board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTE OVER: Loremaster Revisited

Post Reply   Page 4 of 6  [ 118 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 1:47 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Okay, I have significantly amended the ballot to attempt to meet the concerns raised. I agree with Jnyusa that if part of the question is revisited, the other part needs to be revisited as well. So we need to address both whether a new office should be created as well as whether the Mayor should be given this function AS WELL AS THE ALTERNATIVES TO BOTH SUGGESTED HEREIN. I have also attempted to address Cerin's concern that some people might want to have the function in principle but would rather not have it at all then have the Mayor do it, or would rather not have it at all then have a new office be created.

Please take a look and let me know what you think. I would like to get this vote underway fairly soon if we are going to go forward with it.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 2:10 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
truehobbit wrote:
No, I'm trying (in vain) to understand the justification of this vote.
It isn't a vote, TH. It's a way of trying informally to look at the situation together, to see if we can better understand the strength of feeling behind the stands people have taken.
Quote:
That's what I don't believe.
I think we had the result we had, because of course those who wanted a new office would vote "no" on this,
No, I think those who voted no on this were voting specifically against the idea of the Mayor overseeing hearings, unrelated to the previous vote.

Quote:
and those who wanted someone else (admins?) or no one to do it, voted "no", too.
This is why I posed the questions I posed. To try to get through this labyrinth of overlapping causes for the two results, and see to the bedrock of people's positions here.

Quote:
So, maybe the only people we should ask are those who voted "no" on the mayor doing the job AND "no" on the new office and ask them what it is they want.
If we limited that to those who answered yes to the question of whether they recognized a need for procedural oversight, I think that might be useful.

Quote:
I mentioned some of these reasons exactly in a previous post and you dismissed them!
I'm sorry, I don't remember dismissing them. Evidently we simply disagree very strongly on all of these points. I don't see any chance of reconciliation on the issue.

Quote:
No, it's because of that AND because they didn't want another office!

Yes, of course. But they weren't voting on this choice:

Either vote for Loremaster, or no oversight.

They were voting for this choice:

Either vote for the new office of Loremaster, or the Mayor will do it. The ballot following the Loremaster vote did not even include the option of the Mayor NOT overseeing hearings until I requested it. IT HAD BEEN ASSUMED.

On the other hand, the people who voted for the Mayor not to oversee WERE voting for this choice:

Either vote for the Mayor to oversee, or no oversight.

Quote:
Besides, since when do the reasons for which a vote had this or that result have an influence on its validity?
It isn't about the reasons. It's about the fact that the choices were fundamentally different for the two votes. That can be rectified now by revoting on Loremaster, with the choice being

Vote for Loremaster, or no oversight.

Quote:
The second vote made the result of the first illogical, therefore it clashed with it.
It absolutely did not make the result of the first vote illogical. The first vote showed that people didn't want to create a new office for procedural oversight. (Some thought procedural oversight unnecessary, others were banking on the idea of the Mayor doing it.) The second vote showed that PEOPLE DID NOT WANT THE MAYOR OVERSEEING HEARINGS even if that meant having no oversight of hearings.

Quote:
It just shows that people either voted incoherently or that they wanted a third option, which wasn't represented in either choice.
What it shows is that the people who wanted procedural oversight but didn't want a position created, assumed that if Loremaster failed, the duties would default to Mayor.

What we all got was the only third option available, which is what we collectively, for all our tangled up reasons, wanted. No oversight. It was a combination of opposition to an office, and opposition to the Mayor overseeing. That's why my questions are posed the way they are. They would get to the heart of the matter, as to whether anyone is willing to move on the subject.

Quote:
I'll have to look it up again, because I don't remember, but if in voting on the new office we did not say it would be for procedural oversight, what did we say it would be for?
Yes, we said it would be for procedural oversight. But we did not say the alternative to creating an office for procedural oversite would be no oversight. That is the error we can rectify now, by having another vote.

Quote:
I looked it up - of course it DIRECTLY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT!
From the ballot archive:

We will create an office whose function is to oversee hearings and ensure that proper procedure is followed. This person will be a resource for juries and all other participants in a Hearing. It will be their resonsibility to be familiar with all aspects of the charter concerning the Outside Forum, Member Rights and Responsibilities, Powers of the Admins and any other issues affecting Hearings.
IT DID NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT. IT DID NOT FRAME THE QUESTION IN TERMS OF HAVING PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT, OR HAVING NO PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT. The option of having the Mayor oversee hearings was waiting in the wings. PEOPLE WERE NOT REJECTING THE NOTION OF PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT, they were rejecting the notion of creating a position specifically for procedural oversight WHILE ENTERTAINING THE ASSUMPTION THAT THOSE DUTIES WOULD THEN BE ASSIGNED TO THE MAYOR.

The ballot did NOT say:
We will create an office whose function is to oversee hearings and ensure that proper procedure is followed. IF YOU DO NOT CREATE THIS OFFICE, THERE WILL BE NO PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT OF HEARINGS.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 2:39 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Ok, Voronwe. I think we can rest with the results of this ballot. I know that Nin did not want another office created but I do not know what laureanna wanted when she voted. So I don't think there is necessarily a correlation between this vote and the other, such that this one simply overturns the other by getting rid of committee members. That was my primary concern.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 2:52 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Logic does not seem to be welcome here.

The only defense offered for revoting the Mayor's responsibility is - maybe we forgot!!!!!

Revoting that aspect is illogical. Everything that needed to be known at the time of the vote was known.

Revoting on the other aspects is logical because of what happened afterward.

So that no one will confuse the real issue with words spoken from the saddle of my superior stallion:

Jnyusa said:
Quote:
The entire point of the petition letter to TORC was to complain about precisely the situation you are now trying to create.

and I only scored 30% arrogance in the defect test

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 3:14 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
I agree the admins (and Mayor) can't do it for the reasons Jn outlined: they cannot convene a hearing and oversee it at the same time. Talk about vesting all power in one role!

I haven't looked at the ballot again since I started reading today's posts (I see that V just above advised he's amended it) so I may be spitting in the wind right now, but I've got some pressing matters at work so I'll just say this now:

I like the idea of creating, via this ballot, a voluntary group called the Loremasters, who willingly undertake to be au fait with the Charter requirements so that they can be called upon by those convening a hearing to oversee process. These people would self-select, just as our technical wizards are self-selected and called upon for their technical wizardry when needed; they could opt in or opt out at any time from being Loremasters; they would be known and listed, so advice dispensed would be dispensed transparently; we'd never have to vote on them; if any individual is seen to be lacking the expertise they've claimed they would simply not be called upon very often and would, I expect, eventually drop out of the Loremasters willingly.

It would keep it simple. The role would be informal, but recognised.

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 4:10 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Impenitent, is that you down there?

I can barely hear you. Can you talk a little louder?

Oh well. This is rather tiresome.

<climbs down from the stilted stallion>

You're much taller than I expected. Kind of intimidating. Now what were you saying?


I'm glad you agree with Jnyusa on the conflict issue.

I could live with your proposal about the Loremasters, although it isn't my preference. I'm not sure it will have any real impact unless it is clear the parties in the procedure must follow the advice given.

Thanks. I'm headed back up.

Do you realize how hard this is without a ladder?

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 4:22 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
IS, what you need is a Shetland. You'll do your back in climbing up and down what you've got now, by the sounds of it.

[ img ]

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 4:45 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 5:30 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Imp, did you note the idea awhile back, for the Loremaster to be appointed by the Mayor from a group of volunteers? This way we would still have the benefit of the volunteer back-ups should the need arise, but there would be someone definite to fill the role for a specific period of time, and people would know who to go to. What do you think?


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 5:35 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Cerin, that choice is currently on the ballot. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 6:43 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Voronwe, I don't see any problems with the ballot.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 6:53 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Actually, Voronwe, this idea I have in mind isn't on the ballot. What was proposed (at least, what I understood), was that the Mayor could appoint the Loremaster -- a position of long duration, not one for each hearing -- from a group of volunteers. This would eliminate the need for an election, which might lessen some people's objection to creating the office. I really like this idea. So I would request an additional choice be added 9placed where you think best):

E. A new office will be created to perform this function. This office will be called "Loremaster," (something about the term - a year?) The Mayor will appoint the Loremaster, choosing from a pool of volunteers.


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 7:57 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
To be honest, I'd prefer to keep it a little more informal than you suggest Cerin. I'd prefer that the convenors of a hearing just give a hoy to the Loremasters to whit: "can one of you guys please keep an eye on us to make sure we've dotted all the 'i-s", and one of them does it.

And the onus is then on the volunteer Loremasters to master our lore and stay on top of things - and there's less pressure all around - and we've got fewer officials to deal with.

But if it's an option on the ballot, then we just get to state our preferences. :)

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 8:37 am
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
Sorry for the double post.
I thought we had the option of deleteing our posts? :scratch

Last edited by Holbytla on Thu 02 Jun , 2005 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 8:38 am
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
I am sorry but questions 2 and 3 are worded in such a way that is very confusing to me. Can the text be altered for clarity please?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 8:44 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I wonder how likely it is that there will be a group of Loremasters standing ready?

With the 'Mayor appoints for long-term option', there's no problem with just having one volunteer (if that should be the case). You know the person is going to be up to snuff, because they've been appointed and it's their own responsibility. With a group 'on call', I think there is far more potential that the volunteers might let their expertise and readiness slide.

Again, it's the principal mentioned before, of requiring more people at one time to be ready to do a job that not many may want to do.

I hope it isn't rude to advocate in a committee thread, but last time had I spoken up with more conviction, perhaps Loremaster would have passed, and we wouldn't have to be slogging through this again.

So I'm making a spiel for my preferred option. A Loremaster permanent long-term POSITION, but NOT AN ELECTED OFFICE. This is an appointment by the Mayor from a group of members who have declared their willingness to serve in this capacity.

SO WE GET THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. We get the position that we know we need filled (if that is what the vote reflects), definitely filled for a long period of time by someone who really wants to do the job, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A LOATHSOME ELECTION to get what we want. The membership will all know who their Loremaster is, they will all know who they should go to, they will all know who is watching their back in a hearing.

This contrasted to a pool of Loremaster volunteers, TO WHOM WE ARE NOT REALLY WILLING TO GIVE A TITLE OR THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR A DUTY THAT WE HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED (if we do) IS IMPORTANT TO THE HEALTH AND FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMUNITY.

I don't want to step on any toes, but I think these half-way measures are just more of the same mealy-mouthed approach to this problem that we are now reaping the 'benefit' of. I am not questioning anyone's sincerity or motives. But we all know the fabled use to which good intention's may be put.

Do you think we need a procedural expert? Have the courage of your convictions, and vote to establish the position of a procedural expert.

Do you think we don't need a procedural expert? Have the courage of your convictions and vote against the position of a procedural expert.

But let's not do what we have so ineffectively done already with the result that we are now trampling through the Loremaster mud yet again. LET'S NOT SAY YAY TO THE NEED FOR A PROCEDURAL EXPERT, BUT NAY TO HONESTLY AND TRULY CREATING THE POSITION.

So Voronwe, now that I've advocated for this option, I hope you will add it to the ballot. :)

Also, V, I really appreciate your consideration in trying to incorporate my clarifying questions into the ballot, but it was never my intent that they be part of an actual vote. I think it might be best if you delete Question 2 and 3 from the ballot, I think they are confusing and don't necessarily apply anymore because of this multi-lateral approach to the question that we are now taking.

Last edited by Cerin on Thu 02 Jun , 2005 9:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 8:58 am
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
Let me see if I got this straight.
We will have 5-7 admins. Oooh sorry 5-7 Rangers. A mayor, a jury consisting of I forget how many people, and a loremaster all looking in on a hearing because someone called a ranger a cacahead?
Who will be left to be in the press box?
All this for a board this size?
Ok I'll accept Loremaster if the position is filled by someone who has not volunteered for any role thus far, including conventioneer. That way we at least get fresh blood.
Oh that is right it is an appointed position. Appointed by the Mayor.
Well that is another position I voted against so why not? Everything that stems from that position I seem to be against. Ah well. The horse is out of the barn already.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 10:50 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Imp said, a voluntary group called the Loremasters

I slept on this issue overnight and am coming around to think that this idea of Imp's is the best.

The Loremaster should be someone who knows one thing about the board very, very well. And there are a couple of us at this point who have one thing about the board that we know very, very well.

Alandriel for example - if she is not a Loremaster to us, I don't know who is.

Someone, I think it was Eru, said people can just PM Jnyusa if they don't know how to run a hearing, and Cerin responded that this is unfair to me, which it is, and I would not want to do it if I am just the person by default who has to answer questions. But I would not mind doing it some of the times when it is needed, and having a title of recognition, if there were others acknowledged in the same way who had acquired the necessary knowledge and were willing to serve.

We discsussed a long while back, when Squiddy was still posting here, about making sure one Admin was a technogeek. It is terribly impractical to assure this with the admin structure we finally devised - there just aren't enough technogeeks to go around - but again, this is an ideal candidate (imo) for the honorary title of Loremaster.

Voronwe eventually will be the one to whom everyone goes for questions about our corporate structure, and there are many others here who are Loremasters of our history. All questions about our exodus from TORC, for example, should be directed to Iavas and Halplm. ;)

I know that Idylle feels strongly that this should be a formal position, and being myself a child of the American political/judicial system, my own sentiment is very strongly the same. But the Europeans do not share that gut reaction to this need, and there are many members who simply do not want lots of political offices. I too have contradictory feelings about having a Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Loremaster as elected offices - even though I feel rationally that we need all three functions, I have an aversion to three elected officials. And cannot think how to resolve that, unless we think outside the box where Loremaster is concerned.

It could be an honorary title conferred by the Board upon members whose specific expertise in one area is formally recognized, and there can be as many Loremasters as there are members who have ended up with some kind of expertise through their contribution to the board. They can in fact be listed, and their expertise beside their name, so that people know whom to go to for particular issues. They become, in effect, a council.

If it is a matter of a Hearing, the person asked to overview can enter that role formally at the beginning of the hearing, and see it through to the end, and be required to provide an accounting of the hearing if there is an appeal. The specific case, in other words, can be handled quite formally without the position itself being turned into something more elaborate than it needs to be.

As a matter of principle, it is also important to me to tap the various gifts that members bring to this board, and acknowledge all of them in some way. The following is just off the cuff - I do not want it considered something to vote on, it is just a statement of perspective - but we all have a bad taste in our mouth from the popularity contests on TORC, and tend to devalue elections for that reason. If it had been up to me to hold something like the White Council Awards, I would have preferred to hear from the board the names of all who had excelled in some area and what award they would receive for it - and all of them would have received an award for what others thought they deserved. It would have been a board-wide acknowledgement rather than a vote conferring the mantle of popularity upon one out of many. Some systems are designed to set people against one another - some families are designed that way! Others are designed to draw people together into mutual acknowledgment of each other's strengths. I'm sure that we want to be the second!

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Dindraug
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 12:45 pm
Tricksy Elf!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:20 pm
Location: Tanelorn
 
Do we really need another position. Not wanting to poke too much here but we are statrting to get to the point where every member of the board will have a role.

Can I point out all the problems we have with apathy here. We will not be able to forfill all theses roles that are being put forward. Very nice and loft in principle, but so is communism.

I also wan't to point out that the title Loremaster stinks of Games Workshop and or bad 80's puppet films, or will we need to have a role for gelflings too?

I hate to say it Jny, but I think if we start to impose systems like this, it will drive us all apart.

_________________

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

~Robert M. Pirsig


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 02 Jun , 2005 12:57 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Impenitent wrote:
II like the idea of creating, via this ballot, a voluntary group called the Loremasters, who willingly undertake to be au fait with the Charter requirements so that they can be called upon by those convening a hearing to oversee process. These people would self-select, just as our technical wizards are self-selected and called upon for their technical wizardry when needed; they could opt in or opt out at any time from being Loremasters; they would be known and listed, so advice dispensed would be dispensed transparently; we'd never have to vote on them; if any individual is seen to be lacking the expertise they've claimed they would simply not be called upon very often and would, I expect, eventually drop out of the Loremasters willingly.

It would keep it simple. The role would be informal, but recognised.
I really like that - especially the comparison with our tech wizards pool convinces me. :)


~~~~~~~~~~~~
IS, obviously you can't take a hint, so I hereby ask you formally and politely to stop insulting me with your repeated insinuations that my thinking is not up to what you consider your consummate level of logic!

_________________

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
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 6  [ 118 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: