board77

Cerin - your streamlining looks perfect. That is exactly what I wanted. Thanks

Ax - I expect someone, at some point to mess up, either on purpose or on accident. Having two people get reciepts does alleviate this somewhat, however, I would still prefer to have a poll in the ToE and the reasons sent to the Rangers.

If the PM to Rangers only option is the one that is picked, I would like to have an addition on it. Basically, I would prefer it if the Rangers posted in the ToE saying that they have recieved an objection to the poster. Not a poll, not a post saying who or how many. Just a statement that they have. That is the only way that I would feel the whole thing is not hidden behind closed doors. And that's what that option feels like to me - hidden away. I see no transparency whatsoever with that option.

If the PM to Rangers only option is the one that is picked, I would like to have an addition on it. Basically, I would prefer it if the Rangers posted in the ToE saying that they have recieved an objection to the poster.

Estel, I'll incorporate this option into the ballot.

Edit

Ax and I discussed this earlier. Don't you think it will just get everyone's curiosity up, and encourage the kind of talking behind the scenes that we wish to avoid?

Could you explain why you feel it is important for the forum to know that an objection has been voiced?

Sorry I haven't contributed for a while but I didn't have internet access over the weekend and have only just caught up.
First can I apologise for the examples I chose. On reflection I agree with Cerin and Ax that they are not suitable reasons to reject anyone, moreover it will give board members waiting to enter the wrong impression of the ToE members attitude to new people coming in. As Estel said this is about one person at present and we simply need a formal mechanism. Everyone else is welcome.

Cerin has asked that the only information that should be shared is that of sexual misconduct. I think that is too broad and extreme, not to say potentially slanderous. I think the information that should be shared is evidence of untrustworthiness. It is trust that is the glue that keeps this forum together. If one poster has been harmfully untrustworthy with 3 or 4 posters and they individually wish to veto him or her will the poster gain access simply through ignorance of their behaviour? With no sharing of that information it would appear so. I also think that Ax's examples of 'X makes me angry etc' don't quite hit the mark. I don't think that anger should prevent anyone getting into ToE; we have weekly squabbles on this board with no lasting problems. It is discomfort and worry that is the trigger.

I favour a poll that has no discussion accompanied by PM's giving reasons to the Administrator; the threshold numbers to be decided.

I will read up later today.

The whole discussion is giving me a headache, but rather than address it in a point-by-point fashion I'll offer my own opinion on the various suggestions as a whole:

I think we are agreed on the Veto option as the best "voting" method. The only issues now are accountability and the mechanism for tallying the Vetos.

My own idea would be that the member requesting a VEto contacts 2 or more Rangers and asks that a Stickied announcement be created in ToE to highlight that there is an objection to a potential member. The person requesting the veto explains to the ToE members in that thread why they have raised a veto vote and what their objection is to the members participation. The members, using guidelines laid down decide whether they will support the veto. I would agree with the current suggestion of 10 votes. At any time a member can point out if the reasons provided are unjustified and can call in a Loremaster or Mediator. Perhaps one should be automatically assigned to any veto request. I believe that the process should be transparent. I believe that the members who are affected (namely ToE members) should be aware of the reasons a veto has been requested, even if it is ultimately defeated. On completion of the Veto vote, the thread would be deleted.

On a point raised earlier, I see no reason to trust or distrust Rangers any more or less than any other member. I do not think any Ranger would deliberately "lose" a vote, but neither do I think Rangers should be held as a higher authority. Rangers are simply members who are temporarily helping with the mechanics of the board. There is no need in this case for confidentiality. In fact there is a requirement that there is full disclosure to the members of the forum.

Regarding guidelines:
A member has reason to believe (Beyond Reasonable Doubt) that the petitioning member is a danger to the community.

Alatar

Alatar et al:

The main problem I see is that any declaration of objection in public begs the question, and we have decided we cannot stand to debate it. I do not think for a second that a ToE member would lie to keep someone they didn't like out, but I believe from the bottom of my heart that most stories have two sides, and that we are only allowing ourselves to hear one.

I would rather hear none, in that case. For me the only question is whether the mere public annoucement that there IS an objection at all is too much or just right. I don't want to see that X or Y or Z is the one raising the objection. I don't want to see what the objection is. All that knowledge CAN do is buttress the case AGAINST someone, since there is no possibility of any case FOR someone. And I find that inherently unbalanced. It is an assumption of "guilty until proven innocent" with no chance to then prove innocence.

Better, I think, to throw the name up for review, collect the objections privately, and wave a red flag when the threshold is reached, sending objections on to the applicant...who, by the way, is under no restriction from then complaining about their rejection and the objections given, so far as I can tell. Something else to keep in mind.

Tosh:

Feel free to substitute the negative emotion of your choice for "angry."

Also: if this is about one person, of whom NO ONE is ignorant, why the concern about ignorance letting someone in?

I do find the limitation of objection to sexual misconduct arbitrary. If someone is capable of, for example, screwing me over financially, they are going to end up on my "too untrustworthy for ToE" list too, and deservedly so. The problem is that, in any case, we have no investigatory function to check people's stories out, and so it devolves into "he said/she said" problems, with the person IN ToE automatically having the upper hand. As I have said before, I don't believe anyone would lie, but I do believe that some objections will be based on individual perceptions. Rather than judge those individual perceptions, which we cannot hope to do, I believe it is safer to appeal to the law of averages: ten people are not likely to have specific objections to someone without at least ONE of them being pretty well founded.

Double post, but rather than waste the space, :p

Cerin:

Are we contemplating up or down votes on each proposal as a whole, or votes on each proposal's distinct treatment of each question?

It seems to me there are really five questions up for debate:

How an objection is raised (publicly in ToE, privately on ToE, privately to Rangers)
Whether objections are evaluated (no, only for form, form and content both)
How objections are tallied (poll, Ranger tally)
What threshold for rejection is (pick a number)
What the results of a rejection are (announcement, email to applicant with objections and/or objectors, erasure of telltale threads)

It also seems to me that the chronological order of consideration should be that order, as each proposal has contingincies built on assumptions about what has already come to pass.

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:

I think the information that should be shared is evidence of untrustworthiness. It is trust that is the glue that keeps this forum together.

Tosh, I addressed this in the Business thread, but I'm reconsidering now. I think I understand your concern. I believe it is analagous to the dynamic of a neighborhood having a right to know if a pedophile has moved into the area. The difference is, that person has been convicted in a court of law, and here as Ax said, we don't have mechanisms for investigating the situation so we are condemning the applicant out of hand. That isn't right. I think we must avoid the group dynamic of having people deny access because of someone else's experience with the applicant. If someone has done something so terrible to a ToE member and that incident is truly a function of an untrustworthy character, isn't it likely that enough others will have independent evidence of that as well (even if not of such an egregious nature) to deny access? For independent reviewed objections, the number could be low.

Alatar wrote:

I think we are agreed on the Veto option as the best "voting" method.

We are certainly not agreed on that! I will fight the idea of a poll vote until the bitter end. It does not hold the objectors accountable to explain their objection, it does not allow the rejectee to understand why he was rejected.

Quote:

I would agree with the current suggestion of 10 votes.

I vehemently disagree that any poll vote model should have such a low threshold. Any poll vote model where people are able to vote anonymously without giving an individual reason should have a threshold of at least 1/3 of the ToE membership.The threshold of 10 was devised for individual objections being sent by email.

Quote:

II do not think any Ranger would deliberately "lose" a vote, but neither do I think Rangers should be held as a higher authority.

Rangers are not a higher moral authority, they are however, the acting authority on the board at the time. If a clear standard is articulated for legitimacy of objections, it should not be a matter of grave deliberation to determine if they meet that standard.

Quote:

There is no need in this case for confidentiality. In fact there is a requirement that there is full disclosure to the members of the forum.

Full disclosure to members of the forum, but no rights or protections for the petitioner.

Alatar, I was hoping we could keep the ballot to two basic models for the denial procedure, one including a poll in ToE and the other an email model. Your model is different enough from the current poll proposal that I think it may have to be offered as an entirely separate model (I will be more certain of this once I have a better grasp of it and compare it stage by stage with the current poll model). I will add it to the list of models in the second post once you verify that you are officially offering it as a proposal and are committed to all of the provisions you outlined. Also, I reiterate that I have a serious problem with your suggestion that a poll vote should have a threshold of 10. I think the idea is insupportable that a person could be rejected from ToE on the basis of 10 anonymous, completely unsubstantiated votes based on the objection of one member. I hope you will reconsider this aspect of your proposal.

Axordil wrote:

Cerin:

Are we contemplating up or down votes on each proposal as a whole, or votes on each proposal's distinct treatment of each question?

Ax, I don't belief all of the five questions you listed below are interchangeable for each model. Threshold is contigent upon the method of objecting, the later aspects of my proposal are contingent on the announcement that precedes them.

I will try to determine which aspects of the procedures are interchangeable and offer votes on those separately, and what remains will be voted on as a model. It's going to take some time to sort out, particularly if Alatar wants his proposal offered as is. I thought I had a pretty good grasp of things until that was put into the mix.

Quote:

It seems to me there are really five questions up for debate:

How an objection is raised (publicly in ToE, privately on ToE, privately to Rangers)
Whether objections are evaluated (no, only for form, form and content both)
How objections are tallied (poll, Ranger tally)
What threshold for rejection is (pick a number)
What the results of a rejection are (announcement, email to applicant with objections and/or objectors, erasure of telltale threads)

What do you mean by objections evaluated for form?

You know, looking at your helpful list above, I think we have to use different terminology for the poll vote. That isn't necessarily objections being tallied in a poll vote, that is people deciding to back the objection of the person making it. That crucial difference needs to be made clear. I find the moral underpinnings of these different models to be shockingly different, and that has to be made clear to people voting. We absolutely must have a clear understanding of what we are voting on (and not meaning any criticism of anyone, but references to headaches and insufficient time to follow the discussion does not give me confidence in that regard).

Quote:

It also seems to me that the chronological order of consideration should be that order, as each proposal has contingincies built on assumptions about what has already come to pass.

Yes, I will certainly attempt to keep the ballot in order.

Thank you, that was helpful.

Quote:

We are certainly not agreed on that! I will fight the idea of a poll vote until the bitter end. It does not hold the objectors accountable to explain their objection, it does not allow the rejectee to understand why he was rejected.

My latest model does.

Quote:

Ax, I don't belief all of the five questions you listed below are interchangeable for each model. Threshold is contigent upon the method of objecting, the later aspects of my proposal are contingent on the announcement that precedes them.

Oh, I agree...that's what I meant when I said the proposals each had contingincies based on assumptions about what had already happened. Thus the need to settle what happens first, first: the nature of the objection, public or private, in a thread, in an email, et al.

When I say evaluated for form, I mean checked to make sure they actually refer to a specific problem, incident, et al, as opposed to deciding whether the cited problem, incident, et al, is a valid objection. I think the former is doable and perhaps desirable, as my recent examples pointed to, while the latter is rather less so.

Cerin,

Can you please point out where I suggested a Poll? I referred to Veto vote as the preferred method because nobody seems to be suggesting a "For and Against" type of voting, namely only those wishing to veto are voting. Have I misunderstood?

My suggestion was a thread with veto voting. Each person voting for a veto would have to do so in their own name with a simple "I wish to veto X because Y"

The only difference between what I am suggesting and what I can gather is suggested for the Email model is that it is transparent.

I hope that makes it a little clearer. If I have misunerstood what is being proposed for the Email vote please clarify.

Alatar

Ax wrote:

Thus the need to settle what happens first, first: the nature of the objection, public or private, in a thread, in an email, et al.

Oh my goodness. I think I just grasped what you're saying. Do you think we should build the model step by step, ballot by ballot? Because even if we voted on them in the correct order in one ballot, there could be oncompatible results.

My thought was to take out what was interchangeable and vote on the remnants of the models that are indivisible, but this other idea is intriguing, too. Though I think it is easier to grasp the principles of each model as a whole, whereas taking things separately could leave someone with no rationale for voting for one over the other. Forgive me if I've lapsed into gibberish.

Quote:

When I say evaluated for form, I mean checked to make sure they actually refer to a specific problem, incident, et al, as opposed to deciding whether the cited problem, incident, et al, is a valid objection. I think the former is doable and perhaps desirable, as my recent examples pointed to, while the latter is rather less so.

That's a subtle distinction but very important. Yes, let us keep the review away from value judgment as much as possible, except perhaps where egregious examples show up such as Estel was referring to, and these could get special treatment? Rangers able to go outside the threshold requirements and make a judgment?

Alatar wrote:

Can you please point out where I suggested a Poll? I referred to Veto vote as the preferred method because nobody seems to be suggesting a "For and Against" type of voting, namely only those wishing to veto are voting. Have I misunderstood?

I'm sorry, Alatar. I think there may be a misunderstanding here on both our parts. It has been suggested thus far that the 'veto-vote' would take place in a poll thread. It isn't a true, two-choice poll, but that would be the form it would take (with one option being 'I don't want this person in ToE' and the other being a default option). I assumed that's what you meant when you talked about a 'veto-vote'.

But perhaps you were saying that it would just be a regular thread, and people would simply state, "I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioning member is a danger to the community because ..." and the number of objections would be counted?

I think it is your higher standard for objecting that makes this an intriguing idea.

It also reintroduces the idea of the public (within ToE) statements against people, which at least Nin was very opposed to, I think to protect the person objecting who might not want to reveal personal information as well as the person being objected against not being able to respond to accusations. The idea here was to avoid the ugliness of the invitation threads all over again.

This led to proposals to have people vote anonymously against someone by just clicking on the poll option. This protects the people objecting but not the petitioner and is subject to abuse by capricious objectors.

Quote:

The only difference between what I am suggesting and what I can gather is suggested for the Email model is that it is transparent.

By transparent, you mean that statements are publicly made (within ToE) against someone who cannot answer. It is a one way transparency. But at least it is more honest than the other 'voting' proposals because it requires objectors to give a substantial reason, and it would mean that the rejected petitioner would know all the reasons people gave.

This is indeed something different and worth putting on the ballot. I would be happier with this than with the current 'voting' model, because it requires accountability of the objectors to say why they are objecting and has a high standard for objections. This is a perfect example of how the different model provisions are not interchangeable. To me this would be completely unacceptable if the statement didn't start with that high standard for objecting.

What I just can't countenance is people insisting on the right to be able to veto someone they feel is dangerous while insisting that they do not have to say why they feel he is dangerous -- either in email or on the forum. You know, if a person using your standard didn't want to say it in the forum, then they could email it to Admin. What do you think about that?

This is really much simpler than the current voting proposal. Also, my previous remarks about the threshold don't hold, because I misunderstood what you were saying.

I will work on incorporating your suggestions onto the ballot, either as individual options or as a model in themselves (which it will be I can't tell at the moment). In the meantime, I'd like to hear what other people have to say about it.

Estel wrote:

My latest model does.

Your latest model allows the rejectee to know the reasons of those who email Admin (at least one and possibly more). But if only one person emails, and if there are 40 'no' votes, he still only knows that one reason.

But I've just realized that the reality underlying a poll is completely different from the reality underlying individual objections.

In a poll, you have one (or more) persons publicly objecting (either with reasons or without). You'll never know if the others are voting 'no' because they also object, or just because they are showing solidarity for the one objection that has been made publicly. That is the idea that I think underlies your desire for the forum. You want people to be able to agree to keep someone out on the basis of one person's experience. It is a group dynamic, it is about supporting a fellow ToE-er, it's the model for a closed forum, not for an open one. And therein lies the fundamental and irreconcilable contradiction.

Cerin--

I would like to nail SOMETHING down. Right now we have nothing but independent variables, and we need to start somewhere: either the beginning of the process or a single central feature most of us can agree on.

Something like the 5 objections w/ real explanations, 1/3 of ToE posters w/o real explanations compromise, perhaps.

Axordil wrote:

I would like to nail SOMETHING down. Right now we have nothing but independent variables, and we need to start somewhere: either the beginning of the process or a single central feature most of us can agree on.

Something like the 5 objections w/ real explanations, 1/3 of ToE posters w/o real explanations compromise, perhaps.

But Ax, everything is contingent on everything else.

There are competing interests, we all have different things that are make or break, we all have one different thing we can nail down.

Here's what I can nail down for myself.

Everyone objecting to someone having access to ToE must say, either on ToE or in email to Admin, why they object to the person having access. If they can't or won't say why they object, then they don't have the right to object.

What is the one 'must' thing for you?

What is the one 'must' thing for other committee members?

I think we need to know each person's 'must' thing before we can zero on the thing we nail down.

(I'm feeling at the moment as though my brain has been a bit over-taxed, so forgive me if I'm not quick on the up-take.)

The first next thing I have to do is incorporate Alatar's proposal into the second thread.

Ax, what about nailing down the standard for objecting?

What did you think of Alatar's standard:

I have reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is a danger to the community because ...

Oh, it's excellent. I think we can all agree on it, since that's what we're talking about, people who would endanger the ToE community.

Given that standard, what can be decided more easily?

Given that standard, I wonder if we could all agree that the procedure could be started by a Ranger opening an announcement thread in the forum with a text containing that standard:

(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 this would be compatible with any of the proposed options for what comes next?

What we'll have to choose between next is what is most important to us.

The right of the petitioner to know the accusations brought against him.

or

The protection of sensitive ToE members from having to say (even in email) why they think someone is a danger to the community


I think the idea is totally bogus that allowing anonymous poll 'nos' is a way of protecting the petitioner, so I'd like that idea taken off the table. The way to protect the petitioner is to email reasons rather than stating them on ToE, not by allowing anonymous 'no' votes.