board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTE OVER -- Preliminary Ballot/Denial of Access

Locked   Page 13 of 18  [ 349 posts ]
Jump to page « 111 12 13 14 1518 »
Author Message
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 12:09 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
I've been awake for far more than 24 hours, my parents have just left to go back to Key West. Please forgive if my comments, critisisms, spelling :roll: , etc have been less than productive. I do feel that the push to vote on this came too soon after the ballot was "finalized" - at least, according to two people of this committee.

I've got to get some sleep before I can properly comment on anything, but by the time I wake up, voting among the committee members will have already started and it will be too late.




I just wanted to point out that in the polls started, the majority of people who voted wanted there to be explanations....


.... and the majority of people also felt that the ToE should have a poll option of some sort.



Now that it's taken me 20 minutes to write this little post and attempt to correct all the mispellings, I have to go sleep.


Top
Profile
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 12:26 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
I have read through the ballot to the best of my limited abilities and time.

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?

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.

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 can easily imagine cases where it would hold a ToE member back from objecting if he/she knew that the nature of his objection and/or his name would be known to the applying member.

I am not sure if the ballot meets those points - little time and difficult to concentrate, plus language and RL problems.

Besides that, let already tell me that I wildly prefer the poll model.

Apologies for my lack of contribution and thank you very much to Estel and Cerin for their hard work and to Axordil for the nudges.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 2:42 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Polls indicate:
There is clear support for explanations being required in some fashion, that objections be public, and for the standard to be one of danger and not discomfort (although I note not as many people voted in the late poll adding the compromise, it seems not to have sparked as much interest). Each of these has more than 60% support.

Among supporters of polls, support leans towards models requiring explanations, at least from some objectors.

I find it difficult to conceive of a model that both has a poll, which by its nature allows participation without identification, and satisfies the desire for public explanations.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 2:48 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
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.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 2:56 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Al, I agree that that system would be workable.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:03 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Where exactly does the public part come in? It looks like all the objecting is done in camera, and the polls suggest that's going to be a sore spot.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:08 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
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.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:17 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
As I noted above, more than 60% of the poll respondants wanted objections to be allowed in public. Not necessarily required, but allowed.

I also find myself wondering how many thought of "in ToE" as being "public."

Also note I'm in the minority on the public thing, personally, but if we shut the whole process up we're going against the grain.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:26 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
See my post in Business.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:27 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
See mine. :P

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:29 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
We could do this all day...

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:35 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I just don't think it's going to fly. Not unless the poll threshold is higher than any poll supporter here is going to want to make it.

But this is confirmed or denied easily enough...

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:47 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Unfortunately, I think the poll results are of somewhat limited use. I understand why Cerin (and Estel) put them up, but I would have preferred waiting until after the committee voted on this ballot, thereby clarifying the different options that we were proposing, and then have a single poll asking the membership to state which of those specific proposals they prefer.

It still may be worth doing that. :)


Top
Profile
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 3:59 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
I also think Al's model is workable, I would like to be sure about the information given to poster X though.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 4:41 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Committee members, first I must apologize if I seem to be rushing to a vote. Clearly we are not ready for a vote.

Alatar wrote:
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.)

Nin wrote:
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Axordil wrote:
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.

Alatar wrote:
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?

Alatar wrote:
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).

Axordil wrote:
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.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 4:52 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Quote:
Does that not indicate they are being made on the ToE forum?
Yes it does...my bad.

As far as objections going to someone who is getting in: they will find out there were objections to them, no matter what system we pick. That's a given in my mind. Giving them at least a redacted version of those objections allows them to address the issues, if they want to. At the least it might keep them from instantly engaging in the activities people were worried about.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 5:02 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thank you, Ax.


Now I need feedback on the points Wilma raised.

She seemed to think that the poll options give the impression that multiple petitioners will be considered and objected to as a group? Do others see this represented on the ballot? If so, can you suggest a solution (because I don't see it)?

It was Wilma's suggestion that gave rise to the Discretionary exception for extraordinary circumstances option. Today she suggested that she had wanted that model to apply to all kinds of objections.

In other words, I believe she is saying she would like an option whereby, when objections are received, a Ranger will indicate that in the thread. I believe we already have this option (Question 19 option A) on the ballot. Further, I think she may be asking for an option that the Ranger indicate what type of objection has been received. This I don't see as feasible.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 5:08 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I am awaiting the confimation/clarification from Wilma you requested before commenting.

Add: That, and I want to go eat lunch. :D

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 5:32 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Fair enough. :D


I have incorporated the various options people discussed into what is now Question 10 on Part I of the ballot, regarding forwarding the texts of the objections to those who have been objected to.

Please note that the Question nos. are continuously changing as things are rearranged.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 7:43 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Would anyone object to locking the existing polls at this point?

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 13 of 18  [ 349 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 111 12 13 14 1518 »
Jump to: