Committee members, first I must apologize if I seem to be rushing to a vote. Clearly we are not ready for a vote.
This reminds me of current law, where the criminals have all the rights. I'm not sure I want to see that happen here also.
I see the example (of three complaints made and all the ToE members know it but not the petitioner who gets in) as the rights being all on the side of ToE members. From my perspective, I'm just trying to insure there is a balance. If all ToE members know what accusations were brought against a petitioner who gets in, then the petitioner should know about them, too or its a tremendously uneven situation, IMO.
Otherwise, why let anyone in to ToE who gets even one objection? Any hope they had of being welcomed there is ruined before their time there has even begun, and they are not even allowed to be aware of it. This strikes me as really problematic. Actually, I think it makes a pretty good case against the forum objection model. If objections are made by email, at least the person objected to who gets in has a chance of being accepted.
Axordil and
Voronwe, can you please weigh in on this question. (Note I am asking for Axordil and Voronwe's input because they are present more than the committee members whose names I didn't mention, so I have some hope of getting an answer sometime soon. This is not meant as a criticism of those who are not able to devote as much time to the committee.)
First question for me concerns question 11: What exactly do you mean by deleting the thread? Once the access is given or while the process is still in the making?
Thank you, Nin. I will reword the question (I believe it is Question 10) to make it clear. If there are other options people would like included, please let me know. I guess it is about striking a balance between giving people time to see the results and cluttering up the forum with old petitioner threads.
After the objection period has concluded and the results have been posted, a Ranger will delete the petitioner's thread after a period of
PLEASE RANK IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE:
A. one day
B. three days
C. one week
Second is the question what will become of the information given to keep someone out of ToE - will it be possible for the applying member to receive this information and if yes - will he/she only know the nature of the objections or the person who submitted the objection, or can both of these informations only be given with the agreement of the objector and the applying member can only know the number of objections if the objector has not given any other permission to the Ranger.
Up to this point, we had simply said that the person rejected will be presented with the text of the objections. This would be done in the name of fairness and transparency. According to the current ballot, this does not require the permission of the person objecting. There is currently no one supporting the idea that petitioners be given the names of those who objected, and there is no option proposing that on the ballot.
Then the point Alatar responded to above occurred to me, and I wanted to include an option that not only rejected petitioners, but also petitioners granted access will be given the text of the objections lodged against them (for the reasons stated above).
I need some more feedback on this.
I would prefer the second model, where the objector has to agree that his name and/or the nature of his objection can be given to the applying member upon his/her request - and only if the applying member requests so!
I don't see how it is problematic that the objector be given the texts of objections if he is not given the names. Do you see a problem with that? I believe someone has a right to know the reasons people gave for trying to keep them out of the forum.
Among supporters of polls, support leans towards models requiring explanations, at least from some objectors.
I don't see how a poll can include explanations.
Regarding the support for public statements, I want to point out that that question asked whether public statements should be allowed, not whether they should be required. I'm not sure how to quantify that difference in dynamic.
Well, it's possible that we could create a system where by a poll is created on supply of a valid objection from one or more members.
As in:
Rangers notify ToE members that poster X has requested membership
Any objection must be lodged with the Rangers by PM or Mail within 10 days.
(Depending on which way we go here we can use one of the existring models for validating that objection)
If the objection (or objections) is valid then there is a 10 day poll to receive 10 supporting votes from the ToE Membership
I think it's actually very workable.
Alatar, how is that different from the current compromise poll model, and how does it incorporate the explanations?
That looks exactly like Estel's compromise proposal to me (so it would seem I'm not understanding it properly).
Are you suggesting that the people who vote in the poll will also submit explanations to the Rangers. If so, what is the point of the poll? If not, where are the explanations that people favor?
My impression was that the majority want accountability, not necessarily public explanations. If we can't trust our rangers to do this why do we trust them with the passwords for everything on this site?
I believe that most people would be happy if the objection was made to the Rangers.
Are you saying that people would vote in the poll, and they would also send their objections to the Rangers? Again, what then is the purpose of the poll?
I'm not sure either that the 'allow public statements' necessarily means that people want the objections to be public. I take responsibility for that poor wording (which I believe may have been taken as a free-speech issue, considering some of the comments in the thread).
I also find myself wondering how many thought of "in ToE" as being "public."
The question was stated as ''allow public statements to be made against the petitioner on the forum". Does that not indicate they are being made on the ToE forum?
Again, sorry for the inadequate wording.
There are alot of changes being proposed, and I need people's feedback to make sure I understand the issues before I start trying to incorporate things into the ballot again.