board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Tue 20 Feb , 2018 11:34 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 393 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 8:43 pm 
Takoyaki is love
User avatar

Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 2994
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Well the thing is if it is RL it must be pretty serious.
I will give an example in my case.
Truehobbit earlier in this thread I had mentioned a very unpleasant experience at a convention I attend. In fact there was at least one other complaint brought against him and now he at least getting a warning if not banned from the convention for one year.

First I will say I had met this guy before and I had said I wasn't interested. I had to change subway trains since he followed me from the group meetup we had left. I had to lie and say my stop was coming up. That was the first time.

So the second time knowing full well I wasn't interested and cutting me off from my friends, well that was a little disturbing. He seems to be the type that would not understand why a woman would not be interested in him.

Imagine if he gained access to ToE, and lets say there is a thread on your fantasy man or something. I am 100% positive he would read that and at the next meetup use that info to hit on someone. He is quite aggressive. I would even say his actions border on harrasment.

The whole point of this amendment is to prevent that sort of situation.

EDIT: if the accusations end up turning out to be false, then the person who made it up gets banned from this board permantly. I do not think anyone would be as stupid to make something up considering the conseqences.

_________________
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:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 10:14 pm 
WYSIWYG

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 3228
Location: wherever
Wilma, I agree this would be a serious objection! But my point was that such a case would need some kind of proper procedure - this is in no way casting any doubt on your word, but for equity's sake, I think the guy should be told about the case that's made against him and be given the opportunity to explain himself.
That's why I said in case of such an accusation there should be a hearing, rather than a lone Ranger's decision.

And as I said, I think a ban as a result of a spurious accusation is a good idea! (Although it couldn't be a permanent ban, because we don't have permanent bans here. ;) )
(Though - a completely different thought here - maybe it should first be proven that the false accusation was made maliciously, rather than by mistake? What if you brought forth your case against this guy, and it turns out he's someone else? How can we, on a messageboard, know for sure who we are dealing with? Again, a case for a proper hearing. :) )

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 10:15 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
TH--

There is no judgment as to validity beyond consideration of form: is it an objection to past behavior? That's it...we are simply not equipped to judge or investigate beyond that. Thus, having one Ranger process objections is enough...there really shouldn't be an occasion where one would be borderline.

Quote:
If there is such a serious case, there should be a more detailed process than just two statements and one Ranger judging the veracity of those!
A hearing is mentioned in the end - does it mean that in case of such an accusation a hearing is obligatory? I think it would be a good idea if it were!


No hearings are associated with the initial RL case. Again, we are not a judicial system, nor are we detectives. And again, there is no judgment of veracity: the accusation is taken at face value, with the knowledge, as Wilma points out, that if it is later demonstrated to be false, it's a one-way ticket outta here.

That is the only point at which a hearing would kick in: when someone accused of such a thing denies it and asks for a hearing to prove it. Until then, as with the only similar process we have (objecting to a prospective Ranger), it's a matter of honor.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 10:17 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
TH--
Cross posted with you...I agree that if it turns out to be mistaken identity...and it's not like we take fingerprints or DNA samples...that the lifetime ban should probably not be invoked. We can change the language to reflect that.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 10:23 pm 
WYSIWYG

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 3228
Location: wherever
Quote:
And again, there is no judgment of veracity: the accusation is taken at face value, with the knowledge, as Wilma points out, that if it is later demonstrated to be false, it's a one-way ticket outta here.

So, how would this "later demonstration" take place?
Especially if things are conducted between a couple of posters and one Ranger?

I suppose the answer is that the person accused could call for a hearing - which is better than nothing, but isn't it also placing the burden of proving their innocence on the accused, rather than asking the accuser to prove the guilt, as it's done in any modern court of law?

I know we are no detectives here, nor can we provide a proper judicial system. But I think our charter comes very close to one, and I think we should strive to provide a just system, even by modern legal standards!

ETA: there are no lifetime bans on this board, Ax! :)

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 10:31 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Quote:
I suppose the answer is that the person accused could call for a hearing - which is better than nothing, but isn't it also placing the burden of proving their innocence on the accused, rather than asking the accuser to prove the guilt, as it's done in any modern court of law?


Actually, not every judicial system assumes innocence until guilt is proven. And even in those that do, generally those accused, if the accusation is serious, don't get to wander around freely. Society won't lock them away for good just yet, but it isn't going to take any chances either.

Here's what I suspect would happen if a false accusation were made: the Ranger would transmit a redacted version of the objection to the petitioner. The petitioner would, at that point, have the right to ask for a hearing by definition, on the grounds that they believe they have been personally attacked and defamed by whoever it is that accused them.

At that point I see no alternative but for the standard Jury Room procedure to kick in, which means that we cannot promise someone who makes an accusation of RL wrong doing anonymity...but remember, this is a FALSE accusation we're talking about.

In the case of a TRUE accusation, the petitioner would be pretty stupid to ask for such a hearing, since it probably get THEM booted off the board for a while after they could not prove their case.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 10:48 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Hi, truehobbit. :)

Quote:
Seeing that I'm absolutely opposed to punishing anyone before the crime has been committed

In the announcement thread texts of either model, the standards for objecting refer to behavior already evidenced, more specifically in the first model and more obliquely in the second. At least, that was our intent. In other words, objections are to be based on behavior already observed outside of ToE, that it can be assumed would be problematic if happening inside of ToE.


Quote:
That said, I think the first option is slightly preferable, as it is more in keeping with the transparency ideals of this board.

My feeling has been that since the process can't be open for both ToE and the person being considered, then private objections are more just. In other words, since the person being considered won't be able to answer to objections made to their gaining access, then it is more fair that those objections be made privately (as is done when a member objects to someone becoming a Ranger). However, I can also see why a process that is more open, in however limited a way, would be favored by others.


Quote:
The first, I suppose, would allow for a discussion to go on in ToE?

It was decided against allowing discussion. For one thing, the person being discussed wouldn't be there to defend themselves, and that is a very distasteful dynamic for some. Second, it was felt that allowing discussion would give rumor and personal dislike a greater chance of influencing the outcome, and would allow for a greater 'bandwagon' effect with people voting to object in support of friends rather than for reasons of their own or in support of valid reasons.


Quote:
Still, I would wish for some provisions to enable the petitioner to defend him-/herself (if they are still interested in that after hearing about their possible rejection), especially in case the second option is chosen - and he or she should definitely know his or her accusers!

This idea was represented in the Bike Racks proposal that Lidless offered early on, but that wasn't incorporated into the ballot because there was no support expressed for such a confrontational procedure. It is felt by some that people simply will not make their objections known if the petitioner is going to know who did the objecting. But personally I agree with you, if a person is willing to accuse, then they should be willing for the accused to know it.


Quote:
Also: is the decision up to a single Ranger? I think the decision on the validity of the objections (again, especially in case of the second option) should be made by at least a majority of Rangers.

In the case of the first proposal, there is no screening of objections done by the Rangers. Everything sent in to any Ranger will be summarized and posted in the thread, and it will be left to the ToE members to decide the validity of the objections (although the announcement thread text provides a guideline).

In the case of the second proposal, there is only to be a review for form, that is, to verify that the objection does in fact refer to some awareness of questionable conduct by the petitioner. Beyond that, objections will not be evaluated for legitimacy. We did discuss this at some length, and we felt that the broadness and seriousness of the standard in this case (have reason to believe the petitioner poses a danger to the community) will in itself render obvious any objections that fall outside the guidelines.


Quote:
If there is such a serious case, there should be a more detailed process than just two statements and one Ranger judging the veracity of those!

On principle I would agree, but in wrangling out the reasons for having this provision (which are unfortunately embedded in the long discussions here and in JR), it was felt that to be of any use at all it has to be kept simple (there was concern about the possible reticence of a member to disclose an embarrassing or traumatic personal experience). I believe we had in mind that Rangers would be collectively reviewing such objections, though it would be to one to take the action. As Ax pointed out in discussion, we're not talking here about incarceration, but just about a restriction of posting rights.


Quote:
A hearing is mentioned in the end - does it mean that in case of such an accusation a hearing is obligatory? I think it would be a good idea if it were!

A hearing would be at the request of the accused.

Thanks for your comments!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 5:31 pm 
Takoyaki is love
User avatar

Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 2994
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Uh I do not think anyone would make that sort of accusation unless they were 100% sure thay were that person they had met. I think somewhere it says that in this case it is an RL incident that has to happen.

Also, I did not know the person gets to find out what the accusation is or who made it. Especially if there are details they could figure out who is m,aking the claim :( In my case, that would mean I could never go to a Toronto convention meetup ever again. :( I already had decided never to go that literary sciFi club where I had first met him. :( They could just make up excuses for their behaviour or say I misunderstood and say they will behave. :(

_________________
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:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 6:08 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Wilma, I also remain confused as to how it could be a matter of mistaken identity.


Quote:
Also, I did not know the person gets to find out what the accusation is or who made it.

They will find out what the accusation is to the extent that the Ranger summarizes it, making every effort to protect the identity of the accuser.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:09 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Wilma--
Quote:
Also, I did not know the person gets to find out what the accusation is or who made it.


The redacted version, sans names, and generalized as much as possible, is all that shows. But let's not pretend that if there is a RL incident involved, the petitioner won't be able to figure out who is objecting...even if NO reason at all is given. But that's not the issue that would lead to the accuser getting fingered.

Here's the scenario: person A petitions. ToE poster B says, that bitch ran out on a check at a restaurant at GOTF and can't be trusted. B's friend C agrees that A did so.

A gets a notice saying that she's felt to be untrustworthy.

A, not feeling at ALL untrustworthy, and having no memory of such incident, says "someone in ToE is defaming me, and making false accusations. I want a hearing to settle this." Now, it doesn't matter if the incident actually happened at this point...someone has made a statement that if false, is defamatory towards another poster, and has done so in a way to harm them, since everyone in ToE will KNOW they got bounced.

The Bike Racks model then kicks in, hearings and all.

What we are counting on is that someone who is HONESTLY accused of a RL infraction will remember it, and be too embarassed to push things further. If they don't remember it, or if they have no capacity for shame, then things get ugly--but I would think that calling for a hearing in such a situation when one is actually guilty of the accusation would be punishable in and of itself. We would probably need to remind EVERYONE involved of what the stakes are if this clause is ever used, because it is NOT pretty, no matter what happens.

Cerin/Wilma--

I think mistaken identity is very possible. Screen names are not necessarily what people go by in RL, and some are fairly common. If someone who calls themselves "Aragorn" won't keep his hands off of a ToE poster at a GOTF or such, and then someone who uses the screen name "Aragorn" or even "Elessar" or "Strider" signs up here and asks for ToE access, I can see the ToE poster freaking out...especially if they demonstrate they were at the Gathering.

The chances are probably small, but I would say far from zero. We don't have ID badges here.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:53 pm 
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Posts: 7291
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Posting in support of Voronwë, and reluctant opposition to Ax, in the Jury Room thread.

I think we chose an indefinite ban as the maximum penalty on b77 for good and considered reasons, and I think many possible infractions elsewhere on the board are just as bad or worse than abusing the ToE access rules by falsely accusing someone.

An indefinite ban is "indefinite" because it does not have an expiration date. The banned person can appeal, but there is then a hearing. Someone who's committed an atrocity is going to have their ban continued, no question about it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:57 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
And force people to deal with the ugliness again, if the person we're dealing with is that pathological.

But I'll tell you what: make the duration of the ban assigned after rejection of reversal 99 years, and I'll drop the word permanent.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04 Oct , 2005 3:51 pm 
Waiting for winter
User avatar

Joined: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 1:46 am
Posts: 2380
Location: Jr. High
The discussion of this issue has moved to the new ratification thread.

Please look here:

MEMBER RATIFICATION DISCUSSION ToE Access Amendment

Thank you

Ranger Bob.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 393 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group