board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Access to ToE Member Discussion Thread

Locked   Page 16 of 20  [ 393 posts ]
Jump to page « 114 15 16 17 1820 »
Author Message
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 6:58 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Quote:
The various methods being proposed are nothing like the old voting system. Every single member requesting access will not be voted on. This is not the old invites system. There's no "voting in".
No, just voting out.


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 8:09 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Cerin wrote:
Quote:
The various methods being proposed are nothing like the old voting system. Every single member requesting access will not be voted on. This is not the old invites system. There's no "voting in".
No, just voting out.
No - vetoing members seen as dangerous to posters/forum.


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 8:09 am
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Cerin, if you insist on bumping your poll threads, please be objective and bump all poll threads.

I have corrected your oversight.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Wilma
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 10:14 am
Takoyaki is love
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
 
First of all I read the Jury room stuff about my suggestion I thought, that it would be considered as a procedure for all vetos (which would be few). Not special circunstance, You could just change the wording for a lighter offense.

Also, I would like to explain anyone requesting access will not get vetoed. For instance if 30 poeple requested access tomorrow and the jerk I mentioned aerlier is a part of the group, do I raise a veto vote for all 30? No. Just that one guy,. If no one has an issue with the other 29 people then then they are in no one get s voted on. the poll questions made it look like the old system it is not!!!! That is why I think those polls have to be redone. No one will understand what Cerin meant (Iam sorry Cerin but the poll questions give the worng impression of what we are trying to do).

Also, people will not be vetoed based on their religion!!! People are intelligent enough to understand that. If someone wants acess to ToE and they are christian don't you think they are open minded enough about the material to request access? I am sure once people get in ToE they will realize what not a big deal the forum is.

I think the best way to define someone who could possibly be vetoed in my book is someone who wants entry into ToE with a malicious intent concerning the info in there. You could hate my guts but if you want in ToE and do not have a malicious intent with what I post there you are in!!!!!!!!!! It's as simple as that.

It is not some frelling popularity contest of no one liking someone or any such garbage. People are trying to paint into something that it isn't!!!!!!!!!!! It is not voting and inviting. It is a screening system to keep out dangerous people!!!!!!!!!! Without a screening system the forum is dead.

Without a screening system, all the non ToEers who want access and voted to keep the doors wide open, guess what you will see when you get in there, absolutely nothing!!! Evryone discussing this think they will be vetoed. No one in this discussion currently would I ever consider vetoing. So stop worrying. It is just dangerous people we want out that is it!!!!!!!!!!

Also, I will say there is a huge problem in ToE of people with acess who never post. For the few people whi actually post in there it is only assumed they are lurking. I am sure there are tons of people with access I never have known about (since they never posted there), with this announcement thing at least we know who has access to ToE. People are seriously concerned about lurkers so much I think it is even in the constitution that if you arrive in ToE post something just to say you are there. The lurking issue has been there for a long time (since we don't know who can read it), and the screening system is the best way to kill 2
birds with one stone.

Awareness of who has acees and screening out of dangerous people.
I seriously request a rewording of the poll questions.

Please PM me if you have any questions I would gladly try to answer them from my point of view.

_________________

Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 1:52 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Wilma:

Alatar's thread in ToE has a complete listing of people with access, and has for about three weeks.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 1:55 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Hey! I didn't even click twice and got a double post! :rage:

Last edited by Axordil on Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Tinsel_the_Elf
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:00 pm
* trolley dodger *
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:27 am
Location: Fighting the Long Defeat
 
Wilma wrote:

Without a screening system, all the non ToEers who want access and voted to keep the doors wide open, guess what you will see when you get in there, absolutely nothing!!! Evryone discussing this think they will be vetoed. No one in this discussion currently would I ever consider vetoing. So stop worrying. It is just dangerous people we want out that is it!!!!!!!!!!
Wilma, :)

I don't think you're going to like what I have to say, but I want you to know that it is not maliciously intended, and I do not want it to be construed as a personal attack. Like Estel, the passion with which you have defended ToE makes it clear that that forum means a great deal to you, and that you want to protect it.

I'm not fighting for myself--that is, I'm not particularly worried that I would be vetoed (at least I hope not! :Q ). I want to protect other potential members who might be unfairly vetoed in the future. Remember, we're setting a precedent. If an anonymous poll option is instituted, anyone could be voted out for any reason whatsoever. Look at Laureanna's fear -- she's recieved anonymous hate letters from B77 readers, has been asked to leave the forum. What if that poster and a few of friends decided to vote her out of ToE because they didn't like her? What's to prevent that from happening? (Yes, I know she already has access, but I hope you see my point. :) )

Even if you and Estel and other ToE posters delete your posts (which like you I agree would be a sad thing and something to be avoided at all costs), the ToE forum will not be destroyed. The forum that you and others created and loved, yes, it will be crippled. But you know what? A new crop of posters will probably go in and start creating threads, and not all previous ToE posters will delete theirs. The forum won't be the same, but it will turn into a new ToE. Maybe newbies won't go in there and see "absolutely nothing", they'll see an open forum that they can start populating.

Let me stress again that that is not what I want to see happen. But on several occasions you've said that the forum will cease to exist if certain demands are not met. And that's just not so.

Finally (and this is not just directed at Wilma), I'm getting really tired of everyone characterizing Snowdog as a malicious person whose sole purpose in coming to Board77 was to get into the ToE forum and harm people. I don't know anything about Snowdog's misdeeds on TORC, but it does sound like a lot of the trouble that he's in is of his own making. But to be fair he has his friends and supporters too, and... shoot--I don't know where I'm going with this--I understand the (IMO legitimate) reasons people want him out of ToE, but he's being painted like he's a drooling predator and I don't know how much of that is informed and correct assessment of a danger and how much of this is jump-on-the bandwagon mob mentality. I can understand that mentality--the things of which he is accused provoke powerful emotions in people (myself included). But I'm seeing pitchforks and torches throughout the forum, and it bothers me.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:06 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Tinsel:

Um, well, you know, quite a few of us WERE there and DID see what happened at TORC. I don't pick up a pitchfork lightly.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:11 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
I'm going to quote a suggestion I made in the Jury room here and ask for feedback:
Quote:
Well, it's possible that we could create a system where by a poll is created on supply of a valid objection from one or more members.

As in:

Rangers notify ToE members that poster X has requested membership
Any objection must be lodged with the Rangers by PM or Mail within 10 days.
(Depending on which way we go here we can use one of the existring models for validating that objection)
If the objection (or objections) is valid then there is a 10 day poll to receive 10 supporting votes from the ToE Membership

I think it's actually very workable.
How do people feel about this as a compromise? Objections are accountable, yet private. They are supported by poll.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:14 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
More than 60% of the poll respondants wanted objections to be allowed in public.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Tinsel_the_Elf
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:17 pm
* trolley dodger *
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:27 am
Location: Fighting the Long Defeat
 
Axordil wrote:
Tinsel:

Um, well, you know, quite a few of us WERE there and DID see what happened at TORC. I don't pick up a pitchfork lightly.
Which would place you in my other category of those making an "informed and correct assessment of a danger." ;) But other people who were also there at TORC, and who also saw what happened, supported Snowdog.

(Sorry, I don't want this to become a Snowdog trial thread [yes, I know, I started it. :) ]. But do you really think he's here in order to get into the ToE and do some shadowy and unnamed harm to the people there?)

(The above does not mean that I advocate Snowdog's entry to ToE).

*sigh*


Top
Profile
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:24 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Well, Ax, here are the poll results I'm looking at:

Should ToE members have the option of starting a poll?

Yes, if some provide Rangers with private explanations
35% [ 5 ]
Yes, if some provide public explanations
7% [ 1 ]
Yes, but no explanations needed
28% [ 4 ]
No
28% [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 14



and#


Requires explanations from ToE members as to why they want to keep someone out of the forum
68% [ 17 ]
Does not require explanations from ToE members as to why they want to keep someone out of the forum
32% [ 8 ]


There's no requirement in this poll for public explanations.


I think you're misreading the poll info. What I see in these results is that people want accountability, but not necessarily public explanations.

Alatar

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:26 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Allows public statements to be made against the petitioning member on the ToE forum 26

Does not allow public statements to be made against the petitioning member on the ToE forum 15

And I think these are being ignored.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:27 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
There's a huge difference between allows and requires.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:31 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Yes there is...and the wording of the poll question says "allows" as well, or rather "have the option," which is functionally the same thing.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:45 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Lidless wrote:
Cerin, if you insist on bumping your poll threads, please be objective and bump all poll threads.
Lidless, I'm sure Estel is quite capable of bumping her own poll whenever she feels it appropriate. I thought it reasonable that she be the one to do that, since I was quite open about the fact that I felt her question would obfuscate the clarity we were seeking. I preferred to keep the questions that I felt did work together, together.

Wilma wrote:
First of all I read the Jury room stuff about my suggestion I thought, that it would be considered as a procedure for all vetos (which would be few). Not special circunstance, You could just change the wording for a lighter offense.
Let me see where I might work this in to the current ballot after discussing it with the committee.

Quote:
Also, I would like to explain anyone requesting access will not get vetoed.

I feel confident that everyone on the committee understands this, and I believe all the ballot options also make it clear.

Quote:
the poll questions made it look like the old system it is not!!!!
I don't think so, Wilma. I think the options make it clear that every individual announced as seeking access either has their own petitioner's thread, or has an individual thread started for them when someone voices an objection against them. Please review the ballot, and if you still feel this way, specify where you think the idea of considering groups of petitioning members together is conveyed.

Quote:
No one will understand what Cerin meant
Again, I feel the poll proposals are clear. If you don't, please specify where they convey the wrong idea. I can't make a change if I do not perceive where the change needs to be made.

Quote:
Also, people will not be vetoed based on their religion!!!
I think we've put that matter to rest. Nin, whose example had raised that point of discussion, explained that that is not what she meant.

Quote:
I think the best way to define someone who could possibly be vetoed in my book is someone who wants entry into ToE with a malicious intent concerning the info in there.
That is also my understanding of what we're trying to accomplish, Wilma.

Quote:
It is not some frelling popularity contest of no one liking someone or any such garbage. People are trying to paint into something that it isn't!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't believe that's true, Wilma. What we're trying to do (some of us) is avoid creating a system people could use as a popularity contest if they wished to subvert the intent of the system.

Quote:
It is not voting and inviting.
For the poll models, it is a person seeking access and members of the forum voting as a group against them. For some, this is reminiscent of the invitation system, where people's names were put up, and those who didn't want them on b77 spoke out against their inclusion.

Quote:
Without a screening system the forum is dead.
I agree and I think almost everyone participating on the committee and in these discussions agrees that a screening system is needed. That's exactly what we're working on trying to create.

Quote:
Also, I will say there is a huge problem in ToE of people with acess who never post. For the few people whi actually post in there it is only assumed they are lurking.

I think some good steps have been taken to address this within the forum. I believe that is an issue that should continue to be handled by the forum members themselves.

Quote:
Awareness of who has acees and screening out of dangerous people.
I seriously request a rewording of the poll questions.

Wilma, I believe this is exactly what one of the ballot options states. I will include that standard in the poll section as well, per your request.

Quote:
Please PM me if you have any questions I would gladly try to answer them from my point of view.
I believe it best if we keep all dialogue about this out in the open, where everyone can see it and contribute their thoughts. Thanks!


Top
Profile
Tinsel_the_Elf
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:55 pm
* trolley dodger *
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:27 am
Location: Fighting the Long Defeat
 
I wouldn't get too scientific with the results of the straw poll. It's valuable, but it's just a temperature taking.

My observation from some of the people who posted in the poll threads is that they have not been following this discussion very closely, if at all, and maybe have not thought through some of the issues that posters here have brought up.

For instance, if I had not been following this debate I would have said that NO member in good standing on B77 should be denied access to the ToE. The arguments in here convinced me otherwise.

In other words, the membership may have been making quick, reactionary judgements and their opinions might change when they are faced with a making a careful decision over a ballot. The formal vote should be the true judge of things, I'm glad we did the straw poll and while we should consider the result I don't think they should be over-weighted or analyzed...


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:57 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Tinsel: agreed. I think we can deduce one or two things from the poll results, but not much more.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 4:02 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Yes, as I said in the Jury Room, these polls weren't quite what I had in mind. But anything that can help clarify what the membership is looking for is helpful in my mind.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 4:52 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Alatar wrote:
How do people feel about this as a compromise? Objections are accountable, yet private. They are supported by poll.
Alatar, I think it is clear that people want all people making objections to have to explain those objections. Is this what you are proposing? In that case, what is the point of the poll?

If you are proposing that some people object by email and some vote in a poll, that is Estel's compromise proposal and doesn't satisfy the desire that everyone objecting state why.

Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what you are proposing.

It seems as I feared, that the 'poll' poll has clouded the issues that might have been clarified by the other polls.


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 16 of 20  [ 393 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 114 15 16 17 1820 »
Jump to: