board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTE OVER -- Preliminary Ballot/Denial of Access

Locked   Page 3 of 18  [ 349 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 518 »
Author Message
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 2:40 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
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.
Cerin, I think Eru is saying that she does want to see this issue in this amendment at this time, but that she doesn't want to try to draft something to put in the ballot (Eru, please correct me if I am wrong). I hadn't planned to draft something myself, but I can probably do so once I have a better idea of how the ballot ultimately is going to be structured.
Quote:
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.
I agree with you here, Cerin, but there needs to be a choice on the ballot between the two competing ideas (poll vs. PM vote) with perhaps some kind of compromise choice included as well.

This ballot is going to end up being pretty complicated, but it will end resulting in the compromise result that Estel is looking for.


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 4:25 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
This entire amendment is based on trust and lack thereof. Is it really all that surprising that I extend it to the ballot itself?


I honestly prefer my last compromise Cerin. I do still have to do a bit of streamlining, but it is the one I think will suit both the needs of the community, and the subcommunity of the ToE.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 4:33 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
At this point I would like to ask that people turn their attention to Estel's three proposals. I've listed below the fundamentals in a nutshell. Estel, please correct me where I have gotten something wrong.

There is one thing I don't understand about proposals #2 and #3. They say that at least one (or at least two) persons objecting have to be willing to have their name revealed to the applicant. What if there isn't one, or what if there aren't two people out of the objectors who are willing to have their name forwarded? How would this be declared so as to be known during the vote, and if the required number weren't willing to reveal themselves, what would happen? Would the process be aborted? How would this be explained to ToE?




Proposal #1
Name of person requesting access posted in forum
First person to object states so in new thread, no reason given
Two additional people object in same thread, no reason given
First to object adds poll to thread, other ToE members who object to applicant register their objection by voting in that poll, no thread discussion; if people want to know why others are objecting, they ask via PM
If number of people objecting exceeds 1/3 the number of forum members, access denied


Proposal #2
Name of person requesting access posted in forum
First person to object states so in new thread, short explanation given
Two additional people object in same thread, short explanation given
First person to object adds poll to thread, other ToE members who object to applicant register their objection by voting in that poll, no thread discussion, no PM discussion
If number of people objecting exceeds 1/3 the number of forum members, access denied
Ranger communicates denial to applicant along with reasons given and names of at least one of the persons objecting


Proposal #3
Name of person requesting access posted in forum
First person to object PMs Administrator with short explanation why they do not want the applicant to have access
Ranger opens thread in ToE announcing an objection has been received, sets up poll thread for other ToE members to vote their objection
Number of votes needed to deny depends on number of objections sent independently to Administrator
No thread or PM discussion
If access denied, Ranger communicates denial to applicant along with reasons given and names of at least two of the persons objecting



Proposal #1 requires no accountability for those objecting. Someone could object because they were in a bad mood that day or because their friend is objecting. This option also keeps the rejected person in the dark. They will not know why they were denied access to ToE. The only dialogue about a person would happen behind the scenes, in private email. In my view, this could basically be characterized as a secrecy proposal.


Proposal #2 requires accountability of the three people required to initiate the poll thread. The rest of those voting could vote for any reason whatsoever and not be held to account in any way. In addition, because the reasons are given in the thread, this would be a public impugning of the applicant's character without any opportunity for them to defend themselves. The applicant would know of the three public reasons they were objected to, but would not know why the preponderence of objecting voters objected to their having access. I think the prime differentiating feature here is the public (on ToE) statements against the applicant (which I think at least Nin has expressed an aversion to thus far).


Proposal #3 requires accountability of the one person who emails Administrator with an explanation of their objection (if others chose to email Admin, they would also have accountability). The rest of ToE members could vote to exclude the person for any reason whatsoever (their friend doesn't like them, they know the person and aren't comfortable with the idea of sharing intimate thoughts with them, their screen name reminds them of their bitchy Aunt). The applicant would receive the objections sent to Admin, whether one or more. This option eliminates the public comments of option #2 and is slightly less secret than option #1.

We need some discussion of these varying features so that I can see which options need not be included on the ballot if there is no support for them.

(I just want to note here that there is also the email option I proposed, modeled on the Ranger provision in the charter, which requires accountability while at the same time guarding privacy. ToE members voice their objections individually rather than as a group, which I believe has less of the connotations of the closed board/invitation thread dynamic. )


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 4:40 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Estel:
What you're saying is that, in effect, you EXPECT a Ranger, at some point in time, to commit fraud to keep someone out of or get someone into ToE.

Why, pray tell, should they only do it for ToE? If Rangers can't be trusted with this duty, why should they be trusted with anything? What you are actually saying is that you don't trust the system by which Rangers are selected, and by extension, any of us that aren't in absolute agreement with you.

That is a dead-end street in life, and one I recommend avoiding taking a step down.

Trust but verify. Remind people of the ramifications of their actions if someone does lose it and screw up a vote with malice aforethought. That's all we can do, in any case, ToE included.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 4:40 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Estel, I took the liberty of streamlining your third proposal as I was acquainting myself with it. Please let me know if I have gotten it right.

When a member requests access to the forum, the Ranger will post their name in the permanent thread kept in the forum for that purpose.

If a current ToE poster does not want the applicant to be a member of the forum, then that poster will PM a Ranger stating their objection and giving a concise one to two sentence explanation of the reasons. They should also indicate whether or not they are willing that their name be revealed to the applicant in the event access is denied. The Ranger will then open a poll thread in the ToE forum, stating that there has been an objection to the applicant gaining access to the forum.

The poll will offer one of the following pairs of options:
(see draft ballot in first post)

The thread will further explain that if at least three other ToE posters PM the Administrator objecting to the applicant, then a total of 10 votes is needed in the thread to deny access to the applicant. If at least three other posters do not submit objections to the Administrator, then a total of votes exceeding 1/3 the number of ToE members is needed to deny access. At least two, but preferrably all four of the people who PM the Administrator must be willing to have their names forwarded to the applicant if access is denied. They should indicate this willingness or lack thereof when sending their objections.

No discussion is permitted in the voting thread, and ToM members are expected to refrain from private discussion of the applicant.

If access to the forum is denied, a Ranger will notify the applicant and provide him with the text of the objections lodged against him, and with at least two but preferrably all of the names of those who objected by PM. The applicant may reapply to be a member of the forum after three months, and the process will be repeated.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 4:49 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Estel, I just wanted to point out in case it got lost in the discussion, that Ax had proposed the idea first of an acknowledgement of objections received by Amin and sent to each person objecting, and also sent to a trusted designated ToE member. If these two precautions were combined with a complete listing in the forum at the end of the consideration period of the persons who objected to the applicant whether or not access is denied, I don't see how fraud could possibly be accomplished.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 4:57 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin--

That looks like a streamlined version to me. :)

Estel/Cerin--

I think the important thing is getting any objections raised, in any model we use, to the applicant. I think having names attached to them when they get there is much less important. If people are capable and willing to tell someone why they object, let them do so on their own time (and some will, bless their hearts) but don't require it, because it might make VALID objections harder to coax out of people.

I would say "a total of four" instead of "three other" as it is quite possible that several people will respond quickly to an applicant's name showing up.

Those are my suggestions...these are my observations:

The dual threshold serves a valid purpose: it recognizes that some people are capable of pinning down a specific event that makes them not trust a person, while others may not be...or may not be willing to share it for their own reasons, good or bad. Instead of judging those reasons, we just require they be more widespread.

Personally I would prefer 8 independent objections be the trigger for the first threshold AND the threshold itself: if 8 people, on their own, come forward with reasons they don't trust someone, that's enough. If they don't, the 1/3 kicks in. A bit simpler that way.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 5:35 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Ax, I agree with your observation regarding names of objectors. I would like to hear from others as to whether anyone really wants the revealing of names provision to be included on the ballot (I'm thinking Estel may have included it in her attempt to compromise, rather than because she is enthusiastic about it).

Edit to delete something nonsensical.

Last edited by Cerin on Sun 18 Sep , 2005 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 5:37 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
Cerin, I think Eru is saying that she does want to see this issue in this amendment at this time, but that she doesn't want to try to draft something to put in the ballot (Eru, please correct me if I am wrong). I hadn't planned to draft something myself, but I can probably do so once I have a better idea of how the ballot ultimately is going to be structured.
I think it would be a good thing to look into, but Estel convinced me it's not something we have to do now. And no, I don't want to draft anything. I'd have no idea what to do.

_________________

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

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 6:01 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Ax, could you please check either the second thread with the proposals or the third thread summation of ideas, under Threshold for denial of access to see if I have your idea right?

Last edited by Cerin on Sun 18 Sep , 2005 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 6:04 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Erunáme wrote:
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
Cerin, I think Eru is saying that she does want to see this issue in this amendment at this time, but that she doesn't want to try to draft something to put in the ballot (Eru, please correct me if I am wrong). I hadn't planned to draft something myself, but I can probably do so once I have a better idea of how the ballot ultimately is going to be structured.
I think it would be a good thing to look into, but Estel convinced me it's not something we have to do now. And no, I don't want to draft anything. I'd have no idea what to do.
Okay. :) And after reading TP's comments in Business Room thread, I am leaning against pushing the issue any further. Unless anyone else has a strong feeling about it, I think that it can be dropped.

:)


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 8:12 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thank you, Voronwe. :)

I would like to offer a ballot option to conclude whatever proposal we choose with a mention of the fact that some denials of access are likely permanent in nature because of the kind of behavior involved. I would also like to include the possibility that members who are denied access because of some non-permanent factors could seek support if they wished from a ToE volunteer who would help them understand what kind of attitude is required for ToE and help them work on improving whatever behavior caused them to be rejected.

I'm not sure how this would work best mechanically. When the Ranger posts the results in the thread in ToE, he could ask for a volunteer from ToE who would be willing to work with the rejectee if it is a non-permanent type of rejection. When the Ranger reports the results of the consideration period to the rejectee, he could explain that a ToE volunteer is willing to work with him to improve whatever behavior caused the denial of access. Then if the rejectee expresses a desire for such support, the Ranger could supply that name to the rejectee, or the volunteer could contact them. This is in keeping with the provision for support in the Ranger section of the charter.

This raises the question of how to determine if a denial of access is permanent. Here is a comment from Jnyusa in the Business thread:

Jnyusa: ... as Ax has pointed out, some people will never be allowed in no matter how many times they ask, and others might be admitted after an additional trial period. I suppose that the "objections" would have to specify to some extent the expectation of the person objecting, whether they think it is a permanent denial situation or not. So it would be hard to get away without some kind of explanation from the people doing the objection. <snip> A person really does need to know what kind of rejection they've received. And the members of the ToE also need to know whether the applicant will be trying again or not.

Do we just explain somewhere that objections should include the objector's view of the likelihood that it could ever be overcome?

What I have at the moment:

A Ranger will supply the applicant with the text of the objections lodged against them. If denial of access is based on knowledge of the applicant misusing the kind of personal information shared in ToE, it is doubtful that the trust of objecting ToE members can be restored, and therefore likely that subsequent applications for access to ToE will also be denied. If access is denied for less fundamental reasons, a volunteer from ToE will be made available to help the applicant work on whatever issues caused their request for access to be denied.

The applicant may reapply at the end of the designated period, and the process will be repeated.



Edited to modify and set off proposal.

Last edited by Cerin on Mon 19 Sep , 2005 3:16 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 18 Sep , 2005 12:04 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
There is substantive and interesting discussion in the Business Thread. I hope committee members will be checking there as well, as I haven't been copying things here.

My thoughts on the idea of a right for ToE members to deny other members access to the forum have coalesced somewhat. I am proposing as a ballot option that a sticky be created in ToE containing this text:


Seeking to deny another member the benefits and enjoyment of posting in this forum should not be undertaken lightly. It should not be done if the reservation you feel about another person's presence here is no fault of theirs but entirely resident in yourself. Everyone who posts here must take full responsibility for their decision to reveal intimate and sensitive information to people they do not know and may not like. It is wrong to try to shift the responsibility for your own feelings of vulnerability to others by trying to keep them out of this forum so that you may feel more comfortable. Therefore, an objection to someone gaining access must refer to some aspect of that person's attitude or conduct and not merely to the anticipated effect of their admittance on your comfort level, enjoyment or convenience. (Objections will be reviewed to ensure that they meet these criteria.)


Edit

I'm thinking that with an acknowledged standard for objections and a review to ensure they meet that standard, the number of objections needed to deny access would be less. Perhaps just 5.

Edited to modify and set off proposal.

Last edited by Cerin on Mon 19 Sep , 2005 3:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 19 Sep , 2005 12:29 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Quote:
Therefore, an objection to someone gaining access must refer to some aspect of that person's attitude or conduct and not merely to the anticipated effect of their admittance on your comfort level, enjoyment or convenience.
Which of these, then, would be judged acceptable?

1) Poster X's attitude towards women is hostile and makes me angry.

2) Poster X's attitude is hostile and makes me angry.

3) Poster X's attitude makes me angry.

4) Poster X makes me angry.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 19 Sep , 2005 12:32 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Quote:
A Ranger will supply the applicant with the text of the objections lodged against them. If denial of access is based on knowledge of the applicant misusing the kind of personal information shared in ToE, it is doubtful that the trust of objecting ToE members can be restored, and therefore likely that subsequent applications for access to ToE will also be denied. If access is denied for less serious reasons, a volunteer from ToE will be made available to help the applicant work on whatever issues caused their request for access to be denied.

The applicant may reapply at the end of the designated period, and the process will be repeated.
This is fine, no matter what the voting model. I might say "less fundamental" instead of "less serious," since any objection is serious by its nature.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 19 Sep , 2005 12:52 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Quote:
Which of these, then, would be judged acceptable?

1) Poster X's attitude towards women is hostile and makes me angry.

2) Poster X's attitude is hostile and makes me angry.

3) Poster X's attitude makes me angry.

4) Poster X makes me angry.
1 and 2 would be acceptable. Three is too vague (and if the objector has an attitude in mind, there should be no problem thinking of a way to refer to it), and three doesn't refer to any aspect of the applicant's behavior or attitude.

Quote:
This is fine, no matter what the voting model. I might say "less fundamental" instead of "less serious," since any objection is serious by its nature.
That is excellent! I'm just going to make that change in the second and third posts.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 19 Sep , 2005 12:59 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Copying from Business Thread, as is pertinent and typically superb:

Prim wrote:
I'd suggest a test question (for ToE members to ask themselves): can I name a specific incident illustrating this problem?

I'm not saying that the incident needs to be described in the veto request—just that framing it that way might help a ToE member avoid objecting on the basis of "This guy just gives me the willies" or "I'm sure, with her beliefs, she's too judgmental to fit in." Your 3 and 4 fall into that category for me.

1 is definitely specific enough to be grounds for an objection, and 2 is the kind of thing for which examples could be found, though the person objecting would do well to be sure what he's thinking of. 3 is an internal reaction, and 4 is a vague internal reaction. Admitting reasons like these or using a "silent" veto could keep someone out for the wrong reasons (or would not tell the excluded person something that might help him or her change a problematic behavior).


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 19 Sep , 2005 1:29 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
If I had to draw a bright line, it would also be between 2 and 3.

Now: same structure, different content:

1) Poster X used to date me and we had a bad breakup. Since then he has spoken of me disparingly to mutual friends on several occasions, as X, Y and Z will verify. Having him on TOE would make me very uncomfortable.

2) Poster X used to date me and we had a bad breakup. Having him on TOE would make me very uncomfortable.

3) Poster X used to date me. Having him on TOE would make me very uncomfortable.

4) Having Poster X on TOE would make me very uncomfortable.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 19 Sep , 2005 2:00 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Quote:
Now: same structure, different content:

1) Poster X used to date me and we had a bad breakup. Since then he has spoken of me disparingly to mutual friends on several occasions, as X, Y and Z will verify. Having him on TOE would make me very uncomfortable.

2) Poster X used to date me and we had a bad breakup. Having him on TOE would make me very uncomfortable.

3) Poster X used to date me. Having him on TOE would make me very uncomfortable.

4) Having Poster X on TOE would make me very uncomfortable.
Here only #1 meets the criteria. I think it would be acceptable even without the reference to the 'witnesses'. It refers to the applicant's conduct. The rest don't fault the applicant, and there is no reason he should have to be penalized and denied the benefits of the forum simply for having dated someone in ToE.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 19 Sep , 2005 3:25 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
What I need to know in order to continue working on the ballot is which provisions, if any, from the first two versions of Estel's proposal committee members would like to see included as options (there is a summary of the three versions near the top of this page).


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