board77

Quote:

(member name) has requested access to this forum. Members have until (10 days from day of announcement) to consider whether they know any reason why this applicant would pose a danger to the community.

I think we can all get that far.

Cerin--

I wouldn't forumulate that choice in quiet that way. Rather than chasing my tail over competing rights and such, I work from a truth table sort of setup here, and there are four possibilities to be considered:

A) The applicant is fine, and no one has a problem with them.

B) The applicant is fine, but someone has a problem with them.

C) The applicant is not fine, but no one has a problem with them.

D) The applicant is not fine, and someone has a problem with them.

The first one is easy. Actually, the third one is too, unfortunately, since there isn't much we can do about it.

The second and fourth ones are the ones requiring thought. In case B we need to ensure that applicants get in if they deserve to, even if opposed by someone. In case D we need to ensure they do NOT get in, so we have to make sure opposition is sufficient.

D is the option that concerns people in ToE the most. It is relatively easy to build a structure that satisfies it. Call it a false admission.

B is the option that concerns people NOT in ToE the most. It is relatively easy to build a structure that satisfies it. Call it a false veto.

Getting one that does both D and B is what we're all wrangling over. Note that the part common to both is that someone has a problem with an applicant. Thus, it stands to reason that finding some way of determining the validity of that problem is needed, so that the bad people are kept out and the good people let it. Unfortunately, we do not have the capability to determine whether a problem is valid or not, certainly not one that is 100% effective, and anything less is not worth the effort and angst needed (imagine if you will the equivalent of a jury room proceeding for EACH contested applicant).

Quote:

I have reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is a danger to the community because the seven most active posters in the ToE have all stated that they will withdraw from the forum and delete all of their posts if this person gains access.

But, though it clearly illustrates a danger to the ToE community, you wouldn't consider that a valid reason.


Or

Quote:

I have reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is a danger to the community because on other parts of the board he/she has shown a willingness to disrespect and attack other posters. I believe that willingness would cripple an already delicate forum.

But that too, would not be considered a valid reason, because there is no sexual misconduct.


Or

Quote:

I have reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is a danger to the community because he / she tends to push the boundaries when it comes to sexually related topics, and I don't believe he / she would follow any boundaries when allowed into a forum specifically for those types of topics.

But that would not be considered a valid reason because it's an subjective opinion - others might not consider said person to be a boundary pusher.


Or

Quote:

I have reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is a danger to the community because has stated, elsewhere on the boards, that they consider the ToE to be "useless, in low taste, that the people posting in their should be ashamed and the forum should be gotten rid of." Based on this, I believe their request for entry is for mischief causing purposes only, and not to add to the forum. Additionally, the entry of a person with attitudes like that would cause current members of the forum to be uncomfortable in the extreme, perhaps to the point of deleting their posts.

But this would not be considered a valid reason because the person did nothing wrong, though it is obvious that they have the lowest regard for the people who do post in that forum.



I give up. I will be voting for my most recent proposal - the one you streamlined Cerin. The discussion now is on how to make your proposal even more strict, when I thought it was too far in the extreme anyway. Therefore, I have nothing more to add to this discussion.

Let me know when it's time to vote.

continued:

So the question is really one of how best to assure the best result, whether an applicant is objectionable or not, and given that we can't really verify objections, nor do we want to try.

At this point we have to rely on the math. The more people you require to object, the greater the chance of a false admission, and the smaller the chance of a false veto. That's the conflict, to me, because we ALL have rights in this. And its one that can be solved, by picking the numbers that acheive the greatest chance of doing the right thing while avoiding doing the wrong thing.

I say NUMBERS, because we don't HAVE to treat all objections as equal, even if we don't attempt to validate them. Simply put, an anonymous objection without any cause is still an objection--but it's not as useful nor as constructive as one with times, dates and places, so to speak. We can recognize that by having two different thresholds, as Estel proposed, a strong threshold for objections that can be given to an applicant, perhaps for their betterment, and a weak threshold for objections that are less tangible in nature. The first can be relatively low...Cerin suggested five, and I'm fine with that, and the second relatively high...Estel suggested 1/3, and I'm fine with that.

Here's why: I believe that people are less likely to fabricate detailed explanations of why someone is a danger to the community (thanks Alatar) if they know they don't have to justify their gut feeling that someone is a bad egg. Conversely, I think someone with good, detailed information to their objection is more likely to come forward if only a few are needed to keep someone they have the goods on out. The chances of a false veto drop, as do those of a false admission.

Estel, are you saying you don't think you can get five people in ToE to elucidate WHY they are willing to leave rather than let him in? Because I think you could ask that RIGHT NOW in ToE, and have a dozen valid answers, with citations and anecdotes, in a Ranger's email two minutes later.

We don't need ultimatums when we have real reasons.

But you are trying to put criteria on what is a good reason or not.

Say only 4 people PM with what you consider a good reason, and 7 more people PM with what you don't consider a good reason. That's 11 people, all of whom might end up leaving the forum if someone got in, however, because only 4 people met your standards of criteria, the person would get in.

What if it were a case of 3 people with "good reasons" and 17 people with reasons that aren't up to your standard. Thats 20 people mailing with reasons, however, since only 3 are "good", the 1/3 quota would have to be met, and 20 people isn't 21 so the person would get in. Again, the forum might end up completely gutted - 20 people for one. Fantastic equality going on there.

There is always the possibility, no matter WHAT the numbers, that we'll end up one vote short in one fashion or another. That's the worst-case scenario that is, in point of fact, insoluble. Require 3, and we might get 2. Require 1/4, and we might get 1/4 less one.

But it won't happen on the first use.

Quote:

I have reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is a danger to the community because the seven most active posters in the ToE have all stated that they will withdraw from the forum and delete all of their posts if this person gains access.

I would consider that valid.

Quote:

I have reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is a danger to the community because on other parts of the board he/she has shown a willingness to disrespect and attack other posters. I believe that willingness would cripple an already delicate forum.

That is totally valid. No question question about it.

Quote:

I have reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is a danger to the community because he / she tends to push the boundaries when it comes to sexually related topics, and I don't believe he / she would follow any boundaries when allowed into a forum specifically for those types of topics.

That is a valid reason.

Quote:

I have reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is a danger to the community because has stated, elsewhere on the boards, that they consider the ToE to be "useless, in low taste, that the people posting in their should be ashamed and the forum should be gotten rid of." Based on this, I believe their request for entry is for mischief causing purposes only, and not to add to the forum. Additionally, the entry of a person with attitudes like that would cause current members of the forum to be uncomfortable in the extreme, perhaps to the point of deleting their posts.

Totally valid reason.

Quote:

I give up. I will be voting for my most recent proposal - the one you streamlined Cerin. The discussion now is on how to make your proposal even more strict, when I thought it was too far in the extreme anyway. Therefore, I have nothing more to add to this discussion.


Let me know when it's time to vote.

That is completely unconstructive. Shall I go away, too? What if we all took that attitude?

Ax, I'll need a little time to absorb your last posts. I may not be able to think that way, I'm not sure.

Axordil wrote:

There is always the possibility, no matter WHAT the numbers, that we'll end up one vote short in one fashion or another. That's the worst-case scenario that is, in point of fact, insoluble. Require 3, and we might get 2. Require 1/4, and we might get 1/4 less one.

But it won't happen on the first use.

Yes, but you're willing to accept the scenario I presented? Cause I'm not. I'm not willing to have 20 people protesting and being ignored because someone decided that the reasons that 17 of them gave weren't good enough. If 20 people bother to write PMs saying that a person won't be good for the forum, and saying why they think that is, then that should be listened to. If that many people are trying to articulate how they feel, then the rule of 8 or 10 should apply. Just because they aren't as good at expressing themselves as others doesn't mean that their reasons are less valid. Hell, maybe English isn't their first language, and they did the best that they could.

The difference of whether or not an explanation is good enough rests purely on the Ranger who reads it, and that's not good enough. It's purely subjective. The Ranger can send the reciept to two people and then send the PM straight into the "doesn't count for shit pile - 1/3 quorum must be reached."

Axordil wrote:

Unfortunately, we do not have the capability to determine whether a problem is valid or not, certainly not one that is 100% effective

But a value judgment isn't required. Does the objection state what cause the person has to believe the petitioner poses a threat to the forum? That's it. As long as they state a cause for believing, it shouldn't matter what that cause is (within reason; 'I believe that person poses a threat to the forum because the sky is blue' would not do, 'because I don't get along with them' would not do, 'because they make me uncomfortable' would not do because none of those reasons translates into a threat to the community) '... because twenty people have said they will delete their posts' is good cause to believe the person is a threat to the community.

You see, I believe Alatar's wording has opened the door to covering more kinds of objections. 'Because my friend says he raped her, and I believe her' is cause for that person to believe the petitioner poses a threat.

Thinking in terms of having cause to believe the person is a threat is I think more encompassing than needing personal experience of the person's conduct.

Estel wrote:

If 20 people bother to write PMs saying that a person won't be good for the forum, and saying why they think that is, then that should be listened to.

I totally agree. The key is, 'saying why they think that is.' If people say why they think someone is a threat to the forum, they will be listened to -- unless the reason they give doesn't relate to the security of the forum.

Quote:

If that many people are trying to articulate how they feel, then the rule of 8 or 10 should apply.

I thought we were always dealing with a lower threshold when it involved reasons. The higher numbers were for the anonymous objection by poll.

I think if we agree on this standard, completing the sentence, 'I believe the petitioner poses a threat to the forum because ...' then I think five independently articulated objections would be sufficient.

I also think we could forget about saying that people shouldn't talk about it. If someone has a concern for the community, then it is natural that they will talk about. I think we could just say, 'Please do not solicit objections from other ToE members.'

Our standard of review would be, does the reason given relate to the security of the forum. Saying that you object because you used to date someone obviously doesn't relate to the security of the forum, but to the comfort of that particular individual (which isn't sufficient reason to deny someone access).

It seems to me that the basic disagreement is and always has been whether it should be necessary for people to state a reason why they are voting a particular way. My feeling is and always has been that it is not fair to make people say why they are voting a certain way. If we have an election for Mayor and there is actually more then one candidate (;)) then the losing candidate is being denied the opportunity to be Mayor, but people don't have to explain why they voted against that person.

I appreciate all the thought that people have but into this, put I think it has been made far more complicated then in needs to be.

Voronwe:

You are correct. And the Mayor's Election is also done via email.

Cerin:

Quote:

You see, I believe Alatar's wording has opened the door to covering more kinds of objections. 'Because my friend says he raped her, and I believe her' is cause for that person to believe the petitioner poses a threat.

If this is OK by you, it's OK by me.

Voronwe, that's exactly the problem -- people are thinking about this as a vote and it isn't a vote!

The ToE forum is not voting on whether someone should be allowed to join their private club! (And it was suggested by Jnyusa that the membership wouldn't pass that kind of amendment anyway, because it smacks of the loathesome invitation thread.)

The members of ToE don't have that right, because that forum is part of this open board. What they have the right to do is object to someone gaining access to that forum who would normally gain access to that forum, IF they have reason to believe that person is a danger to the community.

I hope you will consider the difference between those two scenarios. This is not a vote. This is a right to object, which we are trying to figure out how to implement in the best possible way. It is not analagous to a Mayoral vote! It is analagous to bringing criminal charges against someone with the result that their priviliges of citizenship are curtailed. Would you of all people suggest that that should be done anonymously with no requirement to explain the charges or provide evidence!

Cerin, let me give another example. In most cases, members of a jury are not required to state whether they elected to convict someone of a crime, or hold them civillyliable. I do not think that it is either fair or necessary to require people to give a specific explanation of why they are not comfortable with having someone join ToE. I assume that eventually we will have a ballot here in this committee that will allow me to vote for an option that does not require this. Whether it is a poll, or by PM or email, I don't care that much about.

Voronwe wrote:

In most cases, members of a jury are not required to state whether they elected to convict someone of a crime, or hold them civillyliable.

I don't see how that applies. Are the jurors allowed to wear black hoods over their faces, hand in their verdict after whispering amongst themselves without referring to the evidence, and slink out the back door while their verdict is being read? Or do they have to stand there in the public forum of the courtroom where the accused can look into their eyes while they pronounce his guilt or innocence?

I honestly do not understand how you can take this stance.

Quote:

I do not think that it is either fair or necessary to require people to give a specific explanation of why they are not comfortable with having someone join ToE.

You do not think that it is either fair or necessary to require people to give a specific explanation of why they are voting to deny another member of b77 the benefits and privilege of using a forum they themselves enjoy and benefit from?! And you do not think it is either fair or necessary for a b77 member to know why they were denied the benefits and privilege of using that forum?! How would you feel if it were you?

Quote:

I assume that eventually we will have a ballot here in this committee that will allow me to vote for an option that does not require this.

Estel's 3rd option, which she has said she prefers, is in that category. If you wish to see provisions from her other two options on the ballot (summary at the top of the preceding page) then please let me know. I will not be including provisions from those two earlier proposals on the ballot unless someone requests them.

I don't know about the rest of you, but things have cleared up considerably for me thanks to Alatar's definitive standard for objections. I believe it reconciles many of the concerns and conflicts people have been expressing.

So what we have are two basic models for a denial of access procedure, with variations within each. One allows ToE members to voice their objection anonymously by voting in a poll. It is not the usual two-option poll though it is obligatorily structured as one; there is only one option (to exclude) that will be counted.

The other model requires ToE members to state the reason why they believe the petitioning member is a danger to the community. They will do this by completing the sentence, "I believe the petitioning member is a danger to the community because ..." either in an email to the Administrator or in a thread on ToE. (For a sampling of possible reasons, see Estel's post near the top of this page; she mistakenly referred to those reasons as invalid, but I believe they are valid in every case, as they refer to the security of the community.)

So I will now go and figure out the ballot, and see you in a couple of weeks.

We are having widespread thunderstorms, so I may not be able to work on this further tonight.

Quote:

Estel's 3rd option, which she has said she prefers, is in that category.

Erm, no it's not. My third option requires explanations from a minimum of four people.

Quote:

One allows ToE members to voice their objection anonymously by voting in a poll.

If you're discussing my option in both these quotes, it does require explanations be sent to Rangers, though not by every single person who has an objection. Still, explanations will be required.





If I'm reading all of this correctly, you are saying, Cerin, that five people would have to send in explanations saying why the person is a danger to the community, and that person will be disallowed access.

Is this true?