board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Binding vote reconsideration committee

Locked   Page 1 of 23  [ 442 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 523 »
Has enough of a change in circumstance occured to make another ballot necessary on this issue? (STRAW POLL ONLY)
Poll ended at Wed 27 Jul , 2005 4:45 pm
Yes
  
67% [ 8 ]
No
  
33% [ 4 ]
Total votes: 12
Author Message
Axordil
Post subject: Binding vote reconsideration committee
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 2:28 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
If anyone else has a better title than this I would be happy to change it.

CURRENT TEXT OF BALLOT:

This is a two-part ballot. Please PM your votes on both parts to Administrator.

QUESTION ONE
The first part is an Instant Runoff Vote (IRV) ballot. Please rank the following four choices according to your preference for the action to be taken on the thread.

A) Leave the thread as is. No board-sanctioned action will be taken on the thread beyond possibly changing the disclaimer (see Question Two).

B) Replace the screen names of individuals indirectly referred to in the discussion with the anonymous placeholder ***** (real-life names have already been removed). The disclaimer may also be changed (see Question Two).

C) Replace names as in B) above, and then move the edited thread to Deleted Thread Storage. Only Rangers and the Mayor can access files in this area. The disclaimer may also be changed (see Question Two).

D) Delete the thread (the thread will be removed permanently; it will not be moved to Deleted Thread Storage). According to the Charter, a thread may be deleted by boardwide vote if deemed necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

My ranked vote for Part One:
1)
2)
3)
4)

QUESTION TWO
The second part is a simple poll, adjunct to the ballot above. Pick one:

A) Keep the current disclaimer text:

This thread was active during the upheavals on TORC and here at board77 in the first few months of 2005. Please remember as you read that many posts were made in the heat of the moment. Also, please note that this thread is no longer active; the board has moved on from these events. However, the members of board77 have decided that to delete these threads would be counter to our principles of transparency and openness.

B) Replace the current disclaimer text with this text:

This thread was active during the upheavals on TORC and here at board77 in the first few months of 2005 and many posts were made in the heat of the moment. The comments in this and every thread represent the feelings and opinions of the individuals who posted them and are not representative of the viewpoint of the board as a whole. Keeping threads from the period before the board opened is not an endorsement of their contents, but an attempt to operate according to our stated principles of transparency and openness.

My vote for Part Two:

A or B

(end of ballot text)




edit to add
Membership of the committee (last I checked, this would be a very good time to correct me:D ):

Voronwe--loremaster
Frelga
Cerin
Jnyusa
tolkienpurist
Axordil
Ara-anna
Eruname
truehobbit
TED
and now...
Myst

Thread at the center of discussion:
My presence on this board

Open member input thread for the discussion:
Business Room thread

Threads related to this discussion superseded by the Business Room thread:
Old Business Room thread
Bike Racks thread

Threads with more general applicability, still open:
Symposium thread on notion that silence is consent
Symposium thread on priority of rights

Summary of Jury in hearing related to thread:
Jury Summary

Last edited by Axordil on Tue 02 Aug , 2005 5:30 pm, edited 9 times in total.

Top
Profile
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 2:53 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Present.

Title's fine by me.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 3:15 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
HEY! You didn't say you were going to liberate your minions! That means they're on the streets now, looting and pillaging no doubt... :Q :D

Ahem.

Sorry.

The current scope of this committee's work seems to be:

Whether a binding vote that would reconsider the issue of a particular thread (of which I do not have the current location :() being deleted is permissable and desirable according to Article 7 AND Article 8 Section 2.

There are larger issues related to the discussion of this thread that may require action or recommendation as well, or the creation of a charter amendment committee. These will, I am sure, come up in discussion.

I guess this means I'm facilitating this discussion. Sigh.


Top
Profile
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 3:39 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Maybe a sum up here would be good.

No one wants me to sum up, because I am not good at it. So some one sum up what we are doing.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 3:59 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
As I understand the situation:

A thread (which I STILL don't have a current location for :D) containing unseemly comments concerning non-members who are friends with some people here was allowed to remain in situ when we looked at threads to delete before opening. When we opened, some members here objected to its continued presence and asked for another binding vote on its deletion.

As a binding vote committee, it is not our job to support deleting this thread or oppose it, but to consider whether a sufficient change in circumstances has taken place to warrant it being voted on again before the six-month limit has expired.

The discussion should therefore concentrate not on the merits of the thread itself (as this would be the purvue of the board as a whole in a putative revote) but on the circumstances under which the original vote took place, and the circumstances NOW.

That's my understanding of what we are here for.


Top
Profile
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 4:35 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
Thanks for the summary, Ax.

Time to go read articles 7 & 8.

Are we taking into consideration the topic of personal attacks against non-members on this committee?

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 4:42 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I think it is silly to pretend it isn't on our minds, but discussion should include it only as it is relevant to the change in circumstances between the original vote and now and whether that change is sufficient to warrant a new vote.

The obvious change was of course that we OPENED. But as this was the reason for the initial vote, this change in and of itself doesn't seem germaine.


Top
Profile
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 4:45 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Reporting for duty. :)

And the thread (or what's left of it) is in the bike racks, Ax - wilko's "My Presence on this board".

_________________

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
Frelga
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 4:46 pm
A green apple painted red
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4621
Joined: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Out on the banks
 
I'm just checking in for now. Thank you, Ax, for taking up the gauntlet, stepping forward, and all that. And thanks, Cerin, for bringing up my name. I've never even been on a committee, much less led one, and I think we are much better off with Ax as a leader.
Quote:
As a binding vote committee, it is not our job to support deleting this thread or oppose it, but to consider whether a sufficient change in circumstances has taken place to warrant it being voted on again before the six-month limit has expired.
An excellent summary. :) I would only add that, as our Loremaster V reminded us, should we decide that a revote is warranted, it is also our job to form the poll. At that point, as I understand it, we may consider additional options, such as keeping the thread with an added explanation, as laureanna proposed in the Bike Racks thread, or moving the thread to some specific location (Bike Racks, Members Lounge, whatever).

Ax, could you do me a favor and list the committee members in your first post? So many people have participated in the discussion that I am all confused on the final lineup.

Also, what's the timeframe we have to work with here? My time on the Net will be sporadic for the next week or so. :oops:

_________________

GNU Terry Pratchett


Top
Profile
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 4:53 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Ax, the thread is in the bike racks.

Good summary. One thing that I will add, which I consider to be important (although maybe no one else does). One of the main factors that led to the original decision to keep the thread was that the treadstarter was asked for his opinion and he expressed a desire for the thread to be kept. He has subsequently stated that he now wishes that the thread should be deleted.

I believe that that is significant because it may constitute a genuine change in circumstance justifying a revote on the question of whether to delete the thread. Under the unratified portion of the charter, a revote can not be held within six months of the original vote unless there has been a genuine change in circumstances justifying the revote.

However, regardless of whether an option to delete the entire thread is included in a vote, the committee can consider other options as well. There is nothing in the charter that would prevent us from crafting a vote that was part a revote and part new vote.

One last thing that I'll say is that my position is a bit of an awkward one. I originally spoke up in favor of holding a vote, but I was subsequently asked to fill the role of loremaster on the committee. As such, I believe that it is my job to clarify what the charter does or does not allow, rather then to advocate for a particular outcome. However, I do have a vote as to whether we hold a vote, and if so, what kind of vote. As such, it probably is my job to express my opinion as to what outcome I believe is correct.

[Note: I should clarify that when I say "a particular outcome" I am not referring to the ultimate resolution of the thread, but rather the ultimate resolution of the question of whether there should be a vote, and if so how the vote should be structured.]


Top
Profile
Frelga
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 5:01 pm
A green apple painted red
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4621
Joined: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Out on the banks
 
V, before I sign off and actually do some work :Q I would like to say that I have implicit trust in your integrity. I have not a shade of doubt that in you capacity of Loremaster you will do an exemplary job of researching and explaining the Charter and that your vote will be cast with most careful consideration.

_________________

GNU Terry Pratchett


Top
Profile
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 5:07 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
I second Frelga's suggestion about putting the cast of this committee in the first post, if you don't mind, Ax. It will be easier to identify our fellow committee members.
V wrote:
However, regardless of whether an option to delete the entire thread is included in a vote, the committee can consider other options as well. There is nothing in the charter that would prevent us from crafting a vote that was part a revote and part new vote.
Thanks for being Loremaster, by the way. Does it strike you as odd that we would be using an unratified charter provision in this committee? Wouldn't our decision be unsupported by the charter if it included a revote? I'm not just trying to be disagreeable or anything, just wanted to point it out.

:cheers

Last edited by TheEllipticalDisillusion on Fri 22 Jul , 2005 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 5:07 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Membership of the committee (last I checked, this would be a very good time to correct me :D):

Voronwe--loremaster
Frelga
Hobby
Cerin
Jnyusa
tolkienpurist
Axordil
Ara-anna
Eruname
truehobbit
TED

Frelga--

V is correct, but first things first. Whether the circumstances have changed sufficiently for any vote at all needs to be determined first, as it is the independent question. If we determine this is indeed the case, we'll go on to the FUN part. :D

We do not have a deadline that I am aware of, but I would like to see us done with the first question within ten working days. Yes, it might take that long, because the terminology of the article is deliberately vague.

V--

Was Wilko the actual starter of the thread? I seem to remember some discussion on that.

And yes, if we determine that a vote is desirable and permissible, we have a nigh-infinite array of choices of what that vote can do, so long as it is within the bounds of addressing the issue of the thread's status.

Can someone pleeeeeze get a link to the fool thing? edit to add--thanks hobby

Last edited by Axordil on Sat 23 Jul , 2005 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 5:10 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
After reading Ax's post, I think I spoke too soon in my previous post. We still have to consider if the situation has changed sufficiently to warrant any action (revote or new). I'm just going to wait until this thing gets more underway than to make unnecessary observations.

:blackeye

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 5:45 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
TED:

Yes, it's odd. :D And if it doesn't pass, we adjust and move on. I hope. :D


Top
Profile
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 5:48 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
Sounds like a plan.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile
tolkienpurist
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 5:50 pm
Unlabeled
Offline
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Location: San Francisco
 
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
Ax, the thread is in the bike racks.

Good summary. One thing that I will add, which I consider to be important (although maybe no one else does). One of the main factors that led to the original decision to keep the thread was that the treadstarter was asked for his opinion and he expressed a desire for the thread to be kept. He has subsequently stated that he now wishes that the thread should be deleted.

I believe that that is significant because it may constitute a genuine change in circumstance justifying a revote on the question of whether to delete the thread. Under the unratified portion of the charter, a revote can not be held within six months of the original vote unless there has been a genuine change in circumstances justifying the revote.

However, regardless of whether an option to delete the entire thread is included in a vote, the committee can consider other options as well. There is nothing in the charter that would prevent us from crafting a vote that was part a revote and part new vote.

One last thing that I'll say is that my position is a bit of an awkward one. I originally spoke up in favor of holding a vote, but I was subsequently asked to fill the role of loremaster on the committee. As such, I believe that it is my job to clarify what the charter does or does not allow, rather then to advocate for a particular outcome. However, I do have a vote as to whether we hold a vote, and if so, what kind of vote. As such, it probably is my job to express my opinion as to what outcome I believe is correct.

[Note: I should clarify that when I say "a particular outcome" I am not referring to the ultimate resolution of the thread, but rather the ultimate resolution of the question of whether there should be a vote, and if so how the vote should be structured.]
Voronwe - of all the people I can think of on the board and off, you are probably number one on my list of people who I feel confident would NOT act inappropriately, indiscretely, or abuse your power/position under any circumstance. Although your clarification is much appreciated, I want you to know that your cautious approach towards any authority you might hold is garnering respect, at least mine.

As far as "material change in circumstances" goes - how relevant do we believe that the thread-starter's desires regarding the fate of his or her thread are? I am uneasy about giving their opinion any more weight than any other member's, particularly once other people have posted in the thread. If all members equally own their own posts, and members who posted in that thread have changed their minds in both directions, then why should we accord wilko's change of heart the greatest deference? It is not only wilko's ideas and posts that would be removed or made inaccessible due to his change of heart. (For example, should we ever question what to do with the Snowdog thread that I started - as we well might - I'm not sure that my desire to keep, destroy, or move the thread to a member-inaccessible location at some future time should have any greater weight than any other member's just because I was the first to type out a few hasty sentences on the matter.)

If there is indeed a genuine change of circumstance - something that we must now discuss further - it must come, IMO, from the fact that our actions were perceived very differently than we had intended (i.e. many voted in the name of transparency and openness, and our actions were instead interpreted as petty, hurtful, and harmful). I believe that it must be immaterial that some people did not bother to read the thread before voting. Voters in any form of democracy have an obligation to be informed of the issues before casting their ballots, and cannot later claim they should be allowed to redecide the issue because they could not initially be troubled to give it their full consideration. Such a system would be inefficient and devalues the weight that members might accord the first vote.

- TP

(I feel the need to add this disclaimer; please indulge me just this once. When I joined b77 and saw the charter efforts, I confess to having felt very bemused as to why such detailed drafting was necessary so that we could hang around on a messageboard and talk about Tolkien, Harry Potter, Linux, abortion, and what we ate for breakfast. Now, I see this as a fascinating experiment - almost a virtual role-play layered on top of the traditional messageboard interaction - that provides interesting insights potentially transferrable to real life conflict resolution/ADR and even local government law. With that in mind, I'm interested in discussing these issues more, because even though I still am not convinced that the current level of legalese is necessary for a messageboard to function democratically, I may yet be convinced otherwise, and in the meantime, I keep seeing parallels to matters that I've discussed in law school, which is enjoyable.)


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 5:56 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
TP:

I agree with you that a thread starter's intent/desires are no more or less important than the others who post in the thread. However, a change in them does represent SOME change in circumstance, as does the number of posters who have deleted some or all of their own posts from it. The ad absurdum would be if everyone deleted their posts EXCEPT the original poster, in which case I think we would all agree that a significant change had taken place. :D


Top
Profile
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 6:04 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Mr A. wrote:
Voronwe--loremaster
Frelga
Hobby
Cerin
Jnyusa
tolkienpurist
Axordil
Ara-anna
Eruname
truehobbit
TED
I think Hobby and truehobbit are the same 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
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 6:11 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
:oops: i think so too... :oops: fixing


That would explain why everyone was talking about needing one more person...:D


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 1 of 23  [ 442 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 523 »
Jump to: