know this sounds catty, and pretentious etc, but it is a real issue for Rper’s, and there are several tales of woe about shattered stories suddenly disrupted by continuous use of posts not in keeping with the rest of the tale. (think of a dragon turning up in Bree, or Legolas turning up in Moria, or sombody wanting to write a troll in Rivendell etc etc) And in the real world of RP there are some people you just really don’t enjoy writing with.

However, this should not detract from a post that improves a story. It is all in the hands of the thread origionator, and how controlling they are and should never be used to stiffle creativity.

Not being a hardcore RPer, I can imagine a troll in Rivendell would make for a cool story!

But I agree that it should be clear that it's the thread starter's story - it just confuses me that we are getting so much legislation about a single forum.
I'm not sure whether Din's text wouldn't belong to member rights rather than penalties, but in case it works here, for my taste it would be enough to use Din's second clause, together with the original version and a little addition (and one word changed for politeness):

Quote:

In the There and Back Again forum, repeatedly posting in a manner that disrupts the thread owner's story or prevents another character(s) from participating or greatly circumscribes their activity. Participation in a RP thread (as opposed to an OCC thread) is at the discretion of the thread originator, unless explicitly stated (That is because I'd hope there would also be open for all RPs). If a poster posts in the thread without the consent of the thread originator the post can be deleted at the request of the thread originator.

Holby, the reason there are a lot of words spent on the insults question is because it seems so terribly hard to explain this! I don't get it: why is it such a problem to tell the difference between a freaking example and the real point we are discussing?

Din, give me a few moments and I will try to redraft that claus smoothly.

But first I have to laugh ... because you realize that in the forum that is most important to you, you too can imagine all sort of abuses that have happened in the past and so you want the clause relating to your forum to be long and detailed. The people from Manwe have the same experience, but with a different kind of disruption - 100 varieties of chronic snarkiness - and that is why they want a long, detailed clause about insults.

We all want the Charter to be simple except where it relates to us. So ... 15 to 20 long clauses in every paragraph and one or two short one!

I'm going to try to add the thread originator to this while preserving the 'general guideline' quality that everyone claims to want for all the clauses.

Give me a minute and I'll post it here and in the ballot.

Jn

Edit: OK, I will carry the following modification over to the Member Rights ballot thread and ask Voronwe to incorporate it:

11. To role-play within the guidelines set by the story originator, and in a way that does not prevent other characters from participating or unnecessarily stifle the creative options of other posters.

And I will change the ballot here to add one thing and abbreviate the other, thus:

1. In the There and Back Again forum, repeatedly posting in a manner contrary to the guidelines of the story originator or in a way that obstructs other characters.

Remember that this article refers back to whatever article contains the actual offense, so we do not have to repeat here all the detail that might appear elsewhere. Jurors will use Member Rights, Admin Article etc. for determining whether an offense took place, and refer to this article for the maximum penalty associated with that offense.