board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Article 8 - Policy on Thread Deletion VOTE CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 4 of 5  [ 95 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 9:04 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Thanks, Hobby. could you add DRAFT BALLOT to the thread title too so that people find the ballot threads easily. Thanks!

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: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 11:56 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
You all know I have serious problems with the idea of deletion. It was disturbing to me that thread deletion was discussed before the opening of the board and re-opening the discussion of Wilko after the vote pushes all my buttons.

It's all about integrity.


With Jnyusa's suggestion we will at least have:

- a formal method rather than vigilante justice

- hope in the integrity of the group as a whole

The weakness I see is that this kind of vote will most likely draw the censorous (the lynch mob form of democracy) so it would be nice if it required a high vote and a high quorum.


The rest of the ballot is fine.

Savonarola/IdylleSeethes

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 12:08 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Idylle,

A binding vote is a binding vote is a binding vote. If we want a different quorum and supermajority for this particular issue, we'll have to write it into this article.

What kind of numbers do you have in mind?

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 14 Jul , 2005 12:31 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
I know. I was only lamenting. Since I'm 100% against it, offering a reasonable set of numbers would be difficult. It's pretty binary for me.

I'm trying to be pragmatic at the moment and consider your idea as the best of all possible censorship methods. Avoiding my instincts, I'll say the highest we entertained in the discussion. I think that was 40% quorum and 67% of the vote, but I haven't looked back.

Pangloss/IdyleSeethes

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 12:35 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
"It is proved that things cannot be other than they are, for since everything is made for a purpose, it follows that everything is made for the best purpose."


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 1:49 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
40%/75% was the highest we talked about.

I can put that option under ¶2 as an alternative.

Instead of Binding vote,

"Special vote with a quorum equal to 40 percent of members active over the past 60 days, and a supermajority of 75% required to pass."

Shall I do so?

If I don't hear you say "no" I'll go ahead and do it.

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 14 Jul , 2005 3:18 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
There's the rub. Whether to... never mind. It would take some analysis to determine if the higher numbers cost votes. Another compromise.

It doesn't seem worth it. It sounds like the script for Groundhog Day II is well on its way. I don't know why it's being moved to the business room instead of movies, though.

There have been allusions to the rules being thought of as more important than the members by some. This rule is near the heart of the discussion. I assume "some" includes Mr. Insensitive. It isn't that simple-minded. The quality of the rules, the fairness of their enforcement, and the transparency of the process reflect the integrity of the members. The rules don't matter if there is no integrity. Without integrity you can interpret them anyway you want whenever you want. From M-W:
Quote:
Integrity...
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY
2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS
synonym see HONESTY
I think everyone should consider how well we are doing. But in the gross and scope of my opinion, This bodes some strange eruption to our state.

Hamlet/IdylleSeethes

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 3:33 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
"to thine own self be true" - Polonius


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 3:46 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Idylle, I thought I might be on my way to bed about twenty minutes ago so I asked Hobby to incorporate a second text option for Question #10.

Then I saw your post.

I can send Hobby another PM and tell her to forget it ... no, you know what? I'll send her a PM and ask her to check your last post before adding or not adding the second text option. So ... speak now or forever hold your peace. :)

Btw, neither quorum offered here will apply if there is a revote on the Wilko thread. It will have to be the quorum we are using for ratification because we can't apply unratified articles retroactively.

Strange eruptions to our State ... well, I've seen this phenomenon attack us several times since I've been here ... a sudden need to 'revise' and to bolster the revision with as many posts as possible ... it is unsettling, but in the long run ... so far it has not mattered.

As I said in the BikeRacks, I am agreeable to whatever members want to do with this thread because a circumstance like this one will never recur. It will never happen again that we are talking here about people who can neither see nor respond. Whatever the next incident is, it will not be like this one.

I just hope that emotions do not become the most important precedent for action because there will always be two sides to questions like this - not emotion versus rules, but emotion versus emotion. The rules are not perfect either. I suspect there is a great deal of 'transference' written into our Article 3. ;)

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 14 Jul , 2005 5:38 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
I obviously was confused. This isn't Groundhog Day or Star Trek, it's the Twilight Zone. I'm sure we could vote to change that.

Jnyusa and th, no reason to add anything.


Now about those rules: millions and zillions of ‘em, entirely too complicated to understand. If we
understood the Rules of Life, WE WOULDN’T HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME!!!!
---Nancy Beverly - Attack of the Moral Fuzzies


Bethann/IdylleSeethes

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 10:15 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Ballot looks good to me :)

Just a detail, but could you possibly insert for 'clarity's sake'

Question 6: length of time Objectionable Content threads will be held beyond the Ranger’s right to convene a Hearing ..

which is 10 days, according to our vote on Statues of Limitations

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 11:12 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Ballot looks good to me, although I must say I think it's a bit silly to be obliged to keep each and every announcement. Not that I mind, after all it doesn't do any harm.

I'm a person who likes to keep almost everything - my flat looks accordingly ;) - because most things have a sentimental value attached to them for me, and those that don't might still come in handy some time.
But I also think that in our time the urge to preserve each bit of data is developing to a mania - it's just not natural anymore, IMO.

And, for a quote to answer IS, maybe I should say that there are more things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your rules and regulations. ;)

_________________

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
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 3:13 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
You know what, Hobby, it probably IS silly to keep every announcement we ever create. Those facts are very temporal... what was important for everyone to know last month is incredibly useless info next month.

Right? Right. Right!

But it is, I believe, part of our HISTORY. Our evolution. Where we were dictates who we are now and guides where we go tomorrow. Perhaps I'm feeling a little butterfly-effect-ish today... I feel that seemingly little things can cause big, and sometimes unexpected, effects somewhere else. Sometimes much further down the road.

It is important to know just exactly what those little things really where, as emotions and the effect of time on memory can easily rewrite history.

Some of the reactions in the Thread-We-Shall-Not-Name seem to me not a reaction to the fact we left that thread readable, but a reaction to the fact that not all of the OTHER threads it references are readable. That people are left to wonder what the Sam Hill was said in those invite threads, for example, that were so frequently referenced but now are gone.

Therefore, I'm not sure that this maelstrom is a result of our attempt at transparency, but instead a result of imperfect transparency.

The imperfections in our transparency were, unfortunately, necessary. The deletion of the invite threads was not only the right decision, but the necessary decision. They were the vestiges of a previous incarnation of this board, and they needed to go away.

But from here on out, we need to try to be historically transparent. IMHO. We need to preserve the trail of EXACTLY where we were, what we wrote, what was felt and shared, however temporal those thoughts seemed to be at the time.

Because the danger in someone trying to GUESS what was written is very, very high.




<steps off of soapbox>


.

.

.

.


In other words, I like the ballot just fine.

;)





Edited: for punctuation.

Last edited by Anthriel on Thu 14 Jul , 2005 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 4:09 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Good speech, Anthy. :)

I still disagree, though. :D

_________________

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
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 4:38 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
DARN!


:rage:

You weren't swayed by "Where we were dictates who we are now and guides where we go tomorrow?" That was poetical and EVERYTHING. What, are you made of stone, woman? :P




Just kidding. I did give it my best shot, though. :D


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 5:05 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Reading that post made me realize just how much I've missed your particular charm Anthy. Welcome back! :D

Needless to say, I'm a firm believer in that philosophy of yours and I agree to disagree with Hobby, as we sometimes do ;)

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 6:31 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Alandriel - which is 10 days, according to our vote on Statues of Limitations

The questions about time limits are not themselves Charter text, Alandriel. I just put those times in there so that we in the committee would recall what they were while we were voting.

In the Charter, these time limits will get edited into appropriate clauses of ¶5 and it will just refer to the type of thread described in the clause. There isn't actually a separate Article called Statute of Limitations.

Same goes for Privacy Policy, btw - there's no clause with that title. The elements of the ballot get edited in to the other clauses shown.

I just used those broad descritions - Statute of Limitations and Privacy Policy - for the committee to identify the broad issue we were dealing with, affecting several different Articles or paragraphs within an Article.

I will probably use those broad titles when I update the Admin handbook, too, because there needs to be some kind of indexing done for the sake of the reader, with links to the Articles subject to that those topics.

jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 10:03 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
I know Jny and I'm with you. It's just that when reading through the ballot I actually had to go and look the timeframe up for Question 6 (since my brain is incapable of holding everything together) and so though, since it's been added as a note in blue to other questions why not also to Question 6... so that others don't have to look it up.

That was/is all :)

And yes, broader titles and some kind of index would definitely help.

I'd like to help but my problem is that my time is seriously running out and I probably won't have much time to really help out. Come 21st July I can only be here for about an hour or two a day max if I'm lucky. Summer holidays will be upon us and that means I'm in a full time job as Mom again. I can upload and do, but I won't have the time to go through things very carefully or if so, then only slowly I'm afraid.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 11:24 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Oh, I misunderstood you, Alandriel. The time limit is right above, at the end of Q5, which contains the actual text. I did it the same way for all of them. I thought what you wanted to add was the link to the Statute of Limitations thread ....

Hobby, I see I made some url errors in Question 6 ... and there may be others ... which I'm not able to correct inside your post. That "results of Q4" that's shown in blue should be inside brackets, and there should not be a question mark at the end of the time period choices - I already added all the times that were suggested.

If you don't mind copying the 10-day note at the end of Question 5 down to Question 6 as well, and repeating the same kind of note wherever applicable, that's fine with me.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 12:04 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
VOTING IS NOW OPEN

We'll vote for 48 hours until ~11:59 pm GMT on Saturday

(If anyone is confused about time frames, don't hesitate to ask in your voting post. That 91 days for some Articles is probably going to change to 92 days, based on member comments in the Ratification thread.)

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 5  [ 95 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Jump to: