I have just read through, and I thought of several cases in which someone might want to ask for a veto on a potential poster in ToE - and yet not be willing to share his reasons with the public.
In my proposal, the reason isn't shared publicly. There is an explanation sent by email to the Administrator account.
Cerin, I was the one who requested most vocally "the not to debate persons in public" part of all ToE proposals. My memories of the invite threads are akward and painful, and I remember learning some information about persons I would have preferred not to know.
This sentiment is one of the main ones driving my proposal! I find the idea odious, of publicly discussing someone who is not allowed to be part of the discussion. My proposal protects applicants to ToE from being publicly discussed, and even forbids private discussion of applicants (though this is unenforceable) during the consideration period.
I also think that sometimes for the person against whom the veto has been asked, it might be more elegant, more discrete, sometimes even more mercyful not to see his private life and behaviour discussed in public, even if this would give him/her the chance to defend him/herself.
Absolutely. I would ask that you consider the elegance, the discretion and the mercy of what I have proposed. Each ToE member is individually required to assess the applicant in their own conscience, each individual ToE member would privately communicate their objection to Administrator. I believe this is the most merciful of the proposals.
The actively posting Ex has talked quite frankly about her new situation in ToE and does not want his/her applying Ex to know this. He/ she also remembers some preferences of her ex which were among the reasons that made him/her leave this relationship. Now, he/she has never made this public - because he/she did not want to ruin his/exes reputations and friendships of non-sexual nature. Do you really think it is fair to expect from this person to debate in public her present and past situation and details of her relationship?
First, according to my proposal, this person does not have to debate in public her present and past situation and details of her relationship. All she has to to is send an email to administrator saying, 'I object to applicant X because I used to be intimate with him and I'm uncomfortable for him to see what I've said on ToE' (or whatever she wants to say). There is no one to review her objection for merit, it stands as an objection to be counted and that is all anyone ever need know about it. If there are a certain number of other objections independently received (the number hasn't been settled), that person will be denied access. If there are not that number of other objections independently received, that person will gain access to ToE and the former girlfriend will have to decide how she wants to deal with that, perhaps by deleting some posts. This balances the rights of the applicant against the rights of the ToE member.
Your example, though, touches on the heart of my objection to any veto for ToE, and why I may have to ultimately vote against any amendment this committee puts out. It creates two classes of poster here, where one is members of ToE (who became such by virtue of the fact that we were a closed board so a certain atmosphere of trust was able to flourish in that forum) and the others are all the members who will join after the opening of the board. That second group will be a permanent underclass, because their rights and needs are to be perpetually put below the rights and needs of pre-opening ToE members. In the example you gave, simply by virtue of the fact that she was a member when we were closed, the woman's feelings and right to post frankly about her sexual concerns is put above the new member's need, desire and right to do so.
Now at least in my proposal, with objections being made independently and privately, I think there is more of a balance between the interests of the current ToE member and the interests of the applicant, whereas with the other proposals where objections are made on a thread in ToE, you would have the bandwagon effect of people supporting the objection because the woman is their friend.
A poster applies for ToE. The person is known to be a highly religious person, and several other persons fear that this new poster will introduce an element of judgement in ToE which has been so far carefully avoided. But then again, do you expect a poster standing up in a public thread saying: I don't want someone tell me I'll go to hell for a threesome (so that the whole board knows about it....)
Another excellent example. I don't believe a person should be excluded from ToE because of their religious views. What a prime example of discrimination and prejudice, what a clear example of a violation of our underlying principles! Yet in the name of sensitivity to people who joined ToE before we were opened, we are perfectly willing to sanction this kind of discrimination.
That's why I thought there should be some kind of guiding language in the amendment, such as I originally proposed, i.e., a person known to have broken trust in the use of personal information, or as Ax proposed, some mention of a pattern of harrassing conduct, or both. This notion that ToE members should have the right to object to someone because of their religious views, it is just detestable to me. It isn't right on a supposedly open board that supposedly treats all members equally and with equal respect. It is respecting the feelings of one person above the rights of another. I think I will work on composing some additional text that sets some kind of standard for objections, because I think this is just horrible.
But let me say that at least according to my proposal, the person objecting to an applicant because of a fear of judgmentalism due to their religious views would privately email that concern to Administrator. If nine other (if we settled on the number of 10 objections to deny access) ToE members independently objected to this person, it seems more likely that their objections aren't based on prejudice against the person because of their religious beliefs, but on some other indication that their conduct would be objectionable. This is the value of objections being made privately. If there is really a problem with a poster, it is likely to show up in the number of independent objections (as opposed to being the result of a bandwagon kind of vote on the forum).
I understand your argument, only I don't see how it can be done.
Nin, I don't think you understand my argument. I am arguing that applicants to ToE
not be discussed publicly. I am arguing that objections to applicants gaining access to ToE
not be made publicly. The answer, though, isn't that people shouldn't have to explain their objection to an applicant -- that would be like being arrested and sent to prison without knowing the charges brought against you. That is flat out wrong. There is nothing about that that is even remotely justifiable. The answer is to collect the objections privately. They needn't be detailed, they just have to cite a reason why a person isn't comfortable with someone becoming a member of ToE. And their religion isn't a legitimate reason, IMO.
So, my opinion still goes for not debating reasons of a veto in any thread on the board.
I agree.
Those persons who wish to have more information could post in the thread a request for a PM with an explanation for the reason, and the originator and supporter of the veto answer this request.
That is the worst possible scenario in my view. No reasons given on the forum, but gossip flourishing behind the scenes. Surely that isn't where we want to go.
I have no doubt that if Cerin is outvoted on this issue she will still stand firmly behind the proposal put to the members. That's the nature of democracy.
Actually, Alatar, I think the nature of democracy is that I will vote my conscience on the amendment ratification just like every other member. Certainly as a committee member I will accept whatever amendment we end up with as a legitimately derived, but putting the amendment forward is not the end of the democratic process. The ratification vote is the end of that process. I will be vocally opposed to any amendment that I see as violating our underlying principles, and that would include an amendment that didn't require ToE members to privately state a reason why they are objecting to an applicant. This is a fundamental concept of justice, fairness, responsibility and accountability to me.
I'm not sure I could even continue as a member of b77 knowing that we have a forum that people can be denied access to because the members of that forum are averse to someone's religious beliefs. That isn't the kind of board I would want to be associated with. That would mean that we had elevated the feelings and rights of a certain class of poster over the rights of other posters out of all proportion, reason and degree.
That's why I'm so upset about all this. It may mean a change that I am not able to deal with, just as the outcome may determine changes that ToE members are not able to deal with. I wonder if in the end more harm will be done by trying to keep a private forum on a public board espousing principles of equality, respect and openness, than would be done by moving that forum off the board? I guess that's something we'll never know.
| ToshoftheWuffingas wrote: |
Like Nin, I can think of all sorts of scenarios that may not involve active fault from a prospective entrant or that might lead an objector to want to be protected.
And this is where we draw the line, IMO. Are ToE members so much more important than everyone else?
No, the objection must involve fault by the prospective entrant, just as the provision for vetoing a Ranger requires a complaint of fault. Otherwise, take ToE off b77 and make it private. I do not see this as reconcilable.
If the amorous poster wished to follow her to ToE would she be prevented from telling other ToE posters of her problem? If she couldn't she would be the only objector. She would have to leave the forum, deleting her posts and gutting threads.
This is a good point. I included the idea of prohibiting private discussion so that people wouldn't solicit supporting objections behind the scenes for personal reasons that don't involve misconduct by the applicant. Perhaps I could amend the wording to include the importance of publicly sharing any knowledge of sexual misconduct on the part of the applicant.
I suppose this is cliqueishness in some eyes but I see it as loyalty and preservation of the forum.
Yes, at the expense of the ideals of the board, in my view.
I apologize to everyone who is made uncomfortable by my aggressive posting style. I am very upset by this situation, as are so many of you. You are fighting to keep your forum as it is, I am fighting to keep b77 the place I understood it to be. I'm not sure both can be accomplished, I'm really not.
Yes,
Alatar, I'll do my best to keep the discussion going and the ideas organized. I will use the other thread I started to collect revised ideas and the ballot as it develops, so eveyone please remember to check it.
Alternatively, we could just continue the discussion over there. What do people think?
It would be grossly unfair to attempt to penalize my wife, for example, for my indiscretion in talking about her in ToE. Far easier and more ethical to find my own offending posts and wipe them...or tell my wife I had talked about her in the first place.
Thank you, Ax, from the bottom of my heart.
Let someone privately email the Administrator account, as with the Ranger objection process, and let it be announced that a veto has been registered (or more likely, several). Then the time limit et al kicks in, and ToE people can give their input to the Rangers, and what ensues, ensues.
I'm not sure this is necessary (that is, announcing a veto has been registered). I think the process can proceed with the posting of the name. But this is an interesting idea, I will include it in the other thread.
BTW, would it not be prudent in all cases, to ease everyone's mind, that a ranger send a "receipt" for any such objection, be it ranger or ToE related?
I'm not sure I follow. What would the receipt be? Who would receive it?
EDIT to add: Obviously, if no explanation is ALLOWED, the threshold number should be lower.
Why would this be? I would think that if no explanation is allowed, the threshold number should be very high?
Quick links
FAQ
Register
Login
![[ img ]](http://www.thehalloffire.net/albums/Sig-Pics/MG_1685.jpg)
![[ img ]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4144/5179974455_418de6bc3b.jpg)
but a little. Therefore, I would change this: