board77

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:

I would encourage the committee not to waste time on the "changed circumstances" question and to focus instead on determining what options will be on the ballot.

Good point as we don't have tons of time.

Cerin, like a good jurist should, I have several separately viable responses to your well argued but ultimately faulty (;)) suggestion.

First of all, we are not reconsidering the three month, 100 post requirement for eligibility. That provision is not being challenged. What we are discussing here is an additional requirement to the eligibility requirement. As I understand it, it is not so much a question of who is eligible to access ToE as is it is a question of whether there will be a mechanism for denying access to ToE to members who are otherwise eligible.

Secondly, while there were in the course of the couple of votes on the original Article 6 ratification several other proposals made for additional eligibility requirements, I don't believe that anything substantially similar to the provisions that have been proposed by Estel have been voted on previously.

Finally, and perhaps most persuasively, as you yourself pointed out, the revote provision is contained in the article regarding Binding Votes, not the article regarding Amendments to the Charter. Binding Votes are specifically defined as votes that don't require an amendment to the Charter. Therefore, the provision prohibiting binding votes less then six months following a vote ont eh same issue simply does not apply to actual amendments to the Charter.

Thank you Estel.

Voronwe, on the basis of that last point, I'm happy to drop the matter.

deleted because it's almost exactly what Voronwe said

On the nature of the veto: I suspect there will be two different kinds of applications of this ability. One would be posters with whom a significant number of ToE posters have experience, almost certainly at TORC, and with whom they will, basically, never feel comfortable talking about their sex lives.

For these posters, a veto is likely to be an affirmation of what they already know, and everyone involved understands that it's a permanent state of affairs.

The other possibility would be someone who manages to hack people off during their 3 months "probationary" period here to the point where they are vetoed when they come up for ToE.

For these people, it is entirely possible that if the process is correctly modeled, they will have a chance to learn what is and is not behavior likely to engender trust. A veto could well be temporary for them.

The problem is that we really can only propose one mechanism to cover both possibilities. Thus we have to err on the side of the angels, as it were, and set up a system in which vetoes come up again for review every so often...I believe 3 months is the current timespan allotted in the proposals I have seen.

Underlying this is the fact that the sole "qualification" for being let in to ToE is really that of being trusted, or more particularly, of NOT being UNTRUSTED. Trust can be ruptured in such a plethora of ways...but can only be regained by one, and that's by, well, being trustworthy. So giving detailed feedback in an institutionalized way is merely packaging up the same message differently for people...it really doesn't matter HOW they came to be untrustworthy, it only matters that they need to figure out how to acheive trustworthiness.

As I said above, for people unlikely ever to see the inside of ToE, this is moot. For people who may be clueless enough to have earned a veto, though, this may need to be spelled out, but I believe it can be spelled out in advance: if you get vetoed, it's because 10 ToE posters, or 1/3, or however many, don't trust you enough to share intimate details of their intimate lives with you, and you may want to do something about it.

The only alternative to some sort of screening (of which the veto is the least onerous method I've seen) is, frankly, moving it off board and out of B77 control. This would be, I believe, a tragic loss for B77, as it means losing those aspects of ToE that have generally been seen to be most unique and therapeutic; these of course are also the ones that require the high levels of trust present now. The more generic discussions would and could remain, but to be honest, they might as well be in TML or Turf or the Symposium at that point. The only valid reason for ToE to have any separation at all from B77 would no longer exist. At the same time, I can't help feeling that it would be bad for ToE to be its own site...the likelihood of it then devolving into a coffee klatsch amongst a set group of friends is substantial.

Where it is, on the edge of B77, both the larger and the smaller communities benefit from its presence. Apart, both would suffer. I don't think allowing a well-defined screening process will hurt B77 one whit, and if it takes that to keep ToE here, it's well worth it.

This is a portion of the veto-related text from the Ranger portion of the Charter, which Prim cited in another thread. The idea of a veto for ToE access seems more acceptable to me now that I see a precedent of sorts in the charter:

Quote:

While volunteers are listed as new entrants, all members are responsible for reviewing the roster to determine whether they know any good reason why a particular volunteer would not make a good Ranger and should not immediately enter the pool of full Rangers when their training is complete. If no member expresses a concern or objection volunteers will enter the pool of full Rangers without delay. If a member does have a concern or objection to a particular volunteer, these must be sent by email to the Administrator account, where they will also be forwarded to the Mayor so that the Mayor together with current Rangers can review them for merit.

If the concern or objection involves a serious violation of by-laws for which a formal action of some kind is required, then the volunteer will not enter the pool of full Rangers until the issue is resolved. The Mayor and current Rangers together will inform the volunteer immediately, attempt to verify the merit of the accusation insofar as possible, and if it has merit they will initiate whatever procedure is called for in the by-laws. If exonerated, the volunteer may enter the pool of full Rangers when training is complete. If restrictions are placed on the volunteer as a result of the procedure, they will not enter the pool of full Rangers until the by-laws allow them to do so.

If the concern or objection involves matters of courtesy, or unfamiliarity with certain forums, or anything else affecting only the comfort level of the members, the Mayor or an appropriate Ranger will explain the problem to the volunteer as tactfully as possible and suggest ways that their posting might become more “visible and contributory” before they enter the pool of full Rangers.

The Mayor will retain record of these concerns and objections and make sure that any full Ranger who is coaching the volunteer knows of them as well. When the volunteer expresses his/her readiness to enter the pool of Rangers, including their correction of any prior deficiency, and the full Ranger who has been coaching them agrees, the Mayor will send an email to any member who has raised a prior objection and ask permission to lift the objection, explaining what has been done to rectify the problem. If the member still objects, they must explain why and the issue will be revisited as before. If no response is received within seven days, the objection will be lifted and the volunteer may enter the pool of full Rangers. The pool of full Rangers will be posted prominently.

I think the veto for access to ToE should be modeled after the Ranger veto.

You'll note that for the Rangers, if a member has a concern or objection it must be emailed to the Administrator account so as to be considered for merit by the Mayor and Rangers. The member is then informed about the objection, given opportunity for official exoneration (if the objection concerns a violation of by-laws), and supported and encouraged in the effort to change their objectionable behavior.

Here is what I see of value in the above system:

1. The process isn't insular. Persons other than the accuser assess the objections for merit.

2. There is a balance between respect for the objector's concerns and the rights of the person objected to, to know why they have been objected to (I believe they have the right to know who the objector is as well), and to respond to the objection.

3. There is accountability and responsibility that comes with the right to object to someone being a Ranger -- one must communicate the reasons for the objection and be known (at least to the neutral parties) as the person objecting.

I believe these principles must be incorporated into the veto mechanism for ToE if it is not to be inconsistent with certain principles and provisions of our charter.

Speaking of the charter, these are the portions that I believe would have to be amended or removed in order to accommodate the suggestions I've seen thus far in ToE (which admittedly I read through very quickly), emphasis added:

Quote:

We aspire to maintain a culture of respect, equality and openness.

Transparency: The atmosphere of fairness required to foster the free exchange of ideas requires that judgment regarding board behavior be the shared responsibility of all members. Administration and enforcement of by-laws is done as fairly and openly as possible. We see value in exercising power and dealing with challenges publicly, rather than behind the scenes, because this safeguards against the undermining of our principles by privately-made decisions.


Self-Governance: No member of board77 is more important than any other member, and no single member or group of members ever holds absolute power.


A. You have the right:
To post in our Thinking of England forum (a forum restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older) once you have met the eligibility requirements.


¶3: Eligibility to Access the Age Restricted Forum
A member becomes eligible to access the "Thinking of England" forum after three months and 100 posts. After this time, a member can request access to the forum from a Ranger.

Just bowing to Axordil and Voronwë.

Shows up briefly to herd the cats, sees an orderly line so bows out gracefully.

Nothing much to add at this point. I like the direction we're heading.

Cerin, I vehemently disagree that an amendment that would give ToE members the right to make a determination that a new member was not sufficiently trustworthy to gain admission to that forum would force the board to abandon the following core principles of our Charter:

Quote:

We aspire to maintain a culture of respect, equality and openness.

Transparency: The atmosphere of fairness required to foster the free exchange of ideas requires that judgment regarding board behavior be the shared responsibility of all members. Administration and enforcement of by-laws is done as fairly and openly as possible. We see value in exercising power and dealing with challenges publicly, rather than behind the scenes, because this safeguards against the undermining of our principles by privately-made decisions.


Self-Governance: No member of board77 is more important than any other member, and no single member or group of members ever holds absolute power.

IMO, that would be the equivalent of abandoning what many of us consider to be the most important values underlying board77. Is that really what you are saying?

So Cerin's suggestion is basically that a veto attempt should be accompanied/preceded by an e-mail to the Administrator/Mayor from a ToE poster briefly summarising the nature of the problem. If this is a fair summary should one of us raise the proposal in ToE and Business so early feedback be gathered? We don't want to waste time discussing it if it is a non runner, likewise if it is acceptable we know what we can concentrate on. Or do committee members have fundamental problems with the proposal or have any tweaks to improve it?

Allow me to clarify, Voronwe.

As I was catching up on the relevant threads in ToE that preceded the formation of this committee, I quickly skimmed the various proposals for a veto mechanism that had been set up.

I think what I saw (and I abjectly apologize if my careless perusal has resulted in a misunderstanding of the proposals) was a mechanism that

- allowed for ToE posters to object to a new member without any explanation for their objection

- made no provision for communicating to the objected member the reason they were denied access and who had objected to them

- created a voting mechanism that gives one group of posters power that no other group of posters has

If my impression of those proposals is correct, then yes, I do believe they violate those aspects of the charter I cited, and yes, I do believe that adopting such proposals would be equivalent to an abandonment of those underlying values.

On the other hand, if the veto is approached according to the model currently in the charter, those problems are eliminated.

Each member of ToE would individually consider new applicants and would individually determine if they have an objection to that person gaining access based on that person's board behavior or their knowledge of that person's behavior elsewhere. They would take responsibility for their objection by explaining it and emailing it to Administrator, where the Rangers with the Mayor would assess it for merit (thus eliminating any petty, subjective objections).

The objection would be communicated to the applicant, which would give them an opportunity to defend themselves and to work on whatever pattern of behavior has been objected to.

This system would not require a vote in ToE (and we all know the kind of ugly residue with which that kind of vote would sully the forum), therefore it would not give ToE members power as a group that other b77 members do not have. It would leave all members on the same footing, with the same voice.

Tosh, based on past committee work, what has been done is announce to the membership that this discussion is on-going and solicit their comments in the Business Room thread for incorporation here.

Meanwhile, we continue to discuss and work on producing an actual amendment, that is, we work out the wording and provisions here so that something concrete can be presented for discussion and ratification.

I think this is the model we should follow since it has worked in the past, unless anyone would like to explain why we should proceed differently this time.

Cerin:

Your system would work for the second type of people I described who might be objected to, in that there is a possibility for them to achieve trust after a false start.

However, it will not work for the first, recidivist class, because no one who knows them will ever trust them, no matter how long they "play nice." Period.

We can only have one set of rules.

Remember: we are not only dealing with behavior but with something less tangible and more important, given the context, trust. There is no objective measure for whether someone is trustworthy or not, but only the entirely subjective reaction of those asked to trust them. And what I ask is this: given that it is entirely subjective, who is better suited to say whether someone should be trusted, the people involved or an uninvolved evaluator?

BTW, I agree that we should use the ongoing discussion model, rather than waiting for input. It's more efficient.

Axordil wrote:

Your system would work for the second type of people I described who might be objected to, in that there is a possibility for them to achieve trust after a false start.

Ax, the system would work for everyone. The right to re-apply for access doesn't guarantee access.

We just have to choose our wording carefully, to make it clear that people who have abused such trust in the past regarding the kind of personal information that is shared (as opposed to those who are being objected to for the other kind of reason you described) may never be granted access, because they will never be trusted. This doesn't mean they can't keep re-applying (just as those incarcerated can keep on applying for parole, but that doesn't mean it must be granted them).

Quote:

Remember: we are not only dealing with behavior but with something less tangible and more important, given the context, trust.

Yes, but the lack of trust (the denial of access) must be linked to behavior. It can't be based on nothing more than a nebulous feeling of dislike.

Quote:

There is no objective measure for whether someone is trustworthy or not, but only the entirely subjective reaction of those asked to trust them.

There is no objective measure, but there must be some kind of standard for objections. I don't believe a ToE member's objection should be honored if it is based on nothing more than, 'just because I don't trust them'. They must be able to give a reason why they don't trust the applicant. There must be some effort to balance the rights of other members against the comfort of ToE posters.

Quote:

And what I ask is this: given that it is entirely subjective, who is better suited to say whether someone should be trusted, the people involved or an uninvolved evaluator?

An uninvolved evaluator is necessary to protect the rights of members and protect the underlying principles of the charter. I will strenuously object to any kind of veto power that doesn't include the kinds of protections I mentioned above.

My fear, Cerin, is that someone will play the system, get past a well-meaning Ranger or Mayor, and get in over the objections of ToE posters...and destroy the forum irrevocably, as in, cannot be fixed, ever. It is a fragile environment. And we know people who are capable of playing ANY system.

The OTHER way to make sure that it's not just ill-defined, vague feelings, is to require ENOUGH ToE people to agree to a veto, on the grounds that if enough of us have a problem with someone, the range of subjective reactions together indicates that it's not just a fluke or a whim. If ten or twenty people say "I have a problem with this person" that in itself is prima faciae evidence that there is, in fact, a problem with that person.

Cerin, allow me to clarify as well.

I believe that the goal of this committee should be to produce a ballot that allows the membership to adopt the kind of changes to ToE that would prevent the problems that some of the ToE members anticipate, without contradicting those basic values. In my mind, any ulitimate result that does not achieve BOTH of those goals would be a failure.

If people don't mind, I'm going to express an opinion about how this process should work, as a veteran of an embarrassing number of these committees (all of them, actually ). I think we should start with the proposal that Estel devised in ToE as our starting point. I hope that gets posted here soon. Then we can figure out what options should and should not be included on the ballot.

For instance, Cerin's suggestion about requiring an explanation should probably be an option on the ballot. Personally, I'm not sure that it is either necessary or feasible to do this, but I'm not sure that it is not either.

Another option that I really want to see on the ballot is to have the veto be able to be applied to existing members of ToE as well. That is the only way that I can see to address the equality concerns that Cerin has raised, and about creating two different classes of members. If everyone is subject to these rules, those concerns disappear. In reality, I doubt that these rules would ever be applied to any existing ToE members because there has already been a mutual trust established. Another benefit of this option is that it would provide a handy method for dealing with a situation where someone gets into ToE and THEN turns out to be found not trustworthy enough to participate in those discussions.

Finally, while I am all in favor of soliciting input from other members, both in ToE and outside of it, I want to remind the committee members that it is the committee's job to craft a ballot for the membership to vote on. If we worry too much about creating a ballot that satisfies everyone, a possible result iwill be that there will be no such ballot, and therefore no vote, and perhaps eventually no ToE.

Axordil wrote:

My fear, Cerin, is that someone will play the system, get past a well-meaning Ranger or Mayor, and get in over the objections of ToE posters...and destroy the forum irrevocably, as in, cannot be fixed, ever. It is a fragile environment. And we know people who are capable of playing ANY system.

Ax, no one well-meaning Ranger would ever be making the decision. It would be a joint decision between multiple Rangers and the Mayor.

Additionally, I would agree that if multiple ToE members independently voiced an objection with explanation, that in and of itself would be enough to deny access at least temporarily. In other words, one single objection might be judged to be without merit (i.e., I don't like his far-right political views', 'he was mean to me once'), but if two or more people independently voice an objection with explanation (and we should discuss here what we view as legitimate bases for objection), I think that would be enough to eliminate the possibility that the objection is petty and completely subjective (that is, that it is founded in the objector's bias toward the applicant rather than in the applicant's conduct).

Also, we could build in an additional level of protection; you could choose a spokesperson of ToE whom Rangers could inform of their decision if they are planning to reject an objection, which would give you another opportunity to explain your concerns and make sure no one is being played.

Quote:

The OTHER way to make sure that it's not just ill-defined, vague feelings, is to require ENOUGH ToE people to agree to a veto, on the grounds that if enough of us have a problem with someone, the range of subjective reactions together indicates that it's not just a fluke or a whim. If ten or twenty people say "I have a problem with this person" that in itself is prima faciae evidence that there is, in fact, a problem with that person.

That is another possibility, but I think that actually offers less protection to the forum than the other way, since I agree that without an independent evaluator, the number of objections would have to be fairly large (I would say at least 10).

In addition, that would be easily susceptible to manipulation, as nothing would prevent one ToE member from privately discussing the applicant with a friend and soliciting support for what might be their personal and invalid objection. In the case of the independent evaluation, such behind the scenes manipulation would be more obvious, since the reasons are required to be stated. Still in that case, we would have to rely on a code of conduct that every ToE member is voicing an independent opinion based on their own conscience and experience.

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:

I think we should start with the proposal that Estel devised in ToE as our starting point. I hope that gets posted here soon. Then we can figure out what options should and should not be included on the ballot.

Voronwe, I respectfully disagree.

I think we need to discuss amongst ourselves the issues I've raised, to see if there is still general agreement that the porposal Estel devised should be the basis for the amendment.

Alternatively, I would like to be given time to compose a proposal that reflects my concerns before we start voting on the basic structure and provisions of Estel's proposal, since I'm not sure my ideas are even structurally compatible with what has been proposed (and therefore the process of proposing 'options' wouldn't work).

Please let us not rush into starting to devise and vote on options before a sufficient amount of discussion has taken place!

Editted to clarify last sentence.

VtF:

Quote:

Another option that I really want to see on the ballot is to have the veto be able to be applied to existing members of ToE as well.

I have no problem with this being on the ballot. It's an intriguing idea, but one which I want to think about a bit too...looking for unforseen consequences, dontcha know.

Cerin:

Quote:

That is another possibility, but I think that actually offers less protection to the forum than the other way, since I agree that without an independent evaluator, the number of objections would have to be fairly large (I would say at least 10).

The magic number we had been discussing was varying between ten and 1/3 the ToE roster at the time (currently, even if everyone who has not responded to Alatar's request for re-upping their ToE membership were purged, the latter number would be about 21).

Quote:

In addition, that would be easily susceptible to manipulation, as nothing would prevent one ToE member from privately discussing the applicant with a friend and soliciting support for what might be their personal and invalid objection.

Nothing except forbidding it, which I am quite amenable to, actually, if the number of objections required were to be as low as ten. If the requirement would be something like the 1/3 Estel proposed, then this is less of an issue, I suspect, as convincing 21 B77ers of anything is nigh impossible ).