Yes, and if 6 active members of the ToE choose to delete every single one of the posts and have their permissions removed from that forum because of one poster getting in, are they being given the same opportunity to participate?
Yes, everyone is given the same opportunity to participate. Everyone gets to make the same decision, as to whether they want to share intimate information on a public forum.
It is not matter of being treated equally.
Yes. It is a matter of original members being given more power than people joining since the opening of the board, being given the power to determine if new posters will have the opportunity to access one of our forums.
It is people who have posted the most personal of personal posts, and want to have the ability to protect themselves against the rare poster who would use that information maliciously.
No, from what has been said, they want to have the ability to protect themselves against people they aren't comfortable with.
It is NOT some sort of clique kind of thing - this is the presevation of the forum.
I'm not suggesting it is. Believe me when I say I feel for the members of that forum, I can understand why you are trying to preserve what you've had, but I don't see how it is possible now that the board has opened and has espoused a principle of equality.
Everyone has an equal chance of getting in, but everyone should have an equal chance of STAYING in the forum as well.
Everyone does have an equal chance of staying in the forum, based on whether they are willing to take the risks involved in revealing intimate details on a public messageboard. That is everyone's personal decision to make, and everyone should take responsibility for the decision they've made knowing the risk, rather than seeking to protect themselves from the consequences of their decision by limiting the participation of other members.
Trust me Cerin, your argument has been hashed and rehashed ten times over in the forum itself. The arguments have been made ten times over. The fact is, we have a right to call for an amendment, and we are going to.
Oh, absolutely. I am fully in favor of you bringing the amendment. But eventually, once the amendment is brought before the membership, you would have had to re-hash the arguments anyway. Sorry if I've done this in the wrong place and time.
Seems a shame to put the charter over and above the posters.
As I understand it, the charter is meant to serve the posters (all of them not just a certain group). If a key principle in the charter is ignored for the benefit of some posters at the expense of others, who is being served?
(I understand that you're saying this is basically being done because of one person at this point, but it seems to me the amendment would have to be somehow reconciled with the equality principle if it is not to do more harm than good in the long run.)
I recall this whole thing being an experiment in democracy - there are exceptions to every rule. Why not this one? Why put rules above the comfort of posters? Why kill a forum for a belief in some writing? Why not believe that these posters have a right to protect themselves?
Well, I guess that is a whole philosophical discussion in itself.
I think this idea of having the ability to protect oneself in ToE is an illusion under these circumstances. You only know of one person you don't feel comfortable with, but there could be any number of persons of a similar bent who didn't reveal their nature so as to be able to frequent the forum for malicious reasons.
It seems to me what you're trying to do is maintain ToE as a private forum on a public messageboard. Wouldn't it make more sense to move it and make it private again? Then once you got to know new b77ers and came to trust them, you could invite them.
Why attempt to deny them the right to make an amendment? That is also something in the charter.
Oh, I am not attempting to deny the right to make an amendment! I was just offering my thoughts on the subject, as it was new to me (perhaps I should have held them until the member discussion). I fully support the right to bring the amendment.
(I realize that I am approaching this from a cold and detached perspective compared to those for whom the forum is dear and important.)
We have here a board based on democratic principles, but at the same time a board based on respect. In the instance of ToE, it is not possible to reconcile them.
I'm not sure it's a matter of respect v democratic principles. You can't ensure respect for ToE members by giving them the power to deny participation to other posters on the basis of whether they imagine those posters would be respectful with the information.
I think you are trying to preserve something that existed on a private board but can't exist on a public one. As I said, I think the idea of protecting ToE members is largely illusory if ToE continues to be a part of b77. I'm not sure it is worth compromising the board's principles for the sake of something illusory.
However, all those people can do is tell them why THEY don't trust them.
Well, yes, that would be what was needed, since they are the ones who would be effectively preventing them from participating.
Yes, it might be devastating to be told you aren't trusted.
I think it would be much less devastating if you were told why, and knew who. If we're talking respect, I think there should be at least that much respect shown to non-ToE members. But essentially you'd still be saying that the comfort of certain members (the original regulars in ToE) trumps the rights of the everyone else.
Edit
I'll be happy to shut up about this now and wait for the member discussion (if people can resist responding).