board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Access to ToE Member Discussion Thread

Locked   Page 5 of 20  [ 393 posts ]
Jump to page « 13 4 5 6 720 »
Author Message
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 8:57 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
But not the Judean People's Front.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 9:49 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Cerin wrote:
I also found it very interesting that some of the people who championed the importance of following the rules when they didn't care about the feelings of the people involved and publicly beat their breast at the prospect of those inviolable rules being breached and thus the lofty ideals of the board be sullied, now wax so indignant and self-righteous at the slightest suggestion that the rules should be even minimally respected when the feelings of the people they care about are involved.
Cerin, I would like to know who the people you are accusing of doing this are. From what I can understand of your posts in the Jury Room, you are very much for being forthright and honest and telling people exactly what problem you have with them, so I'm hoping this isn't a problem for me to ask this of you. I went back and read some of the thread and did find where Voronwe discussed the possibility of a veto and I found Alatar, Nin, and yovargas were against it. Now I think Nin and yovargas still aren't comfortable with vetos. Not sure about Alatar. Estel didn't weigh in vetos, I wasn't able to find anything from Steve either, I'm quite sure I didn't, I don't think Ax was against them (not sure though)...it just seems like you're accusing people of doing something they didn't do. I just want to understand what you meant.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 10:06 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Eru, I was referring on the one hand to the various discussions currently going on all over the board regarding the ToE issues of veto and age restrictions, and on the other hand to the various discussions that arose surrounding the question of the wilko thread being brought up for a revote.

Those threads are there for the reading if anyone wants to test the veracity of my representation.


Top
Profile
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 10:21 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Erunáme wrote:
I went back and read some of the thread and did find where Voronwe discussed the possibility of a veto and I found Alatar, Nin, and yovargas were against it. Now I think Nin and yovargas still aren't comfortable with vetos. Not sure about Alatar. Estel didn't weigh in vetos, I wasn't able to find anything from Steve either, I'm quite sure I didn't, I don't think Ax was against them (not sure though)...it just seems like you're accusing people of doing something they didn't do. I just want to understand what you meant.
Thanks for digging that information up, Eru. :) I hope when your term as Mayor is over you consider volunteering to be a loremaster, as I think you are good at looking up information and dealing with facts.

My memory, faulty though it may be, is that at some point fairly early in the process Estel spoke up in favor of further protections for ToE, though I don't think that she was heavily involved in the early discussions. Her later raising of the issue was nothing more then an extension of her previous position.

I'm pretty sure that Lidless did not participate in the early discussions one way or the other.


Top
Profile
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 10:26 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Cerin, I see what you're getting at now. Thank you for explaining. Good to know you shouldn't be referring to me. :D :P

Anyway, for someone who is advocating complete openness and wants any who veto to tell the person precisely why they are vetoing, I do find it interesting you won't be more clear about your objections or who you're objecting to. Maybe it's hard to be that direct and honest when asked to do so?

I'm just trying to illustrate what you're asking others to do...to have an understanding of what it would feel like...and to do what you ask.

edit: I'm not trying to get you to continue this and actually name who you're talking about. I just think this was an interesting situation: in another thread you are demanding complete openness but it seems you wouldn't do that yourself here. I think that could have some bearing to the discussion in the jury room. Sorry if I'm not being clear at all. :scratch: I'm really haven't worded this in a way I like, but I don't know how to fix it. :roll:
V wrote:
I think you are good at looking up information and dealing with facts.
Errr....I am? :Q :confused: Thanks, but I wouldn't feel confident enough. I'm not even sure I'm confident enough for the mayor's job. :neutral:

Yes, I believe that's what happened with Estel. :)

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 11:44 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Where the membership is concerned, any question regarding the vote should be fair ground to cover.

It is possible that the veto option was discussed during the drafting of Article 6 but it did not appear on the ballot. So there is no question whether the veto option is a revote. It is not. I think this is what Eru is referring to in her posts on the previous page and I agree with her. That's also the position Ax and Voronwe have taken in the committee and I agree with them, too.

I think Cerin is raising her voice about something a bit different right now, and I was quite as annoyed as she was when I read some of the posts on the last page. It is not necessary to shoot from the hip at Truehobbit every time she shows up. She is a truthful and reliable member of our community and she took on a deadly difficult and unpopular job by leading the wilko-thread discussion. She did not scoff at the comments of anyone during that discussion. And she does not receive the credit she deserves around here, imo.

But this has nothing to do with the decisions the current committee has to make. It was right to honor the Charter in the wilko-thread decision and it is right to honor it now. It pleased me very much to see the members of the committee (Prim first and then Cerin with her excellent exegises) going back to the charter to find the appropriate parallels and precedents for what needs to be done here. I was delighted to see that the charter was indeed usable in this way. As long and convoluted as the committee work was, we did seem to come up with a (largely) self-consistent document and one that is not too difficult to navigate.

Cerin's posts (as of last night) in the Jury Room also convinced me that there are multiple statements within the charter to which current decisions need to be reconciled. I support the idea of fashioning the ToE objections after the Ranger objections as I agree with Cerin that this will prove to be the safest way to protect the interests of everyone - both those who are already in the ToE and those who would like to enter - given that we are all equal members.

Jn

ETA:

Voronwe, back on page 3 your said: would it be fair to make this exception for the two that already have permissions for ToE and not other under 18 year olds that are not as close to their 18th birthday?

I think the substantive difference here is that two of those posters were already members of the ToE at the time when the new rule was past. So this modification would be a way of 'grandfathering' them, justifiable on that basis (presumably). The same would not hold true for the 16 year olds who have never been a ToE member, or any other underage person who was not a member at the time Article 6 was ratified.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 11:56 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
It needs rewording, but how about something along these lines:

In recognition of the special level of trust, sensitivity and comfort required in the Thinking Of England forum as already witnessed by the 3 month / 100 posts rule within the Eligibility Requirements for that forum, we propose the following amendment:

Any current member of the ToE, at any time before a prospective member meets the Eligibility Requirements, may state their objection to the member joining. This will be done in a thread within ToE.

If there are not two supporters, the thread will be deleted and the proposed member be allowed in as per normal. If there are at least two other members that also support the objection, the following will happen:

1 At the time when the prospective member would otherwise meet the Eligibilty Requirements, the original objection thread will be locked and a new thread will start up in the Bike Racks, to which the prospective member will be invited to join.

2 Only current ToE members and the prospective member will be allowed to engage in the debate in that thread. The original objector and the first two supporters of the objection MUST engage in the debate, otherwise the objection is null and void.

3 Debate will be allowed for one week, after which the Bike Rack thread will be locked and there will be a vote within ToE, lasting a week. During both of these weeks, the matter will not be allowed to be discussed within ToE, but will be public in the Bike Racks.

[Quorum / % required to be decided.]

4 If the proposed member is turned down, they will be refused permissions from ToE for one year, after which time they may reapply and the process restarted from the beginning.

At any time the prospective member is allowed into ToE, the original objection thread will be deleted.



The advantages of this set up are as follows:

1: The objectors have to put their money where their mouth is - they have to engage in public debate with the proposed member. This will cut down on any frivolous objections and make it a very serious matter not entered into lightly, which stopping someone joining part of B77 is. There will be no announcements about who is coming up for eligibility - if someone has that strong an objection, it is encumbent upon them to monitor such things, not be spoon-fed information.

2: Since it requires support, the original objection in ToE, if it cannot find enough support, will not even be seen by the prospective member, as it will be deleted before the member joins.

3: With the debate in the Bike Racks, the prospective member will be allowed to state their case.

4: Although people will naturally debate the issue before the Bike Rack thread, a necessity, from when the Bike Rack thread is opened to the end of the vote, all discussion will be public and not behind the prospective poster's back. Transparancy, accountability and equally importantly, representation by both sides. Of course, one cannot monitor PMs, but this is the best we can do.

4: The actual vote has to take place in ToE so as to ensure only ToE members vote. You could have it that votes are sent to the Mayor, but that would mean the Mayor having to keep tally, making sure everyone only voted once, and that all votes come from ToE members. No point really, since a vote in ToE will do all of those things automatically.

5: The prospective member may still gain admittance after a year (or two, or three) - this recognizes the changing membership of active members. If someone decides to leave the board, or not participate anymore in ToE and are worried about what they've written in there, it's up to them to delete it.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
tolkienpurist
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 12:15 am
Unlabeled
Offline
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Location: San Francisco
 
I'm open to grandfathering, but are Leafy and satch actually interested? Leafy at least has stated that she may not want to return to ToE regardless of age. If they want it, then I think we should discuss it, but if they would not even accept it, I'm not sure how much time we should waste on it.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 1:12 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Erunáme wrote:
Anyway, for someone who is advocating complete openness and wants any who veto to tell the person precisely why they are vetoing, I do find it interesting you won't be more clear about your objections or who you're objecting to. Maybe it's hard to be that direct and honest when asked to do so?

I don't have a problem being honest and direct.

I was observing that during the discussion of the wilko revote, some people elevated their concerns for our rules and guiding principles above their concern for people's feelings; I was further observing that some of those same people are now elevating their concern for people's feelings above their concern for our rules and guiding principles. There is nothing wrong with that. What I object to is people making moral judgments ("SHAME ON YOU!") about others because they hold a different point of view than themselves. The person I had in mind was Lidless. It was well and good to put rules above people's feelings when it was Lidless who was doing it, but now it is worthy of condemnation when other people are doing it.

Quote:
edit: I'm not trying to get you to continue this and actually name who you're talking about. I just think this was an interesting situation
Well, that's the only recourse your challenge gave me. I don't think it was appropriate to do, and I wouldn't have done it had you not pressed the point. I made the comment out of annoyance at the unwarranted response to truehobbit's perfectly reasonable and civil post. I named Lidless only because there was an implied accusation of hypocrisy in your challenge, and I could not let that stand.

Edited to add quotes for clarity.

Last edited by Cerin on Fri 16 Sep , 2005 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 1:17 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Were Leafy and Satch the only two underage posters who were members when Article 6 was ratified? (If not, speak now or forever hold your peace.)

If they are, I will be glad to PM them and ask their opinion about being 'grandfathered.'

Regarding Lidless' post above and the discussion happening now in the Jury Room ... I don't have time to think hard about all the proposals being made, but would like to make a couple of comments regarding principle and/or completeness:

1. For those of us who do not have access to the ToE, it would be helpful if Estel's proposal would be posted ASAP in the Jury Room. That's the proposal that resulted from discussion within the ToE, is it not? It's hard to follow debate about items on that proposal without having the proposal itself to read.

2. Lidless, at first glance I have no principle objections to what you posted above except for one: I don't think any of this process should kick in until someone has actually requested entry to the ToE. It does not make sense (in my mind) for the ToE to have to discuss everyone who becomes eligible without knowing whether they even intend to join.

3. Cerin, regarding your proposal in the Jury Room, I like very much the idea of paralleling ToE objections with member objections to new Rangers but the groups performing each function do not have to be the same because the interested subsection of the membership is not the same.

It is Rangers who review objections to new Rangers, so it makes sense to me to have ToE members review objections to new ToE members. (I think Voronwe said this too, so I'm just adding that I agree with him.)

What we do with new Rangers is post their names as 'incoming' in Michel Delving, and all members are expected to review that post. It is the members' responsibility to check who's incoming and raise objections in timely fashion if they wish. Where new Rangers are concerned, the list stands for 10 days and I would suggest that it be the same for incoming ToE's. Their names could be on a list in the ToE forum for 10 days before they were actually admitted, and it would be the responsibility of ToE members to review the list and raise objections if necessary.

Regarding the nature of the objections themselves, I regret that I have reached no conclusion yet about a fair and equitable way to do this but I am thinking about it.

There is the possibility of having a three-option vote on every single incoming member: veto - delay for x months - accept. But I agree with Estel that the members at large are likely to view this as a re-introduction of 'invite threads' and might reject it out of hand for that reason. The counter-argument is that the ToE is by implication a closed, invitation-only forum, and I don't know what face we can put on it to make it look different. It might just be better to design it transparently for what it is and vote on every single person. I don't know. Still thinking.

The other possibility is for members to convey their objections privately to an officially neutral but not necessarily disinterested party. For example, perhaps the ToE needs to have its own standing committee that handles all issues concerning new members. Ideally, those who serve on the committee would rotate, and you would have then to set up standards by which the committee determined whether a new member was accepted or not, e.g. the number and nature of the objections required to keep them out. In such a set-up, I do agree with Cerin that where an entrant is asked to repair deficiencies before entering, the entrant has to be told what those deficiencies are. In the case of Rangers though, the identity of those who lodge the objection is kept confidential, and I believe we can do the same with the ToE without violating the charter, at least. Whether it makes sense from a moral perspective to allow anonymous accusers is something I don't want to think about tonight, but there is at least a precedent for that within the charter.

Voronwe, you suggested that any veto option must apply to existing members as well. As the charter stands now, people can be permanently banned form the ToE.

Article 5: Dispute Resolution in the Outside Forum
¶9 Offenses that Merit a Penalty
-- Offenses for which the maximum penalty is permanent suspension of access to a particular forum

• In the Thinking of England Forum, posting in a manner that ridicules, demeans or threatens other posters

I think (not sure yet, still thinking) that it makes sense to leave the removal of existing members to a jury to decide, because the current members of the ToE have already let that person in. If it turns out their judgment was bad, it feels to me that a 'higher jurisdiction,' so to speak, should be required to correct the situation.

By extension, though, it also makes sense to me that if a higher jurisdiction is required to correct the situation, then there must have been some discretion given to the forum itself for choosing its members in the first place. So ... I'm just trying to say that I think the forum should have the option of keeping someone out before they even enter, which is sort of the equivalent of an "immediate ban" under our charter, a power that is given to the lesser jurisdiction of our Rangers until the person has been here seven days, after which the higher jurisdiction is required. This corresponds in my mind to having a 10-day waiting period in the ToE, during which time objections can be raised, and after which the person is considered 'accepted' and cannot be removed except by the higher jurisdiction.

(I probably could have said that in 50 fewer words.)

Anyway ... Off-topic:

Voronwe, you also said the following in the Jury Room which made me laugh: as a veteran of an embarrassing number of these committees (all of them, actually :oops: )

We should bestow upon you a "Shoot the Moon Award" during the inauguration ceremony!

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 16 Sep , 2005 1:21 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Thanks for your thoughts, Jny. There's a lot of stuff to absorb there, but I am beginning to see some parallels with the Ranger process too...mostly because I had forgotten how many protections we put into the process there... :oops:

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 1:24 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
You're welcome, Ax. I love this new role where I get to express my opinion without shouldering any responsibility. :P

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 16 Sep , 2005 1:25 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Lidless:

Thanks! Part of me very much would like to see objections and discussion all take place in public, but I know there are folks in ToE who might be uncomfortable with it...it's definitely worth bringing up.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 1:47 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Jnyusa wrote:
It is Rangers who review objections to new Rangers, so it makes sense to me to have ToE members review objections to new ToE members. (I think Voronwe said this too, so I'm just adding that I agree with him.) It is Rangers who review objections to new Rangers, so it makes sense to me to have ToE members review objections to new ToE members. (I think Voronwe said this too, so I'm just adding that I agree with him.)
Jnyusa, I don't think it is the Rangers who review objections to Rangers because they are Rangers, too. I think the Rangers review the objections because we want those objections to remain relatively private. In other words, we don't open a thread in Business listing the potential Rangers, and then have people post their objections there. We have them email Administrator to spare the people embarrasment who have been objected to, and so they can work on their deficiencies without being mortified (at least, that is the way in which that procedure makes sense to me). ToE rejectees would be protected in the same way if objections were emailed to Administrator.

As far as my ToE proposal, the Rangers don't review the objections, they merely receive them and communicate the results back to ToE when the period is over. I don't think the ToA objections need be reviewed, it is the number in itself that would determine rejection (Axordil has elaborated on this in JR), and I especially don't think they should be known over the course of the objection period to members of ToE. The point is, each objection should be arrived at through an individual member's consideration (just like a Ranger objection), it should not be a product of a group dynamic where one person may have a legitimate objection and 20 others may jump on the bandwagon to support their friend. This could reduce the process to nothing more than an expression of cliquishness.

As far as your suggestion of it being handled within ToE, I object to that also because that would seem to go against our principle of transparency, and the notion that we want to avoid power being exercised behind closed doors. That would be a completely insular process, and that doesn't seem healthy to me.


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 1:52 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,

Interesting, but ultimately so incorrect.

The only concern I have on B77 are the posters on B77 - not posters on another site, not politicians, not the feelings of Britney Spears. Check with anyone.

May I remind you that I purposefully withdrew myself from debates on the Constitution because several posters thought, erroneously, that my view counted for more than anyone else's at the time, and that was the last thing I wanted? I remember Ethel stating that my view was equivalent to a law.

Christ, do you have any idea how difficult that was, not allowing oneself to be part of the process when it was of the utmost concern and touched my heart? To not be a part of the rearing of an infant I had a part in creating in my own small way? It was because I had the posters at heart that I had no choice but to withdraw to enhance the atmosphere of equal voices.

Thus the debate on the wilko thread - a debate about the feelings of two people from another site who had already read the thread - was for me a complete waste of time and energy and devisive considering a vote had already *very* recently, been taken. The Constitution was still in its infancy and the last thing B77 needed at the time was being sidetracked, again, into it. Someone needed to get their priorities in order. It did not have the interests of the B77 posters at heart at the time. It could, and I believe should, have been tackled later.

The ToE problem, which does concern B77 posters (both those in the ToE and those who will become eligible) is a pressing matter and is therefore of importance to me.

Therefore, I see no inconsistency.

We have never voted on a veto for ToE, so it isn't a revote. I find it strange that someone who vehemently pushed for a revote on Wilko is objecting so strongly to having a vote on something we have never voted on before. I call that inconsistent.

In the interests of moving this forward and actually getting action done, how about we drop this side issue, work together, and find a way of stopping Snowdog getting into ToE that is acceptable to both you and truehobbit - two posters that have not posted one bit of personal information about their sex lives there.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 2:08 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Lidless wrote:
In the interests of moving this forward and actually getting action done, how about we drop this side issue, work together, and find a way of stopping Snowdog getting into ToE that is acceptable to both you and truehobbit - two posters that have not posted one bit of personal information about their sex lives there.
Just a hint, Lidless. If you are truly interested in moving forward, it's probably better not to try to get a nasty little dig in there at the end of your 'let's work together' spiel.

If you think b77 members who don't post in ToE shouldn't have a voice in how it is handled, then get it off of b77 and make it truly private, which is what it really needs to be to keep everyone safe. As long as it is part of b77, then everyone who cares about b77 has to care about how the matter is handled.

The way of stopping Snowdog has to be acceptable to a majority of the membership, not to me and truehobbit. That is what I am working toward, getting something that will make quorum and pass. Tell me, what good will it do you if what comes out of committee satisfies all of your concerns and isn't ratified?


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 2:14 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, how is that a nasty dig? Where is the personal insult? A dig, yes, but a nasty one?

Especially after the stuff I had to read in your earlier post where I was instructed by you to feel ashamed.

I suggest you measure the level of insults between your earlier post and mine, and get back to me.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 2:33 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Lidless wrote:
Especially after the stuff I had to read in your earlier post where I was instructed by you to feel ashamed.

Oh my gosh. I was quoting you from another thread, Lidless. I wasn't saying 'Shame on you' to you! I was referring to that as the moral judgment you had made against others. (Edit: I see that I neglected to put in quotes, so the misunderstanding is my fault.)

As far as the dig being nasty, I think it was nasty because we all know it isn't about coming up with something that is acceptable to truehobbit and I, as if we see ourselves as the moral arbiters of the board, but to the majority of the membership that votes.

Now let's really drop it, shall we, and get to work.


Top
Profile
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 2:36 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin: Jnyusa, I don't think it is the Rangers who review objections to Rangers because they are Rangers, too. I think the Rangers review the objections because we want those objections to remain relatively private. ... ToE rejectees would be protected in the same way if objections were emailed to Administrator.

Yes ... well, I'm still thinking about this, as I said. The argument can be made that the ToE is also a private place to lodge objections, though obviously less private than the Mayor's sensitive info forum. It is more like the Invite Forum used to be.

On the other hand, the nature of the decision is different in this case. Rangers are able to evaluate a member objection to a new Ranger because there is no place that a Ranger exercises authority that they do not also post as members (except perhaps the ToE if they've opted out when they're not Rangering). In the ToE, I agree with the posters there that the evaluations should rely primarily upon their own input ....

Although you're only talking about the Mayor storing the objections before turning them over to the ToE members at the end of x days, right? So the actual standards for evaluation would still be coming from ToE members. However they would need, as I mentioned above, to set those standards in advance. It might be that even under your system, Cerin, we would still need some parallel ToE committee that would be responsible for implementing decisions and making sure the standards were adhered to.

It's more complicated than we first thought ... that is, the ToE members are probably going to have to take more ongoing responsibility for their own security and not rely upon some simple automatic mechanism.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 2:36 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
 
It *was* a shame such time and energy was not better directed at the time.

*We return you now to your regularly scheduled programming, as opposed to tired old reruns.*

Last edited by Lidless on Fri 16 Sep , 2005 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 5 of 20  [ 393 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 13 4 5 6 720 »
Jump to: