board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTING OVER: Interim Vote on Multiple Screen Names

Post Reply   Page 1 of 4  [ 69 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject: VOTING OVER: Interim Vote on Multiple Screen Names
Posted: Fri 20 May , 2005 10:08 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Okay, this is, barring a major unforeseen development, the final ballot.

The ballot is in two parts. The first part determines whether we want to not allow multiple screen names outside the RP forum at all, allow them with some restrictions, or allow them without restrictions.

The second part would determine what restrictions would be placed on multiple screen names outside the RP forum, if the choice in the first part is to allow them with some restrictions. Thus the results of Part II will only be binding if Choice B is the winner of Part I. However, I think that there would be value to answering the Part II questions as advisory text if either A or C is chosen in Part I. I encourage people to vote in Part II with no regard for what is happening in the vote on Part I.

_______________

Part I. Whether to allow multiple screen names outside the There and Back Again RP forum

Question 1. Please rank your choices in order of preference.

A. Members should continue to be allowed one screen name only (other then RP IDs in the There and Back Again forum), with this issue being subject to reevaluation in the future.

B. Members should be allowed to have multiple screen names, subject to the restrictions determined in Part II.

C. Members should be allowed to have multiple screen names without specific limitations beyond those required of all civil posters, other then that they are limited to one vote per member for each ballot in which they are entitled to participate. Posting under the guise a secondary screen name does not relieve a member of his/her rights and responsibilities of Board77 membership. [Note that under this choice no list of secondary screen names would be kept, secondary screen names would not be restricted from posting in any forum, including one in which a vote was ongoing, and secondary screen names would not be prohibited from serving as an admin, mediator, juror or in any elected office. The limitation on voting would be purely self-policed.]

PLEASE RANK YOUR CHOICES with #1 being most preferred.
#1=
#2=
#3=


Part II. Restrictions on multiple screen names if they are allowed with restrictions.

Question 2. Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

"If a member registers one or more secondary screen names (excluding RP ID's restricted to the There and Back Again forum), they must inform the current admins at the time of registration that the screen name belongs to the member."

A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Question 3. Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

"If a member registers one or more secondary screen names (excluding RP ID's restricted to the There and Back Again forum), the secondary screen name must end with an asterisk (*) so that other members will know it is not a primary name.

A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Question 4. Please rank your choices in order of preference.

A. No list of secondary screen names will be kept.
B. A list of secondary screen names and which primary screen name they are associated with will be kept publicly so that it is visible to all members.
C. A list of secondary screen names and which primary screen name they are associated with will be kept privately by the admins and/or the mayor.

PLEASE RANK YOUR CHOICES with #1 being most preferred.
#1=
#2=
#3=

Question 5. Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

"Secondary screen names are not eligible to vote and will be restricted from posting in any forum in which a vote is ongoing"

A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Question 6. Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

"Secondary screen names will be restricted from posting in the business forum."

A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Question 7. Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

"Secondary screen names will be restricted from posting in the Thinking of England Forum."

A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Question 8. Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

"Secondary screen names will be restricted from posting in the Symposium forum."

A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Question 9. Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

"Secondary screen names not specifically created for use in that forum will be restricted from posting in the There and Back Again forum."

A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Question 10. Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

"Secondary screen names will be restricted from posting in the Made in Dale forum."

A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Question 11. Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

"Secondary screen names will be restricted from posting in the '"Dicisne hoc opus artem esse?' forums."

A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Question 12. Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

"Secondary screen names are not eligible to serve as admins, jurors, mediators, or in any elected office. "

A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Question 13. Please rank your choices in order of preference:

A. Secondary screen names may not participate in Bike Rack discussions.
B. Secondary screen names may participate in Bike Rack discussions.
C. Secondary screen names may participate in Bike Racks IF it was the secondary screen name that was involved in the interaction that was moved to Bike Racks.

PLEASE RANK YOUR CHOICES with #1 being most preferred.
#1=
#2=
#3=

Question 14. Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

"Secondary screen names may not serve as witnesses at hearings."

A. I agree with this statement.
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Last edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Mon 23 May , 2005 11:22 pm, edited 12 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 20 May , 2005 10:42 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Is all voting going to take place in Business? Can secondary IDs be disabled from voting in Business? Is this something that is established, or that needs to be established in the Charter? Does this (the problem of multiple IDs and voting) need to be stated as the rationale for the choices in Question 4?


Just a couple of minor corrections:

Question 1. Please chose either choice A or choice B.

A. Members should be continued to be allowed one screen name only(other then RP IDs in the There and Back Again forum), with this issue being subject to reevaluation in the future.


Please choose ... (and same correction throughout text)

Should this read, "Members should continue to be allowed etc."?


Question 2. Please chose either choice A or choice B.

A. If a member registers one or more secondary screen names (excluding RP ID's restricted to the There and Back Again forum), they must inform the current admins at the time of registration that the screen name belongs to the member, and the the secondary screen name must end with an asterisk (*) so that other members will know it is not a primary name.


Extra 'the'.

(Thanks for all the hard work you're putting into this, Voronwe!!!)


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 20 May , 2005 11:11 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Cerin, I've made the edits you pointed out. :oops:
Quote:
Is all voting going to take place in Business? Can secondary IDs be disabled from voting in Business? Is this something that is established, or that needs to be established in the Charter? Does this (the problem of multiple IDs and voting) need to be stated as the rationale for the choices in Question 4?
My understanding is that all voting is going to take place in Business. My further understanding is that the only to disable secondary IDs from voting in business is to turn their permission to post in the business forum to off. I think it goes without saying that secondary ID's should not be allowed to vote. Certainly no one has suggested that they think otherwise. It was my feeling that that did not need to be spelled out for this vote, since I assumed that everyone on the committee would understand that, but there is no reason why it can't be specifically spelled out in the question if people want me to do so.

Whether it should be spelled out in the charter itself is a separate question that does not need to be resolved with this vote.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 20 May , 2005 11:36 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Voronwe -

Since we haven't decided that all voting will take place in the Business forum (and I can imagine situations where it might not), and when we move to the new board we might call that forum by a new name, perhaps it would be better to say something like "secondary ID's are not eligible to vote and will be disabled in the forum where voting takes place."

Also, I think we need an additional clause: "secondary ID's are not eligible to serve as jurors, mediators, administrators or to hold elected office." Yes/No

Question - we all get to vote on all items, right? If we end up with multiples, I'd like to have a say in how they are managed, even if I voted against having them.
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: Fri 20 May , 2005 11:44 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Since we haven't decided that all voting will take place in the Business forum (and I can imagine situations where it might not), and when we move to the new board we might call that forum by a new name, perhaps it would be better to say something like "secondary ID's are not eligible to vote and will be disabled in the forum where voting takes place."
Good point. I will change accordingly.
Quote:
Also, I think we need an additional clause: "secondary ID's are not eligible to serve as jurors, mediators, administrators or to hold elected office." Yes/No
I can't imagine that anyone would want secondary ID's to be able to serve as jurors, mediators, administrators or to hold elected office, but I also see no harm in saying so explicitly. I have no problem with adding that question.
Quote:
Question - we all get to vote on all items, right? If we end up with multiples, I'd like to have a say in how they are managed, even if I voted against having them.
Most definitely.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 20 May , 2005 11:56 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Thanks. :)

Where juries etc, are concerned, it seems obvious to us that one person couldn't appear in the jury pool under two different names, but since this is the charter, and others may use it after we're long gone, I think it is helpful to make things like that explicit. It also says something about who we consider the "person" in this environment to be - it is not the avatar but the individual behind the avatar who counts for us as a person.

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 12:02 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Jn, and everyone else. Let me know what you think of the edits that I have done (which are in blue). Jn, I extended some of the ideas that you suggested a little bit.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 12:19 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Nor can they participate in bike rack discussions or serve as witnesses at hearings.

oooo ... that raises some interesting questions. I hadn't thought at all about this.

So if someone is using a secondary ID to behave badly, and you call them out to the Bike Racks, their primary ID has to show up. Same with a hearing, of course. And if it was the secondary ID that witnessed something in a thread, then the primary ID has to be the witness.

All these things are voluntary, of course ... so if the person doesn't want their real ID revealed, they can simply refuse ... but that's a reflection on their civic character, isn't it.

When I said that it is the individual behind the avatar who counts for us as a person, you took it to heart, Voronwe! And quite rightly, I think. If we really mean what we say - that behind the playfulness we are real people intending to interact with one another's real selves, then these things are logical extensions of that idea.

OK - I definitely approve of putting them in the ballot, but maybe that should be two questions instead of one. Or even three, e.g.

(1) juries, mediators, admins, elected officials etc.

(2)
•Secondary IDs may not serve as witnesses
•Second ID's may serve as witnesses if it was the secondary ID that was involved in or observed the incident in question.

(3)
• Secondary ID's may not post in the Bike Racks
• Secondary ID's may post in the Bike Racks if it was the secondary ID that was involved in the dispute.

Simply because I can imagine that some members might feel this way, either because they feel it is more logical or because they want to leave a hidey-hole intact for the secondary IDs.

Jn

edit: oh, sorry - one more thing. No secondary ID's in the TOE - that has to be a choice as well because one compelling argument was made why we should perhaps allow it. People may have something really personal for which they want advice, but don't want to reveal it using their primary ID.

Hard to imagine that the issue would not be cold by the time you created the ID and then waited 3 months and used it 100 times just to gain entry into the TOE :) ... but there might be some members who keep a secondary ID on hand just for occassions like that ... don't know. This is all very foreign to me ... but I'm trying to listen to what other people are saying about why they use secondaries.

_________________

"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 12:25 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Voronwe, I find the amended Question 4 choices to be extremely confusing. Could you please, if you have kept them, re-post the original wording so that I can recall what the choices were originally?

I think the problem is that you have tried to combine the idea of secondary IDs being restricted to certain forums (and there is a definite choice there), with the idea that secondary IDs are ineligible to vote (are we proposing a choice there, or simply making a statement?).


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 1:23 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Cerin, the original wording is the wording in black. The new stuff is in blue.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 2:08 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thank you, V. I would strongly recommend that you offer the original wording as the choices (but including the new final clause addition on option A), and that the concept of secondary IDs being ineligible for voting be isolated.

Perhaps Jn's suggestion "Secondary ID's are not eligible to vote and will be disabled in the forum where voting takes place" could simply be tacked on to the end of each choice? That would make it so much clearer to me!


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 2:24 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Okay, I can see what needs to be done here. Things need to be broken into small pieces so that each step of what is being voted on is clear. I will reorganize the ballot when I have the time (going off to watch Hotel Rwanda).


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 7:30 am
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
Just reporting present - I did not have the time to read through and always have little time on week-end, but I don't let 24 hours pass without checking at least once.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 2:24 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
The ballot looks like it encompasses the issue fairly.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 4:16 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Okay. I have broken everything down into the most basic parts, so that we can be absolutely clear as to what we want to prohibit and what we want to allow. The ballot's obviously a lot longer now, but there is much ambiguity to the choices. Thanks to Jn and Cerin for their suggestions.

What I'd like to do is start the vote at 7:00 a.m. GMT tomorrow morning and leave it open for 36 hours to make sure that all of the committee members have an opportunity to vote.

Unless there are any major objections, of course.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 4:25 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
It looks fine to me, Voronwe.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 4:53 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Voronwe --

(1)Could I ask for one teeny-tiny change ... probably an unnecessary clarification but my OCD is kicking in ...

Could you add the blue words to Question 5:

"Secondary screen names are not eligible to vote and will be restricted from posting in any forum in which a vote is ongoing"

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 5:40 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Done.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 7:00 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
I think the ballot covers all things, but I wonder whether we might end up with a mixed result, if all these are voted on separately.

We might end up having secondary IDs allowed in ToE and disallowed in Made in Dale, allowed in the Bike Racks and disallowed in Outside (which is really the same, so I'm wondering if 8 and 14 aren't the same, too?), allowed in Dicisne but disallowed in the Symposium...
Jny wrote:
So if someone is using a secondary ID to behave badly, and you call them out to the Bike Racks, their primary ID has to show up. Same with a hearing, of course. And if it was the secondary ID that witnessed something in a thread, then the primary ID has to be the witness.

All these things are voluntary, of course ... so if the person doesn't want their real ID revealed, they can simply refuse ... but that's a reflection on their civic character, isn't it.
I think it should be natural that it should always be the primary ID that acts in any official context - I mean, I can't see it as a voluntary thing. It would be treating the secondary ID as a separate person, which would be crazy, IMO.

Only if 2B wins the poll is there a possibility for members to refuse to reveal their secondary IDs.
Sorry if that's un-liberal, but I think in the spirit of transparency, not wanting to reveal your real ID when it's as serious a question as acting as witness should be out of the question.

_________________

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
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 21 May , 2005 7:05 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Looks fine to me Voronwe.

Alatar

_________________

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


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