board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Wed 21 Feb , 2018 3:38 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 349 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 6:36 am 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
DRAFT BALLOT
Amendment to Article 6: DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THINKING OF ENGLAND FORUM


This is a lengthy and complicated ballot, so please read it carefully.

There are two models for a denial of access procedure. One model is distinguished by the use of an anonymous poll in the ToE forum, with variations including one or more PMs/emails to the Administrator account. In the other model, all ToE members who object to the petitioner gaining access state their objection either by PM/email or on the forum.

We will first vote on some options that apply to both of the models. Following that, we will vote on options within each of the models. We will then tally the votes from this ballot and vote again to choose the final amendment.

PART I. OPTIONS THAT APPLY TO BOTH MODELS

Question 1.
The following text will be added to the ‘PLEASE READ before posting in this forum!’ sticky in the ToE forum under a heading, ‘Denying Access to this Forum’.

Seeking to deny another member the benefits and enjoyment of posting in this forum should not be undertaken lightly. 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 would be unfair to shift the responsibility for your own feelings of vulnerability to others by trying to keep them out of this forum if your concern is not in some way related to an awaremess of questionable behavior on their part.

PLEASE RANK IN ORDER OF PREFEENCE:
A. I agree to include the portion of the statement shown in red
B. I agree to include the entire statement
C. I do not agree to include any of the statement

1=
2=
3=


Question 2. We will use the following statement (from the Bike Racks proposal) as a Preamble to the amendment text in the Charter:

In recognition of the special level of trust, sensitivity and comfort required in the Thinking Of England forum as already witnessed by the 3 month / 100 posts rule for eligibility, we propose the following amendment:

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. I agree to use the statement
B. I do not agree to use the statement


Question 3. What will be the period of time for ToE posters to consider a petitioner to the forum and for the objection process to take place? (Note that 10 days is consistent with other portions of the Charter.)

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. One week
B. Ten days


Question 4. If an applicant is denied access to the forum, what will be the period of time before they can re-apply?

PLEASE RANK IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE:
A. 3 months
B. 6 months
C. 1 year

1=
2=
3=


Question 5. The instructions for the objection procedure in the petitioner’s threads in ToE will conclude with this sentence:

Please do not collude to deny access to the petitioner for inappropriate reasons.

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. I agree to include this statement
B. I do not agree to include this statement.


Question 6.
Note: This question applies only to the procedures involving emails.


A Ranger will send an email acknowledgment to each person who submits an objection, to let them know their objection has been received, and will forward a copy of this acknowledgment to a designated ToE member.

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. I agree to include the portion of the statement shown in black
B. I agree to include the entire statement.


Discretionary Exception for Extraordinary Circumstance

If a Ranger receives a communication that a ToE member has had a RL experience with the petitioner of a seriously harmful nature involving harmful personal contact, the veracity of which is supported by at least one other ToE member, the Ranger at their discretion may announce in the petitioner's thread in ToE that such a complaint has been brought and the petitioner has summarily been denied access. The petitioner will be informed that a serious complaint has been lodged and their access denied, and the thread will then be locked and deleted. If it is subsequently determined in a hearing that the accusation was false, the accusing member will be permanently banned.

Question 7a. PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. I prefer the text in red to the text in blue
B. I prefer the text in blue to the text in red

Question 7b. PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. I agree to include this statement.
B. I do not agree to include this statement


Question 8.
Note: The options of Question 8 apply only to procedures that include explanations


When the designated period is over, a Ranger will announce in the ToE thread whether the petitioner is granted or denied access,

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. and will list the names of those who objected
B. and will include the number of objections received


Question 9. If no member voices an objection, the petitioner will be granted access to the forum at the end of the (designated) period and should announce their arrival in the Welcome thread in the forum, which will be created for this purpose.

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. I agree to include the portion of the statement shown in black
B. I agree to include the entire statement


Question 10. At the end of the deliberation period, a Ranger will supply the petitioner with the text of any objections lodged against them. If the applicant has been rejected, they may reapply at the end of the designated period, and the process will be repeated.

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. I agree to include only the portion of the statement shown in black.
B. I agree to include the entire statement.


Question 11. 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

1=
2=
3=


Question 12. A committee composed of volunteer ToE posters and Rangers will annually review these procedures to assess their effectiveness and determine if changes need to be made. If changes are required, they will make this known to the board at large and the usual procedure for amending the Charter will be followed.

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. I agree to include this statement
B. I do not agree to include this statement


PART II

A. ANONYMOUS POLL MODEL OPTIONS
Note: Voting in the next two sections does not mean you are voting for any one procedure. At this time we are merely choosing options to define the procedures. We will choose between the models themselves on a different ballot.


Question 13. When a member requests access to the forum

PLEASE RANK IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE:

A. A Ranger will post their name in the permanent thread kept in the forum for that purpose.

B. A Ranger will title an announcement thread in the ToE forum with the petitioning member’s name and will post in it the following text:

(Member name) has requested access to this forum. Members have until (designated amount of time from day of announcement) to decide if they are personally uncomfortable with having this person in the forum.

C. A Ranger will title an announcement thread in the ToE forum with the petitioning member’s name and will post in it the following text:

(Member name) has requested access to this forum. Members have until (10 days from day of announcement) to consider whether 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.

D. A Ranger will title an announcement thread in the ToE forum with the petitioning member’s name and will post in it the following text:

(Member name) has requested access to this forum. Members have until (10 days from day of announcement) to voice their objection if they have reason to believe that the petitioning member poses a danger to the community.

1=
2=
3=
4=


Question 14. If a current ToE poster does not want the petitioning member to have access to the forum, then that poster will

PLEASE RANK IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE:
A. start a new thread titled with the petitioning member’s name (use the existing thread*) and will post the following sentence and only the following sentence in the thread:

I am asking for a veto-vote of this poster.

If two additional ToE posters subsequently post the following sentence (and only the following sentence) in the thread:

I support the call for a veto-vote.

Then the poster who started the thread will add a poll to the thread in which ToE members may register their objection by voting in the poll. If the number of votes exceeds 1/3 the number of ToE members, the petitioner is denied access.

B. PM a Ranger/send an email to the Admin. account stating their objection and giving a brief explanation of the reasons.

Once two objections have been received, a Ranger will start a thread in the ToE forum and will announce (will announce in the existing thread*) that objections to the petitioner gaining access to the forum have been submitted, and will state the nature of the objections. The thread will continue to be updated in this way if additional objections are received. Approximately halfway through the objection period, the Ranger will add a poll to the thread. ToE members who believe the petitioner should be denied access based on the objections listed will vote in the poll. If 12 ToE members vote to exclude the petitioner, the petitioner will be denied access.

C. PM a Ranger/send an email to the Admin. account stating their objection and giving a concise one to two sentence explanation of the reasons.

Once an objection has been received, a Ranger will start a poll thread (add a poll to the existing thread*) in the ToE forum and state that an objection to the petitioner gaining access to the forum has been submitted. Other ToE members may then register their objection either by PM/email or by voting in the poll.

(* depending on what option is chosen from Question 13)

1=
2=
3=


Note: Question 15 a and b apply to Question 14 option C only.

The thread will further explain that if at least three (four) other ToE posters PM a Ranger/email the Admin. account objecting to the petitioner gaining access to ToE, then a total of 10 votes is needed in the poll to deny access to the forum. If at least (designated number) additional posters do not PM/email objections, then a total of votes exceeding 1/3 the number of ToE members is needed to deny access. If eight ToE posters independently PM/email objections, then no more votes are required to deny access.

Question 15a. How many additional ToE posters must email their objections to initiate the threshold of 10 votes for denial of access?

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. Three additional posters
B. Four additional posters

Question 15b.

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. I agree to include the portion of the statement shown in black
B. I agree to include the entire statement.


Question 16. The poll will offer one of the following pairs of options:
Note that the only relevant option in all cases is 'I do not want this person to be a member of ToE'. Votes recorded for the second option will be disregarded.

PLEASE RANK IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE:
A. I do not want this person to be a member of ToE
A. I do not want this person to be a member of ToE

B. I do not want this person to be a member of ToE
B. I want this person to be a member of ToE

C. I do not want this person to be a member of ToE
C. I abstain

D. I do not want this person to be a member of ToE
D. This option is only here because a poll requires at least two options

1=
2=
3=
4=


B. OBJECTIONS MODEL OPTIONS

Question 17. When a member requests access to the forum, a Ranger will title an announcement thread in the ToE forum with the petitioner's 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.

B. (Member name) has requested access to this forum. Members have until (10 days from day of announcement) to voice their objection if they have reason to believe that the petitioning member poses a danger to the community.


Question 18. Members will then
A. submit their objections by PM to a Ranger or email to the Administrator account with a brief explanation. If a Ranger receives an email or PM objecting to the petitioner gaining access to ToE, they will announce in the petitioner’s thread in ToE that such an objection has been received, and will state the nature of the objection. If the number of valid objections exceeds 5, the petitioner is denied access to the forum for (designated time period).

B. voice their objection by posting a brief explanation in the petitioner's thread. If a member does not wish to make their objection publicly, they may submit it by PM/email. A Ranger will announce in the objection thread that such an objection has been received. If the number of valid objections exceeds 10, the petitioner is denied access to the forum for (designated time period).

PLEASE RANK IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE:
A. I choose only the text of option A shown in black.
B. I choose the text of option A shown in black and the text shown in red
C. I choose the full text of option A
D. I choose only the text of option B shown in black
E. I choose the full text of option B

1=
2=
3=
4=
5=


Question 19.
Note: This question applies to Question 18 option B only.


The first poster to object in the thread will contact two or more Rangers and ask that either a Ranger or a mediator follow the process to make sure all of the objections are within the stated guidelines.

Who will oversee the objection process?

PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. A Ranger
B. A mediator


Last edited by Cerin on Tue 27 Sep , 2005 6:51 pm, edited 56 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 7:06 am 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
At Jnyusa's merciful suggestion I have started this thread to organize the ideas presented thus far. There have been four proposals offered. Lidless' version, which I've called the Bike Racks model, Estel's version, which I'm now calling the Anonymous Poll model, my version, which I'm now calling the Email Objection model, and Alatar's version, which I've called the Forum Objection model. I'll re-post each here in its entirety for easier reference, and in the next post I'll isolate some of the key components for comparison and discussion.

I'll indicate proposed changes to these models in various colors.

Bike Racks model
In recognition of the special level of trust, sensitivity and comfort required in the Thinking Of England forum as already witnessed by the 3 month / 100 posts rule within the Eligibility Requirements for that forum, we propose the following amendment:

Any current member of the ToE, at any time before a prospective member meets the Eligibility Requirements, may state their objection to the member joining. This will be done in a thread within ToE.

If there are not two supporters, the thread will be deleted and the proposed member be allowed in as per normal. If there are at least two other members that also support the objection, the following will happen:

1 At the time when the prospective member would otherwise meet the Eligibilty Requirements, the original objection thread will be locked and a new thread will start up in the Bike Racks, to which the prospective member will be invited to join.

2 Only current ToE members and the prospective member will be allowed to engage in the debate in that thread. The original objector and the first two supporters of the objection MUST engage in the debate, otherwise the objection is null and void.

3 Debate will be allowed for one week, after which the Bike Rack thread will be locked and there will be a vote within ToE, lasting a week. During both of these weeks, the matter will not be allowed to be discussed within ToE, but will be public in the Bike Racks.

[Quorum / % required to be decided.]

4 If the proposed member is turned down, they will be refused permissions from ToE for one year, after which time they may reapply and the process restarted from the beginning.

At any time the prospective member is allowed into ToE, the original objection thread will be deleted.



Anonymous Poll model
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
(four) other ToE posters PM 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(four) other posters do not PM objections to Administrator, then a total of votes exceeding 1/3 the number of ToE members is needed to deny access. (If eight ToE members independently PM objections to Administrator, then no more votes are required 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.


Email Objection model
When a member requests access to the forum, a Ranger
will create an announcement thread in the ToE forum with the following text:

(Member name) has requested access to this forum. Members have until (10 days from day of announcement) to
consider whether 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. Members should submit their objection by PMing a Ranger or emailing the Administrator account with a brief explanation.


If no member voices an objection, applicants will be granted access to the forum at the end of the ten-day period and should announce their arrival in the Welcome thread in the forum.

(If someone submits an objection, a Ranger will announce in the ToE thread that an objection has been received.) Everyone who emails an objection will be sent an acknowledgement of receipt of their objection; this receipt will also be forwarded to a designated ToE member. The Rangers along with the ToE member will review the objections to ascertain that they do indeed relate to the security of the community.

If the number of objections exceeds 5, the applicant is denied access to the forum for six months.

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.



In the Forum Objection model, the person objecting to the petitioner's request for access to ToE states their objection in the announcement thread in the forum by completing the sentence, "I believe the petitioner poses a danger to the community because ..."

Other posters may then register their objection in the thread in the same manner. When the first poster objects, a Mediator will be called in to follow the process and ascertain that indeed all of the objections do relate to the security of the forum.

Ten objections will be required to deny access.


Last edited by Cerin on Thu 22 Sep , 2005 2:53 am, edited 22 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 7:18 am 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Parallel ideas that have been proposed thus far (I apologize if I've left anything out):

Initiating the process
- ToE members state their objections to a member having access, even if that person hasn't asked for access.
- Member requests access in PM to Ranger, Ranger posts that name in permanent thread in ToA for member consideration
- Member requests access in PM to Ranger, Ranger creates announcement thread in ToE using prepared text.


Length of consideration period
- 10 days (same period of time members have to consider Ranger roster)
- one week


Veto process

- Someone starts a thread in ToE objecting to a member gaining access to the forum. If there are two people who support the objection, that thread is locked when the member's eligibility requirements are met and a new thread is started in Bike Racks for the applicant, the objector, the two supporters and any other members of ToE who want to participate. A one week debate would be followed by a one week vote in ToE.

- Someone starts a thread in ToE objecting to a member gaining access to the forum. The thread would state that there is an objection and the person would give a brief explanation. If two other ToE members support the objection, including a brief explanation, a poll would be added to the thread with two options, both being 'I don't want this person to be a member of ToE'. There is no discussion on the board or by PM.

- Someone PMs Admin stating that they object to the applicant gaining access to ToE, and including a brief explanation of their objection. A Ranger opens a poll thread in ToE stating that an objection has been received. Other members may register their objection to the applicant by voting in the thread or by sending a PM to Admin with a brief explanation of their objections. There is no discussion in the thread and members are expected to refrain from discussing the applicant privately.

- ToE members individually email their objections to the Administrator account, explaining the reason why they are objecting to this person having access to ToE. Private or forum discussion of the applicant is prohibited during the consideration period, unless someone has some firsthand knowledge of sexually related misconduct by the applicant, in which case they would share that information with the forum at the time of the announcement. A Ranger will post the results in the announcement thread.

- ToE members state in forum thread the reason they have cause to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner would be a danger to the community.


Threshold for denial of access (dependent on method)
- For Estel's version, 1/3 of number of ToE members if three (four) additional objections are not PMd to Admin, 10 additional votes needed if three (four) additional objections are sent (no additional votes required in thread if 8 individual members PM Admin).
-For Email Administrator model, 8 objections required to deny access.


Proposed duration of denial before member can reapply
- 3 mo
- 1 year
- 6 mo

Additional suggestions and comments

- A Ranger will send a 'receipt' email to each person who submits an objection, to let them know their objection has been received, and also to a designated ToE member.

- Create a sticky 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 this standard.)


- three-option vote on every single incoming member: veto - delay for x months - accept.

- veto be able to be applied to existing members of ToE as well.

So if committee members could discuss the merits and drawbacks of these various options and share any additional ideas and insights they have, that would be just fab. :Wooper:


Last edited by Cerin on Mon 19 Sep , 2005 8:10 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 1:37 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5131
Thanks for doing this Cerin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 1:46 pm 
Per aspera ad astra
User avatar

Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Posts: 3388
Location: Zu Hause
Yes, thanks, but I won't have time for a proper read before monday.

Apologies.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 2:17 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5131
My dear Nin, there is no need for you to apologize for having a life. :hug:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 2:51 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Whoa! Does that mean I get one too? (notices that he has pulled up several spots on the get-a-life-list, er, total post count list)

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 3:18 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Cerin:

I like much, even most, of your wording, but would make a few changes...of course...:)...

I like six months better than three months. If someone is going to try to reestablish trust, I just don't think they can do it in 90 days, and letting people think it's possible is almost cruel. But it's purely a judgment call.

There should be a briefly mentioned provision for a backup ToE person if the primary contact is out of town et al. If receipts are provided for veto objections, there shouldn't be a need to relay poster identities.

I don't think we have to spell out in the amendment that some people shouldn't bother to reapply. Leave it to judgment of the person writing the notice of veto...speaking of...should a ranger or the ToE contact person send the notice of veto?

I am coming back to my original magic number of 10, given the isolation we are enforcing.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 5:26 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Thank you, Ax.

I have no problem with a longer proposed period for re-consideration. I think 6 mo. makes more sense.

Agreed on back up person, could you spell out the receipt idea for me? What would the receipt be, and who would receive it?

Yes, contingent on the no evaluation scenario, 10 seems reasonable to me, too. Or maybe even eight (no reason to stick to multiples of 5). :D


Quote:
I don't think we have to spell out in the amendment that some people shouldn't bother to reapply. Leave it to judgment of the person writing the notice of veto...speaking of...should a ranger or the ToE contact person send the notice of veto?


Here are some comments Jnyusa made in Business regarding this idea:

Quote:
Jnyusa: But I now realize there is a softer side to that as well ... 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.

Cerin: Do you mean as a courtesy to the applicant, so they know whether there is reason for them to try again?

Jnyusa: Yes, but I see at as more of an obligation. Ax referred to two kinds of rejected members. 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.


I thought it was useful to make some mention in the amendment of the fact that there were essentially two kinds of rejections, so that this doesn't come as a shock at the time of the rejection. I'd be happy to consider a different wording.

I had been thinking that the Ranger would send the notice of veto along with the texts of the objections, since it is the Ranger who will be available to continue a dialogue with the applicant if they are someone eligible to re-apply. This also keeps the number of people seeing the objections to a minimum. Of course, being told their rejection is of the permanent type doesn't mean the applicant can't keep reapplying.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 5:43 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Quote:
I had been thinking that the Ranger would send the notice of veto along with the texts of the objections, since it is the Ranger who will be available to continue a dialogue with the applicant if they are someone eligible to re-apply. This also keeps the number of people seeing the objections to a minimum.


Good point.

And perhaps you and Jny are correct...a little official reminder that some vetoes could well be effectively permanent, and why that would be so, would be merciful. In that light I don't have a problem with the wording.

I'm thinking (receipt-wise) of nothing more complicated than a return email saying "ranger X retrieved your objection to Whotzerface on this day at this time from the Administrator account."

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 5:47 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Axordil wrote:
I'm thinking (receipt-wise) of nothing more complicated than a return email saying "ranger X retrieved your objection to Whotzerface on this day at this time from the Administrator account."

I see, yes, that sounds good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 6:40 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Axordil wrote:
The annoucement that someone has sent in a veto is for me a compromise of sorts between publically starting a thread...which has the bandwagon effect problem, for me...and acting in a vacuum. It is designed so that when a veto is announced, it does not come as a complete surprise. It also calls attention to the fact that someone in ToE has a problem with an applicant, which makes it less likely that someone will sneak by during a relative lull for lack of people being around (during, say, a moot or the Gathering) while not necessarily encouraging objection, one hopes.

I don't know. It seems to me that announcing an objection has been received would stir up everyone's curiosity and encourage the kind of behind the scenes discussion we want to discourage. I see your point about protecting against a sneak in, but wouldn't the placement of the name for consideration serve the same purpose? Perhaps the addition of names of applicants to the standing list could be done in a prominent, announcement kind of way?

Perhaps we could compose a generic announcement text including the admonition to carefully consider the applicant, to ask if any member knows of sexually related misconduct that other members should be aware of, to refrain from privately discussing or soliciting objections for personal reasons, and a Ranger would begin an announcement thread using this text for each new applicant or group of applicants when they request permission. Then the person in ToE who maintains the list would add the applicant to the list with the deadline for objecting. I think making each request or group of requests prominent would serve to protect against sneak-ins, while not instigating morbid curiosity as to why there has been an objection.

I don't think the veto coming as a complete surprise is really a matter of concern.

So something like:

Cerin has requested access to ToE. Members have 10 days to consider whether they know any reason why Cerin would not be a trustworthy member of ToE. If anyone has firsthand knowledge of sexually related misconduct by this applicant, please make it known in the forum at this time. Members are asked on their honor to refrain from discussing the applicant privately during the consideration period, and from soliciting objections from other ToE members for personal reasons. Objections with a brief explanation should be emailed to the Administrator account. The results will be reported back to ToE at the end of the consideration period.

The thread could be locked and kept up for the duration of the period.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 6:51 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Erunáme wrote:
What she does have a problem with is people who harshly judge. That is the sort of person she is describing. I would bet the reason why religion came into her sentence is because the people she's personally run into that are like that may have been religious.

As I said, I think an objection based on an observation that someone is harshly judgmental would be legitimate. An objection based on an assumption that someone will be judgmental because they are religious would not.


Quote:
As to what thread the discussion is going on in, why do we have two different threads?

We have two different threads because we were disorganized at the outset and did not reserve the first two posts in the original thread for the eventual ballot and for the organization of ideas as they develop (which has traditionally been done to help people keep track of the evolution of the amendment).


Quote:
This is confusing.

I agree.


Quote:
What's the point of this one? If it has no more point, why hasn't it been locked?

I am not able to lock a thread, but I will request that Alatar (or any other of us who has that capability) now lock the original thread so that we can continue here, where the proposals and ideas are organized at the beginning of the thread for ease of reference.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 6:55 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Quote:
It seems to me that announcing an objection has been received would stir up everyone's curiosity and encourage the kind of behind the scenes discussion we want to discourage.


The first is undoubtedly true, and neither good nor bad. The second...well, one wishes to think the best of one's friends, but it's hard to imagine something at the level of "What do YOU know?" not going on, and things go downhill from there. :(

Threads for each applicant might work as well. The two feel like two nearby points on a continuum of options to me, not a black and white choice, but that's not a bad thing.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 9:24 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Looking at Estel's B-room comments, I am increasingly torn, in part because, well, what's the difference between announcing the receipt of a veto and someone posting their negative experience with someone upon request from the annoucement of the application? I would assume if someone says "applicant Z did this really reprehensible thing to me" they're going to veto...

But I could also see a sort of knee-jerk response coming into play, unfortunately, where people say, if ANYONE here vetoes, I'll join them...

My head hurts. I'm going home. :P

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 10:16 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
I have updated the proposals in the second thread, and the corresponding summaries in the third thread.


Ax, please note that I added a mention that new members should announce themselves in the ToE Welcome thread, and that a member denied non-permanent access might be supported in dealing with the problem by a ToE volunteer.

I find I have lost confidence in the idea of a non-evaluated vote since Nin and Tosh posted their thoughts. I could easily imagine 10 people objecting because of the kinds of reasons they presented as valid, which I do not consider valid, and I wonder Ax, if you could reasonably deny that possibility now? Very few people on this board are as wise as yourself. The rejected member will not have the advantage of you pointing out the invalidity of objections to those objecting.

I believe we need either to explicitly state somewhere that an objection must be related to some fault of the applicant, OR we need to have the Rangers evaluate the objections based on some kind of criteria that we supply OR we need to raise the threshhold to 1/3 of membership.

Quote:
Looking at Estel's B-room comments, I am increasingly torn, in part because, well, what's the difference between announcing the receipt of a veto and someone posting their negative experience with someone upon request from the annoucement of the application? I would assume if someone says "applicant Z did this really reprehensible thing to me" they're going to veto...

I think the difference is that the announcement text specifies 'sexually related misconduct' and that is pretty specific.


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.

The inequality I'm concerned about is the inequality of extraordinary deferential treatment being given in perpetuity to the feelings of one group of b77 members over the rights of all other members. This is being asked for on the basis of an ambience that developed on a closed board. Unfortunately, some of the steps and standards being proposed to maintain it on an open board are antithetical to the underlying principles we have espoused as an open board.


Estel

I've now familiarized myself with the changes in your proposal.

Now that you are considering people giving reasons for their objections, I'm wondering why you would favor doing that on the forum rather than in private email. It seems to me that that would involve the ugliness of the invitation-type thread, which clearly distresses some people very much.

Can you explain what advantage you see in having the objections posted in the forum, as opposed to by private email?

I notice that you changed the threshhold number for your revised model, but I believe this is a mistake. The low threshhold is contingent upon independent objections. If the vote is an open vote on the forum, I believe the threshhold must remain at least at 1/3 of the membership, to compensate for the bandwagon effect.

As far as the change in the poll proposals, what was the reason for having them both be the same? Perhaps it could be something like 'Please disregard this poll option', which I think might be less confusing.

I agree with fisssh, that a two option poll with 'I want this person to be a member of ToE' would be best. I understand we are only counting negative votes, but since the poll requires two options, they might as well both be functional, IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 10:47 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Estel, replying to your comments in Business

Quote:
Reasons for the results to be visible...

1. so that members know that what the Rangers are saying are the results actually reflect what they are. Let's put it this way - if the Rangers miscount, or, God forbid, purposely discount a PM about the veto, and the members are forbidden, on their honor, to talk about the situation, then how will anyone know if there has been a mess-up? Someone could get in who shouldn't have.

We have trusted the Rangers to count other votes, why should this be different?

I had suggested before and will do so again, that if this is a determinative concern for others, the Ranger can post the names of those who objected in the announcement/result thread, regardless of the number of objections. If a person who objected and has a 'receipt' sees that their name is missing, obviously they could begin an inquiry.

Quote:
2. We talk about transparency, but where is it in the ranger solution? The members can't talk about it, nor can the Rangers to anyone but the complaining members and the person being vetoed. Seems like an extremely opaque solution to me.

We talk about transparency where transparency is desirable, not where decency requires protecting people from the humiliation of a public rejection. The transparency in the Ranger solution is the fact that the vote is taken out of ToE, so that it isn't conducted inside the same closed forum it affects.


Quote:
I want to know if someone is being veto-voted.

Why?

Quote:
I want to know how many votes there are.

You will know, as soon as the consideration period is over.

Quote:
I want to know the reasons for it.

You will not be restricted from asking people why they voted to veto someone, once the consideration period is over.

Quote:
The balance between transparency and humiliation is by having the process take place in the ToE.

That didn't seem to be enough of a compromise for those who abhorred the invitation process and the bad feeling it left all over the board.

Quote:
Add on top of that, that the thread would be deleted once the veto-vote was over, no new people who did get into the forum would know.

That really didn't seem to help that much with the invitation threads. It was the knowledge that the threads existed that left such a bad taste in people's mouths, and which might give this option a lesser chance of passing.


Axordil wrote:
If receipts are sent to those who object, that covers part of this, but there would also need to be feedback on whether there were any vetoes registered for someone who got in. This could go to the ToE contact person.

Could you address the difference between this and just listing the complete results (that is names of objectors) in the announcement thread?


Quote:
Alternatively, objections could go to the ToE contact person to begin with, who would collect them and alert the Rangers if the threshold for a veto had been reached.

I would object to this. Better to have them go outside the forum.


Quote:
Or copies of the receipt could go to the ToE contact person.

Yes, that would work. A ToE member who objected would know if they hadn't received the receipt, the ToE contact person would know if the posted results did not match the number of receipts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 10:49 pm 
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Posts: 5046
Location: London
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.

Yes, I know you say it's not necessary, but my goal here isn't to make a small majority happy, it's to make as many people as possible, hopefully 99.9% happy.

How does this sound:

Quote:
I. Duties of Rangers and Current Members of the Forum

A prospective member (mentioned from here as PVM) must PM a Ranger for admittance to the Thinking of England Fourm

The Ranger would then make a post in a permanent thread set up here for that purpose stating the PVM by name, and saying that the PVM has asked for entry.

The first post in this permanent thread would simply state:

Quote:
”The names listed in this thread are those of PVMs who have asked for admittance. The forum has 7 days, from the time the name is posted, to ask for a veto-vote. If one is not stated in a separate thread, the person will be allowed admittance.

Please do NOT state your wish for a veto-vote in this thread. This thread is read only except for Rangers.”


II. Admittance

Entry to the forum as a full member would be automatic if no veto-vote took place.

III. Veto-Vote

If a current ToE poster has a problem with in incoming poster, then a veto-vote could be started in a new thread.

a. The new thread would simply say
Quote:
“I have asked for a veto-vote of this poster”
, and would include no explanations or reasons why. HOWEVER, the person who started the thread would PM a Ranger with a concise one to two sentence explanation of the reasons.

b. The post from the thread originator would be the only post in the thread excepting updates by a Ranger (see letter e.). No discussion would be allowed both in the thread and over personal PM.

c. A poll is added to the beginning of the thread, the options being:

Quote:
I have no opinion
Or
I do not want this person to be a member of the ToE


d. If the number of “No” votes exceeds 10 (excepting the reason listed in letter f) then the PVM is denied access to the forum for three to six months and the veto-vote thread is saved to deleted thread storage for the same amount of time.

e. A minimum of three people other than the thread originator must PM the Rangers with a concise, one to two sentence reason, of why they wish for this person to be vetoed. The Ranger will update the thread with the number of people who have PMed with explanations, but will not list who those people are.

f. If the number of PMed reasons does not reach four, in total, then the amount of people needed to veto-vote the person switches from 10, to one third.


g. A Ranger will PM the PVM, telling them that their access has been denied, and the reasons why. At least two of the four people who gave reasons must be willing to have their name and reasons included in the PM, but it is best if all four are willing. They should include their willingness or unwillingness to have their name forwarded on in their original PM.

h. The PVM may reapply to be a member of the ToE after three months, and will have to go through the process again.

i. No person may be granted access to the forum automatically, unless they were already a full fledged member of the forum




If needed, once the Rangers have recieved the first PM about the issue, they could set up the thread, under the Administrator ID, saying

Quote:
We have received one PM veto-voting this persons access to the forum. If you would also like to veto-vote, please PM a Ranger with your reasons and / or vote in the poll.


That way, no one is convinced to veto-vote simply because who the person(s) is who initiated the process.


Does this work better?

_________________
For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.
- Carl Sagan

Image

Now that your rose is in bloom, a light hits the gloom on the grey.
- Seal


Last edited by Estel on Fri 16 Sep , 2005 11:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 10:59 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5131
Cerin wrote:
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.


Good enough. I'm happy to waive the suggestion. There are certainly enough other issues to decide.

Quote:
The inequality I'm concerned about is the inequality of extraordinary deferential treatment being given in perpetuity to the feelings of one group of b77 members over the rights of all other members. This is being asked for on the basis of an ambience that developed on a closed board. Unfortunately, some of the steps and standards being proposed to maintain it on an open board are antithetical to the underlying principles we have espoused as an open board.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 17 Sep , 2005 12:26 am 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Cerin:

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. No one here should have to do that in a RL situation as opposed to a hypothetical one. 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.

All--
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. 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. :neutral:

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 349 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group