board77

I snuck in a post before you on the previous page Cerin.



The ToE is a private forum, however, and not simply to attempt to keep it over 18. That is why there are restrictions on getting in there (3 months, 100 posts).

As for the one person that I can think of who would get veto-voted, he knows exactly why he is not trusted.


Seems a shame to put the charter over and above the posters. Isn't that why we left TORC? The Vision was considered more important than the community.

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?

Why attempt to deny them the right to make an amendment? That is also something in the charter.

Cerin:

Was the Sabbath made for man, or man for the Sabbath? Yes, we have rules, based on principles, and the fact of the matter is there is no guarantee those principles will always be in harmony. 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. One option is thus to move ToE...the other is to recognize that the rules take different forms in different forums, and that ToE lies on the extreme end of our spectrum, as it were.

Cerin--

Separate reply for separate issue: I personally have no problem with a requirement that someone in ToE (and the working draft requires one member to propose a veto and two more to second it before it is voted on) PM a vetoed candidate. However, all those people can do is tell them why THEY don't trust them.

Yes, it might be devastating to be told you aren't trusted. I also doubt that it will come as a surprise to anyone who is told so.

Cerin wrote:

I'm not trying to be infantile, but why don't they trust the person? If someone told you they didn't trust you, wouldn't you want to know why?

As Estel said, the one person this is likely to happen to will know fully why. It wouldn't be a surprise.

Quote:

So what you're saying is, you do want ToE to be exempted from one of the governing principles of b77.

No we want ToE to have a fair chance to survive.

Quote:

It would be a way of saying, there are some cases (at least one) in which our principle of equality cannot be applied, because we value the comfort of some of our original members over the rights of new members, or because we value this one forum at the expense of the integrity of the board as a whole.

You know what is a good analogy for this: a sex offender. Do those people get to live freely without any hinderances in society? No. Do they have restrictions placed on them? Yes. We live in a democracy, but some people's freedoms are restricted because they have proven that they cannot be trusted because they have done things to hurt others.

Some see letting in a person who cannot be trusted as a violation of the other posters' rights because they will not be able to post freely.

Quote:

And not doing so would mean the death of b77 as it is represented in the Charter.

Sorry, but that's bs. B77 will continue to thrive. It will not have all of it's posts obliterated.


Anyway, I should probably let Ax take over the explanation...he's doing a better job of it.

Estel wrote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.)

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.)

Axordil wrote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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).

Cerin--

There are other forums with special rules and restrictions as well. The Jury Room has special access rules. More to the point, since it is a matter of specific member usage, going into the RP forum and posting Turf topics is not allowed, because that's not what the people in that forum want. The difference between that and ToE is primarily one of degree, not kind, and directly related to the relative sensativity of the two areas the forums cover.

Erunáme wrote:

As Estel said, the one person this is likely to happen to will know fully why. It wouldn't be a surprise.

It might be designed for this one person, but once it's in place it might eventually apply to others. I think the broader principles should guide you here, not the specific example you have in mind (unless you want to fashion the amendment to apply to this one person, as the Florida legislature did when they passed that law pertaining to the Schiavo case).

Quote:

No we want ToE to have a fair chance to survive.

And to give it that chance, you need to exempt it from one of the governing principles. That says so clearly to me that it is out of place on an open b77 (but no doubt that is because I am uninvolved emotionally).

Quote:

You know what is a good analogy for this: a sex offender. Do those people get to live freely without any hinderances in society? No. Do they have restrictions placed on them? Yes. We live in a democracy, but some people's freedoms are restricted because they have proven that they cannot be trusted because they have done things to hurt others.

That is not a good analogy, unless your amendment refers to convicted sex offenders, and not to suppositions as to who would make ToE posters uncomfortable. Perhaps you should fashion your amendment to apply to this one person who has proven to people that he is not to be trusted? That would be more in keeping with your analogy.

Alternatively, you could fashion your amendment with this stringency in mind, and require proof that the person has in fact violated trust in the past.

Quote:

Some see letting in a person who cannot be trusted as a violation of the other posters' rights because they will not be able to post freely.

But it isn't a question of someone who it is proven cannot be trusted (based on what's been said). It is a question of people's feelings of who they are comfortable with (a huge difference).

Quote:

Sorry, but that's bs. B77 will continue to thrive. It will not have all of it's posts obliterated.

I said, 'as it is represented in the Charter.' It will be the death of that representation, I'm not suggesting it will be the practical death of the board, or that posts will be obliterated. It will be the death of that particular ideal.

Axordil wrote:

The Jury Room has special access rules.

Only so far as between members and non-members? As I understand it, the Charter exists for the benefit of the membership, not for non-members.

Quote:

since it is a matter of specific member usage, going into the RP forum and posting Turf topics is not allowed, because that's not what the people in that forum want. The difference between that and ToE is primarily one of degree, not kind, and directly related to the relative sensativity of the two areas the forums cover.

I don't see this as the same thing at all. That is a matter of how everyone is expected to post in certain forums, this is a question of who will be allowed to post in the forum, based on the personal decisions of other members.


Thanks again to everyone for sharing your thoughts. I'll leave this until it is brought before the membership.

Quote:

Seems a shame to put the charter over and above the posters.

Estel, I don't see it that way. Rather I see this as a perfect example of the Charter working for the posters. Allowing the flexibility to amend the Charter to accommodate the needs of the membership is one of the most important aspects of the Charter. I appreciate Cerin sharing her thoughts, because I think it helps focus the issues.

I'm in complete agreement with Cerin, but I too shall await the appropriate voting period.

(Just wanted to show a wee bit of support ... )

Don't worry fisssh - the number of posters who believe what you and Cerin do far outnumber those that don't.

We just have to try, that's all. I don't personally want to delete all my posts in that forum, so I have to try and figure out a way that I don't have to. Others feel the same.

If this passes, then I will be in heaven. If it doesn't, then, I admit I will be extremely disappointed - I would be devastated to have to leave a forum I created (and I will have to - it isn't a choice for me). But that's life, and that's this board.

To be very honest, and probably very unhelpful...

I think Cerin's absolutely right to a certain extent. It is creating two classes of posters. It is giving older members a power that newer ones do not have (until and unless newer people are allowed into ToE, in which case they will have the same power as the older ones). It is saying that equality is not an absolute value and it is requesting that ToE be exempt from a so-called governing principle of b77. It's something that is impossible to preserve on a completely open board.

Are we comfortable with the above?

I am. This is not a matter of real-life constitutional rights. Placing abstract ideals of democracy above the needs of posters makes no sense.

On a few occasions now, in ToE, I've tried to articulate how I feel about topics that, to me, are immensely personal. In each case, I've done so with a great deal of trepidation, but slowly started to relax because of a growing level of comfort with that forum the way it is. It's an incredible thing - being able to discuss these topics that you simply cannot discuss in a coffee shop or at dinner with friends in person - and being able to run your thoughts by others. I don't want that to change.

I do feel, however, that ToE should leave b77. Let's put it very simply and stop beating around the bush - people are uncomfortable with Snowdog being allowed into ToE. We all know who we're talking about (as he surely must as well); this "a certain poster" business is unnecessary. People are strangely reluctant to name him, but I'll take the fall if necessary, since I was the one to do it the first time.

Thus, without all this fancy talk of votes, committees, veto votes, special powers, and other such abstractions, let's just say what we've been discussing for weeks:

Is there a way to exclude Snowdog from TOE without compromising the integrity of the entire board?

It's the ultimate test case. We set up this grand democratic system in which everyone was supposedly welcome - and the one person who perhaps wasn't quite as welcome ("All posters are welcome, but some are more welcome than others") shows up. Not just that, but shows up and talks pointedly about his interest in our experiment in democracy. It goes without saying he will request access to ToE once he is eligible under our current Charter in mid-October.

What, if anything, do we want to do about that?

Perhaps the answer is "nothing" - perhaps the people who have no actual interest in ToE but have a lot of opinions about allowing everyone in - will be in the majority. If so, ToE will be a gutted, useless forum. We value poster autonomy highly enough that there will be nothing in place to stop some of the most active members in that forum (such as Estel) from removing all their posts. None of us seem to subscribe to Idylle's ideology of words once-posted belonging to a messageboard.

So, it comes down to it - do we violate our principles of openness and equality, or do we indirectly gut the forum?

I've never bought into any principle of Internet equality (I think it's Fixer who said that if a messageboard doesn't work for you, or they won't accept you, or you just don't fit in, just move on - whoever said it, I agree). And in real life, I'm an ACLU type who champions private groups' right to exclude. So my vote is very much with the first - or with moving ToE off b77 so that it can continue to exclude.

Exclusion is not always a dirty word, and inclusion is not always the right answer. And our democracy itself (speaking as an American) recognizes that.

tolkienpurist wrote:

Is there a way to exclude Snowdog from TOE without compromising the integrity of the entire board?

If that is really the question and the concerns really aren't broader than that, then that is the question that should be looked at, and those are the specifics the solution should be fashioned to address.

Suppose the admendment proposed that a person could be refused admission to ToE based on anecdotal testimony in that forum from one participating (and thus trusted) member, that such person had to their first-hand knowledge violated trust in the use of this type of private information in the past. This would make the rejection a function of the rejected person's past actions elsewhere, not a function of current members' suppositions and anticipated comfort level. Given the mentions of ToE in (I believe) the enforceable rights section of the Charter, that seems more in keeping with our principles. Some wording could be added somewhere, to explain that the nature of this particular forum allows for past conduct to be taken into account when determining a member's right to participate.

Snowdog could then be notified when he applies for ToE, by the person(s) who had objected to his inclusion, explaining why they objected to his inclusion.

Quote:

Some wording could be added somewhere, to explain that the nature of this particular forum allows for past conduct to be taken into account when determining a member's right to participate.

We should probably get the proposed text out for comment sooner rather than later...and get our comittee spots filled...so we can actually make start the discussion thread.

Estel: Why attempt to deny them the right to make an amendment? That is also something in the charter.

This is quite correct. The purpose of this thread is to form the committee for drafting the ballot, not to debate whether certain options on the ballot should be voted up or down.

However, Cerin has raised good points about the relationship between the public face of B77 and the private nature of the ToE forum, and I would like Cerin to be on the Committee so that the ballot will include options that encompass the issues she has raised.

Similarly, if others have perspectives on this issue that they want to see expressed on the ballot, I would urge them to join the committee as well.

It is very important, imo, that this ballot does offer voting options that reflect more than one perspective on the issue.

Jn

I am willing to be on the committee if no one objects.

My feelings will not be hurt if someone objects, and I wouldn't hold it against anyone.

Well, at the risk of quoting the Charter once again, if you volunteer they have to take you, Cerin. Same for Estel and the others who have added to their statement, 'if the other ToE members don't mind.'

We made of point of saying that volunteers should be taken in order so that the outcome would not be predetermined by the choice of committee members. The objective is to get a balanced spectrum of views and self-interests.

Jn

Suppose I say I'm available, and if no one objects, I volunteer?



(I just wouldn't want any ToE members uncomfortable with me being on the committee. This is all about their feelings, after all.)

Cerin wrote:

I just wouldn't want any ToE members uncomfortable with me being on the committee. This is all about their feelings, after all.

Yes...and no. Of course it is about feelings - all our interactions on this board are predicated on everyone FEELING comfortable (and safe, I supposed) to do so.

So not just the feelings and convictions of ToE members; also the feelings and convictions of non-ToE posters.

Cerin, I think not a person on this board would consider you unsuitable to serve. Clean logic is always a good thing to balance out those of us who operate on clean emotion.

Well said, Imp.

Jn

Yes, very.