board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTE OVER -- Preliminary Ballot/Denial of Access

Locked   Page 2 of 18  [ 349 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 518 »
Author Message
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 12:30 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Cerin wrote:
Voronwe
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. 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
This isn't one of the equality issues that concerns me, V. I think this should be left up to ToE members to decide amongst themselves, and I don't think it should be included in this amendment. If ToE members decide that they want a retroactive veto, then I think they should propose that amendment in a separate process.
I agree with Voronwe. We are dealing with vetos now so why not deal with this type of veto now. I'm not sure why this type of veto is anymore something ToE members should decide amongs themselves than the other veto. I do think it helps address the issues of equality and could make it easier for the membership to accept this whole thing. Also, I think it's best to take care of this type of issue all in one go rather than asking the membership to vote on it again and again. That's a good way to assure no quorum is reached, IMO.
Voronwe wrote:
Cerin, I just don't see it that way. I see it as recognizing the fact that ToE has special needs and finding ways to address those needs without forcing it to be completely split off from board77. I just don't see the violations of rights here that you do. And from someone who's website is called www.protectingrights.net that's a big statement. I'm definitely in favor of working to make the process as fair as possible, but I just don't see it as an issue of raising one groups "feelings" over another groups "rights". I see it as a question of balancing competing interests. And that's always a tricky proposition.
:love:
I'm glad you're our loremaster right now. I would say we're trying to protect ToE's posters right to keep posting as they do now, even though I'm sure Cerin would disagree....and maybe you too. :P

edit: Ax, I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble keeping track of all this, soaking it in and understanding it. Could you tell me what you mean by independent objections?

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 12:39 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Eruname--

Independent objections are those that would come about from individuals without urging or collusion, direct or indirect. If I have direct experience with someone, and object to them because of that experience, that would be independent. If I object because a friend objects, that would not be independent.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 12:54 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Erunáme wrote:
Cerin wrote:

This isn't one of the equality issues that concerns me, V. I think this should be left up to ToE members to decide amongst themselves, and I don't think it should be included in this amendment. If ToE members decide that they want a retroactive veto, then I think they should propose that amendment in a separate process.
I agree with Voronwe. We are dealing with vetos now so why not deal with this type of veto now.

I actually have to throw in with Cerin on this one :Q :Q :Q ;)

Having a veto for people who are already members of the ToE would involve changing rules that are already in the charter - it would, in effect, be a revote. Because of that, I think it would have to be in a seperate committee in a seperate thread.

The other reason I don't agree to this is because I think there are a lot of members on the board, especially in the ToE, who would vote no to the whole thing because of this one issue. I am not personally willing to risk not having a veto option because we attempted to throw this extra veto rule in with the rest.

It is something that I think we should do, but not right now. There is not an immediate need for it, while I feel there is an immediate need for the type of veto-vote on new ToE members that we are discussing.


Tries to think of an easier way to put it

Basically, the veto-vote for new members is something we have to take care of now and I honestly believe that the option to veto someone already a member of the forum endangers the already fragile proposition we have going. It's a risk now, while if we waited till this issue was done, it would no longer be a risk, and we could still take care of it.

Did that make more sense :scratch: Or have I completely lost my ability to word anything :help:


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 1:30 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Estel--

Hmmm. That has promise, but it's complicated. Is there a way of streamlining it without losing the compromises, which are quite nice otherwise?

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 1:36 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
That's fine then Estel.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 1:38 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Erunáme wrote:
I agree with Voronwe. We are dealing with vetos now so why not deal with this type of veto now. I'm not sure why this type of veto is anymore something ToE members should decide amongs themselves than the other veto. I do think it helps address the issues of equality and could make it easier for the membership to accept this whole thing. Also, I think it's best to take care of this type of issue all in one go rather than asking the membership to vote on it again and again. That's a good way to assure no quorum is reached, IMO.
Well, since we now have had two people express opinions on each side of this question (all of whom made good points, IMO), this should probably be an option on the committee ballot. I have some more thoughts on this issue, but my brain is too mushy to think straight right now.
Quote:
I'm glad you're our loremaster right now. I would say we're trying to protect ToE's posters right to keep posting as they do now, even though I'm sure Cerin would disagree....and maybe you too. :P
No, I'd say that's fairly accurate. :) But I'll fight to the death to support Cerin's right to disagree, nor will I say that she would be wrong to do so. :)


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 2:04 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Axordil wrote:
Estel--

Hmmm. That has promise, but it's complicated. Is there a way of streamlining it without losing the compromises, which are quite nice otherwise?

I could try, but I could also use a little help :)


Honestly, I know we're trying to each come up with a seperate but valid option, but I don't work that way very well. I work much better with people than against them. I would much rather we all tried to work together to come up with one absolutely incredible option to offer to the rest of the board, than each of us come up with seperate workable but not amazing options and then try to vote for just one.

I understand that working in a committe isn't about compromise, but doesn't compromising come up with the best option possible? I really don't understand this, I'm gonna write down my way, you're gonna write down your way, and then we'll vote. Screw that! Let's work together!


Eru: :hug: thank you for understanding my point of view. I know you don't necessarily agree with it, but I really really thank you for your understanding of it :)


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 2:17 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Estel: Well, if we're really trying to get an option that the board will approve of, why don't we get a real compromise going.

Estel, I think it is really admirable and endearing the way you continue to strive for a compromise. :)

I probably shouldn't have made that remark about the likelihood of the amendment passing, because I really have no idea how any amendment will be received by the membership.

My initial reaction to your latest proposal is that it seems to be getting overly complicated. I still don't grasp why it is essential to you (as it seems to be) that the objection process take place in ToE.

To me, the emails model represents the idea of individual members voicing their conscience, which to me is what a vote should be. You seem to want to include some kind of group dynamic in the process. Is this correct? Can you explain why that is important to you? The danger of the band wagon effect has been mentioned several times. Do you feel that that isn't a significant concern?


Voronwe: I'm definitely in favor of working to make the process as fair as possible, but I just don't see it as an issue of raising one groups "feelings" over another groups "rights". I see it as a question of balancing competing interests.

I don't know how anyone could not see that ToE members' feelings are being raised over non-ToE members right to participate in and benefit from the kinds of discussions that take place in ToE. But let's talk about competing interests. What is anyone's interest in being a member of ToE? Lidless has spoken very eloquently about this in a number of recent threads. The interest is in having a secure, supportive environment in which to explore your concerns and questions concerning intimacy. Of course, there are all the other interests a person has in participating on a messageboard (enjoyment of the company of friends, etc.), but I think that is the one peculiar to ToE.

So let's take a current member of ToE who has those interests, and a new b77 member who has those same interests. The only thing differentiating them is that the current ToE member had the happenstance to become a member before we closed the board. It happens that these two people know each other in real life, and the current ToE member isn't comfortable with the idea of the new member sharing in intimate conversations with him. To me, if these two people are to treated equally as we claim that we do, if their interests are to be considered equally important, then the interest of the new member to have access to the forum outweighs the right of the current ToE member to feel comfortable posting there; his discomfort is his problem, because it is not caused through fault of the new member.

We don't have a by-law that states that original members have the right to feel comfortable at the expense of new members' right to participate on the board. Perhaps we should. Perhaps we should offer an amendment to the Mission Statement: 'b77 is an internet community that was once private, but is now open to the public, except for our adult forum. In order to guarantee the comfort of our original members who post in that forum, the opportunity of new members to post there is subject to unconditional veto by current members.' If we passed that amendment, and amended the Key Principles to remove mentions of equality and respect, then I wouldn't have a problem with whatever kind of veto system the ToE membership wanted to set up.

Axordil wrote:
The fact that I disagreed with the premises suggested as possible ones by Nin and Tosh is exactly why I DON'T want them evaluated.

But you agreed that those weren't valid, appropriate, whatever word you want reasons for objecting to someone.
Quote:
No one here should have to do that in a RL situation as opposed to a hypothetical one.
No one here has to do anything too difficult. All we have to do is establish a simple standard: objections must refer to the conduct of the applicant.
Quote:
Between the poles of the ones we would accept and Nin and Tosh might not, and vice versa, is a morasse of subjective interpretation and judgment that I just don't want this board to get into.

It isn't that hard. Does your objection have anything to do with the applicant's behavior? That's it. If not, then it isn't a valid reason to try and keep them from benefitting from the same conversation and fellowship you enjoy in that forum. Your discomfort is your problem, and you need to find a way to deal with it that doesn't infringe on another member's right to benefit from that forum.

Quote:
I am finding the whole notion of independent objection harder and harder to maintain as a concept...it seems there is no method that is not either porous or excessively baroque.
And I am finding the whole notion of zero standard objections harder and harder to maintain as a concept. Frankly, I find it outrageous.

Quote:
Perhaps it would be better to just go back to open voting, allowing people to put forward objections if they see fit, and raising the threshold to 1/3, as Cerin suggests. At least then the bandwagon would have to build up some honest momentum.
Yes, and the ugly spectre of the invitation thread will take its permanent place of honor on b77. Well, so be it, if it turns out that that's what people want.

I will work on incorporating some of this language into the email model, which is the only one I can support.

Erunáme wrote:
I agree with Voronwe. We are dealing with vetos now so why not deal with this type of veto now. I'm not sure why this type of veto is anymore something ToE members should decide amongs themselves than the other veto. I do think it helps address the issues of equality and could make it easier for the membership to accept this whole thing. Also, I think it's best to take care of this type of issue all in one go rather than asking the membership to vote on it again and again.
Will you then please take responsibility for composing something that can be added to the ballot as an option? I do not have a grasp of that issue, so I will not try to address it.

Quote:
I would say we're trying to protect ToE's posters right to keep posting as they do now
Thank you, Eru! This is exactly what I was going to ask committee members to do. Put in your own words what you think we are trying to achieve with this amendment.

I was thinking in terms of a spectrum of goals. Eru, you have articulated what I saw as the goal on one end of that spectrum. The other end would be something like:

We're trying to set up a procedure to keep people known for inappropriate sexually-related behavior out of ToE.

So if others could put the goal they see into words, I would appreciate it.

Back to your statement, Eru. To me, ToE posters don't and can't have a right to keep posting as they do now. They are posting in the dynamic of a closed forum, but this board is no longer a closed board! It is a completely unreasonable expectation, IMO. Maybe if several other members will state what they see as the goal, we will discover some middle ground (or maybe not).


Estel

I think that was a great explanation of why dealing with the retroactive veto in this process isn't a good idea.

However, Eru, if you want to compose something, I will certainly include it on the ballot (that is, the committee ballot from which we will ultimately derive the final amendment).


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 2:27 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Estel: Honestly, I know we're trying to each come up with a seperate but valid option, but I don't work that way very well.
Estel, we're definitely not all trying to come up with separate options. I'm sorry I created that impression.

The reason I keep working on the email model is because I know I can't support any model that is a voting thread in ToE (or that doesn't require explanations referring to an applicant's conduct). But I think it's excellent if Axordil wants to turn his attention to your latest suggestion. In the meantime, I have to keep working on something that I can support in good conscience here in committee.

If it becomes apparent that your latest version of your model is the preferred one, I will replace your original version with this latest version in the second post.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 3:14 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Are there any committee members who support the Bike Racks proposal or elements of that proposal being included on our committee ballot?


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 4:18 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
I don't think that there would be a bandwagon effect if we used the model where the administrator ID is the one that started the thread.

The reason I think it is so important to keep the voting thread in the ToE is for the same reason that you don't really seem to want it in there - transparency. I don't want anything hidden that doesn't need to be. Yes, the reasons should be sent to Rangers only, if only because that could convince peopole to vote who would not otherwise vote at all. The veto-vote thread itself, however, should be there for all to see for transparency reasons. I don't see any reason why someone would vote against someone if they didn't know the person, didn't know why someone else was veto-voting them, and didn't know who the person was that veto-voted them.

If necessary, we could even have it where the Ranger does not update the thread with how many people have PMed reasons - that way, no one would know if if the number to be reached is 10 or one third. If that's the case, no one would bother with trying to make the tenth vote, cause they won't know if ten is the number to reach, or if 21 is the number to reach. The only problem there is, how to hold the Rangers accountable for the number of PMs they have recieved.

I'm sorry if this post doesn't make much sense - I have a blinding heachache, and am literally typing with my eyes closed.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 4:59 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Your post makes perfect sense, Estel. I'm so sorry about the headache.

On transparency, I see having a thread in ToE to be anti-transparent. You see, it isn't (to me) about ToE members being able to know what's going on. My concern isn't transparency for ToE members, because ToE members are the ones exercising an exclusive power here. Transparency in this case means to me that power exclusive to members of ToE not be exercised behind the closed doors of ToE, that the administration of an exclusionary process for a closed forum not be conducted in or influenced by the members of that forum.


Committee members, I have to think about beginning to formulate a ballot. This is to me like trying to cross the marshes without Gollum as a guide. If you notice me doing anything procedurally inept, for heaven's sake say something!


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 5:10 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Well, the only reason it would have to be in ToE is so that non-ToE members couldn't vote. We could make it completely transparent (but more complex) by simply having the previous mechanism with the admin starting the thread, but have the thread in the Jury room with ToE members having permission for that forum for the length of time needed for the veto-vote.

Actually, it would be that difficult - just create a seperate "group" called ToE vote, and switch the entire ToE, as a group, to the vote group on the rare occasion that this would come up.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 5:26 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Estel: Well, the only reason it would have to be in ToE is so that non-ToE members couldn't vote.

But what is the need for the vote at all? What is the need for the thread? What is the need for the poll? The individual emails to Administrator takes care of all of that.

The idea of a vote carries the connotation that the members of ToE are deciding as a group to reject certain people. It is the ugliness of the invitation thread and the closed board resurrected.

The individual emails is just that, individuals who are members of ToE exercising their conscience as individuals, just as individual members of b77 exercise their conscience when they email an objection to someone becoming a Ranger. It is no different, it should be no different.

We don't start a thread in the Business Room in the name of transparency when someone becomes eligible to be a Ranger, and have a public vote to register objections against that person. That is no accident; there was much discussion about the fairest and least humiliating way to allow members to voice their objections when they thought someone was not suited to that position of authority. We should respect the thought and discussion that went into that decision, and follow that model for voicing objections to ToE applicants.

I see no reason, compelling or otherwise, why that model should not and cannot be followed here.


Top
Profile
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 5:53 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Cerin to Eru wrote:
Will you then please take responsibility for composing something that can be added to the ballot as an option? I do not have a grasp of that issue, so I will not try to address it.
Earlier in this thread:
Estel to Eru wrote:
It is something that I think we should do, but not right now. There is not an immediate need for it, while I feel there is an immediate need for the type of veto-vote on new ToE members that we are discussing.
Eru wrote:
That's fine then Estel.
Later...
Cerin wrote:
However, Eru, if you want to compose something, I will certainly include it on the ballot (that is, the committee ballot from which we will ultimately derive the final amendment).
Eru in the other thread wrote:
It's not like I've ever been good at forumlating things

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 6:34 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Cerin wrote:
Estel: Well, the only reason it would have to be in ToE is so that non-ToE members couldn't vote.

But what is the need for the vote at all? What is the need for the thread? What is the need for the poll? The individual emails to Administrator takes care of all of that.

I don't trust that system. If I can't see it, then I can't trust that it is happening as it should be. It's a matter of trust, and I don't trust that every Ranger we have will be objective enough to follow protocol. Maybe the person under review will be a friend of theirs, so they'll send a "receipt" to the person who sent the veto-vote, but delete it and not tell the other rangers about it. Maybe the email won't get through, as so many emails don't.


I. Do. Not. Trust. It.


Plain and simple. If it can't be seen, then it CAN be messed with, and with how sensitive this forum is, it's just not worth that risk, no matter how small you may think that risk is. I'm willing to risk the reasons being sent to the Rangers. Not the "votes," and no matter how we try to sugarcoat it, as PMs to admins, or clicks on a poll, it is votes.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 7:38 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Eru

This is the statement of yours I was responding to in both of the quotes you referenced:
Quote:
I agree with Voronwe. We are dealing with vetos now so why not deal with this type of veto now. I'm not sure why this type of veto is anymore something ToE members should decide amongs themselves than the other veto. I do think it helps address the issues of equality and could make it easier for the membership to accept this whole thing. Also, I think it's best to take care of this type of issue all in one go rather than asking the membership to vote on it again and again. That's a good way to assure no quorum is reached, IMO.
If the other comments you referenced came subsequent to that, I evidently missed them. I take it then that you don't feel a need to include the issue in the amendment at this time.

Voronwe, I don't know how, if at all, this affects any preparations you might be making.


Estel: I don't trust that system. If I can't see it, then I can't trust that it is happening as it should be. It's a matter of trust, and I don't trust that every Ranger we have will be objective enough to follow protocol.

Well, I find that absolutely astonishing and a poor rationale for a procedure of this type. I would say we need a plan based on sound principle, not on distrust.


Is there a version of your proposal that you favor above the others, Estel? I will need to focus on one of them as I prepare the ballot.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 8:18 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I have added some preliminary options to the ballot.


Top
Profile
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 11:52 am
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
Just a fly-by I did not have the time to read carefully, so forgive me if I repeat things.

For several, also technical reasons (we all have seen PMs not arrive....) I would prefer a poll to vote.

The second is about the question raised in the other thread. Thank you to Eru for reminding that I am not a native speaker of English, and please, I do most of the time post and type in a hurry and under pressure.

What I meant: I would have a problem with a poster asking for ToE acces who has expressed clearly judgemental views elsewhere on the boards - like for instance that all homosexual persons are mentally ill and should be interned - I mentionned religion because it is in my experience the most invoqued reason for judgemental behaviour. Maybe this is still not any clearer, but I was clearly thinking of a judgement expressed already elsewhere on the boards (e.g the Symposium).

Sorry to have so little time and input.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 2:17 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thank you, Nin. I agree that having seen someone being judgmental toward other members in their posting would be a valid reason to object to them gaining access to ToE.



I would like to point out that I have changed one of the ballot options, the last one on the Poll Thread options, because that was my proposal and I thought of a better way to word it.


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 2 of 18  [ 349 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 518 »
Jump to: