board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTE OVER -- Preliminary Ballot/Denial of Access

Locked   Page 14 of 18  [ 349 posts ]
Jump to page « 112 13 14 15 1618 »
Author Message
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 7:46 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
I'd be happy to delete them if people don't mind losing some postcount?

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 7:48 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Oh, Lord, like I need MORE evidence of my lack of real life? :D

I pulled enough numbers out of mine to reflect on anyway...

_________________

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 7:52 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I don't mind having the polls locked. I'm not sure it's necessary to delete them, but I wouldn't object. I can sort of imagine others objecting, though, so why don't we just let them sink into ignominy?


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 7:54 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I would not delete Estel's poll without asking her. I would not delete everyone else's and leave hers...ergo, I would lock them all and wait for Estel to show.

_________________

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 8:25 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Given the outrage the polls have elicited, I hope the idea of floating another one with the finished amendments is dead in the water.


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 8:28 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Delete them.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 8:45 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I think it would be a mistake to delete the polls and might elicit still more outrage. After all, people took the trouble to post their thoughts in quite a few of them, and they might not want their posts deleted. Why not just lock them and let them die a natural death? They will quickly be out people's way.

Don't we have a Charter provision for thread deletion? I think it would be going against the Charter to delete the threads. This committee seems already to have lost some credibility, that could be the last straw.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 8:50 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin--

Damn, you may be right.

We could MOVE them out of Turf and Symposium, though, in addition to locking them.

ADD: Article 8 makes it VERY clear when threads can be deleted. This is not one of those cases. Lock and Move, yes, delete, no.

_________________

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 10:32 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Cerin wrote:
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?
I think my version is a little simpler in that we don't have the "if you get 3 objections, you need 10 anonymous votes, if not you need 1/3" aspect to it.

Aside from that they're practically identical, but that extra sentence entails a lot of hassle.

I'm not married to the idea though.

Alatar

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 10:46 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Poll threads have been locked and moved.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 11:09 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I see. Thanks for that explanation, Alatar, and for taking care of the poll threads.

Did you then have an alternate proposal to Estel's, for determining the threshold (I'm sorry if you already explained this and I missed it)? As I understand it, that was the reasoning behind her particular provisions. If less than four explained objections, a larger number of anonymous objections (votes) needed. If more than four explained objections, a smaller number of anonymous objections (votes) needed. This goes along with what I think we've been basically agreeing on as a group, that if objections are anonymous without explanations, you need more of them than if they come with an explanation. Were you thinking of a certain set threshold number regardless of how many voted in poll and how many in email? What was the number?


I continue to be very concerned about Wilma's comments in Business. I'm sure Wilma isn't meaning to imply that I am deliberately making the ballot deceptive, but she seems to feel that the poll options are misleading:
Wilma wrote:

For instance if 30 poeple requested access tomorrow and the jerk I mentioned aerlier is a part of the group, do I raise a veto vote for all 30? No. Just that one guy,. If no one has an issue with the other 29 people then then they are in no one get s voted on. the poll questions made it look like the old system it is not!!!! That is why I think those polls have to be redone. No one will understand what Cerin meant (Iam sorry Cerin but the poll questions give the worng impression of what we are trying to do).

I feel that I need some sort of support from the committee, that you feel that the poll option portions of the ballot are straightforward and deal with bringing up one person at a time for consideration. Or else advise how they could be made more clear, if they are not. I don't want it to seem that I am unilaterally overriding the concerns of certain members.


Then there is the other aspect of Wilma's comments that I feel I need help assessing. First she had suggested this:
Quote:
... it seems that objections should be made but to in my mind to voice them to one or two persons leads to too small a number of people deciding whether these objections are valid or not. For each person to voice them publicly could lead to gossip (it is feared).

How about sending them to an admin or mayor and then the mayor instead of listing who said what post the objections in a neutral fashion without attaching names to the objections? Then if people have to vote or something they can. While feeling slightly educated. The voters can decide how valid these objections are, instead of 1 or 2 people.

For example if 2 people had a negative personal experience with an applicant. they can send those objections in detail to an admin. Then the mayor or whoever instead of posting those comments in detail can say that person X has applied to join ToE. Two current members of ToE have lodged objections. The names of these people objecting are not to be listed. The nature of these objections are 'harmful personal contact' as in harmful RL situation with said poster. Then people can vote on it.
which led to the Discretionary exception option on the ballot. Then she said that she had intended that it apply to all objections, and I'm having trouble understanding exactly what the suggestion is that is different from what we already have in Q. 19, Option A. Here is that comment:
Quote:
First of all I read the Jury room stuff about my suggestion I thought, that it would be considered as a procedure for all vetos (which would be few). Not special circunstance, You could just change the wording for a lighter offense.
So if any of you have any insights on interpreting this, I would appreciate them.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 11:17 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I don't see the group issue there, and I have seen no other feedback that suggests anyone else had that problem.

I think trying to have a procedure whereby one affected person and one witness can veto a petitioner for egregious RL conduct is fine, as I've said above. I think trying to use that procedure for any other situation is a mistake. Do we have some sort of sliding scale, with a list of actions on one side and the number of people required to attest to them on the other? Ick, ick, and ick. Use it for extreme cases and nothing else.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 12:32 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thanks for the feedback, Ax. And it just occurred to me that Wilma was referring to the infamous poll questions from Turf and Symp, and not the poll portions of the ballot.

So I think that is one thing cleared up.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 1:19 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Question: In places like this on the ballot that refers to the member, is better to say 'member name' or 'member screen name'?


Question 18. When a member requests access to the forum, a Ranger will title an announcement thread in the ToE forum with the petitioner's screen name and will post in it the following text:

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. (Member name) has requested access to this forum. Members have until (10 days from day of announcement) to voice their objection if they have a reasonable belief that the rules pertaining to posting on the ToE forum are likely to be broken by the petitioner based on past experience either here or elsewhere. Those rules include posting in a manner that ridicules, demeans or threatens other posters, or engaging in provocation or the spreading of sensitive information.


Top
Profile
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 9:10 am
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Just a quick post to say that RL stopped me posting on Friday and I won't get back till this evening. I've just now caught up with Jury room and Business stuff but not Turf or Symposium!

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 1:39 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I think member name, or just name, is used throughout the Charter.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 2:23 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
A note on ramifications and the ballot:

No matter what form the ballot takes, single amendment or IRV on the various models, do we need to let people know that NOT deciding, or choosing NO amendment, is tantamount to asking ToE to move off board?

Is that in fact the case, or are there other alternatives out there? Some members, unwisely I believe, have started advocating dropping ALL barriers to ToE...which would certainly result in much of ToE's content moving, and the loss of some posters from it and maybe from B77. I really don't want to offer that as an option. But if that's what enough people are thinking...

I also find myself dreading the discussion about ages, and lurking, in ToE...which will widely be resented as yet more impingement on people's "fun"...

WE NEED TO GET THIS SUCKER SETTLED NOW, OR IT WILL BECOME MOOT. It may be too late already.

_________________

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: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 2:48 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Ax, one member has actually gone so far as to make the extremely ridiculous suggestion that the best solution would be to split board77 in half (reminiscent of Solomon suggesting that the baby be split in half).

I know, because I am the one that made the suggestion.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 3:34 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Axordil wrote:
No matter what form the ballot takes, single amendment or IRV on the various models, do we need to let people know that NOT deciding, or choosing NO amendment, is tantamount to asking ToE to move off board?
I will try to phrase the presentation of the amendment to make it clear that if people want a forum for discussing sensitive issues, then it is in their interest to have a mechanism for keeping people out of that forum who have proved they can't be trusted in that kind of environment.

Even if ToE as it exists now, that is, the posters in that community, moved off board, that wouldn't eliminate the existence of an age restricted forum on this board, and that would still need the kind of protection we are trying to set up.


Voronwe, did you suggest that seriously, are were you trying to force some kind of realization upon people?


Now I beg your attention on a different matter. Wilma has given some clarification on her proposal for the ballot.

I think it does represent an intermediary stage between straight anonymous voting and straight email objections that we haven't yet seen.

This is what I understood her to be proposing:

All people who object would send emails to the Rangers explaining their objections. The Rangers would post a 'sanitized' version of the objection in the forum (that is, just characterize it very generally). At the end of the objection period, the forum would have a poll vote recording the number of ToE members who do not want the petitioner in the forum, based on the objections reported by the Ranger.

My understanding of the rationale behind this proposal is that it would not leave Rangers in charge of assessing the validity of the objections, but would leave that to the ToE membership. The practical difference I see is that it gives the forum an idea of what the objections are without being actual statements against the person. I'm not sure how significant a difference that is.

The sticking point for me in what Wilma proposed is that I don't like the idea of Rangers forwarding invalid objections. So using Wilma's examples, I would prefer they forward the hate mail objection (citing internet harrassment), but would not forward the intuitive feeling objection unless the objecting member cited the reason for the intuitive bad feeling. And 'because of my Tarot reading this morning' would not be legitimate, but 'because of the angry way I've seen him speak to other posters' would be.

The way I see this differing from Estel's plan is that everyone formally objecting submits a reason and then the forum votes as a body on whether to back the objections (this is the group dynamic that I personally would very much like to avoid because I think it leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth who isn't part of the group doing the rejecting and accepting). Essentially we'd be deciding to allow people to 'object' who have no objection of their own. With Estel's plan, presumably the people who vote in the poll have reasons of their own for objecting, they just don't have to state them? We'd also have to determine a threshold or series of thresholds with variations, as with Estel's compromise proposal.

Does this seem to people like a legitimately different enough option that I should work on incorporating into the ballot?


Top
Profile
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 3:47 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Yes, I think it's worth considering.

_________________

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


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 14 of 18  [ 349 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 112 13 14 15 1618 »
Jump to: