board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTING OVER Final Ballot / Denial of Access

Post Reply   Page 2 of 9  [ 179 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 59 »
Author Message
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 2:30 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Cerin wrote:
Ax, we're going to vote in committee on which amendment to send to the membership. They will vote either to approve or reject. I thought we had settled that in the last brouhaha.

Here is the sticky text in question:

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.

I believe Estel had suggested 'for personal feelings of vulnerability' and 'if the concern' instead of the current wording.

I don't see whose feelings one could possibly be responsible for but one's own, and whose concern one would be considering but one's own. This is the truth of the statement, which I think the suggested change attempts to mask by using vague verbiage.

Edited to remove suggestion pending further comments on a revote.


My problem with the wording is that it sounds accusatory with a "shame on you" attitude towards anyone even contemplating objecting to someone, and I fear that the words would cause someone who would normally object not to, because of fear from lack of support from Rangers / Admins.



And I must admit to feeling that your refusal to even contemplate two words being changed comes across as being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

There are enough people asking for it that it should be considered....

... or did you want us only to address (and revote) on your concerns.




I don't mean to sound like a complete bitch here, but you want an entire revote on one of the ballots, and I am simply asking for us to consider changing a couple words. Words that don't even change the meaning of the statement. I really don't understand why I should agree to revote your issue, when you won't even take my concerns - stated previous to the voting and ignored - into consideration.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 2:50 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Let's all take a deep breath and then move forward. We all know that there are very strong emotions around this issue, but we have perservered this far; I know that we can this done, if we work together.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 3:19 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Estel, my concern was consistency. I thought that if we allowed a revote on Question 1, then we should also allow a revote on Question 10. It was never a question of allowing one and disallowing the other (in my view).

I think we should talk about the concept of revoting in general as a matter of procedure before moving ahead with any specifics.

My feeling is that if we're allowed to go back to work on the amendment if it runs into trouble with the membership (which we clearly are), then there is no reason we shouldn't be allowed to go back to work on it if it runs into trouble with us. So I think if people want to revote on Question 1 because of concerns with the wording that's fine. But then I think we have to entertain all calls for revotes.

The reason I would ask for a revote on question 10 is that perhaps not everyone had a chance to keep up with the discussion at every stage and so may have missed the arguments surrounding the question. And also in view of the fact that the option was added at the last minute at Nin's request and got no discussion from the committee as a group before the vote.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 3:32 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Cerin, has anyone said that they are NOT willing to entertain a revote on Question 10? :scratch:


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 3:40 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
No, Voronwe, but I want to first establish the legitimacy of the idea of revoting in general. I don't want to start doing things just because we feel like it. :)

And I'd also like to hear from more of the committee, as to how they feel about this.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 4:03 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
All:
The language of the Charter is helpfully vauge, only indicating that the committee should vote on the proposed amendment. Until the amendment is presented to the board as a whole, I am of the opinion that it's up for whatever kind of voting we want to subject it to. We could, at this moment, vote to ignore everything we've done and support an entirely new option if someone came up with a silver bullet text that fixed everything; looking at the sum total of the votes so far, for the first time, and saying "hey, we kind of need to look at how these parts all work together" only makes sense.

So: I have no problem with revotes on things from the preliminary ballot, now that we're down to actual texts, as long as the decisions we make at this point have some aura of finality about them.

Estel:
Sometimes one or two words make all the difference...witness the effect of adding "under God" to the Pledge. However, I happen to agree with you that nothing is gained by using the second person here, especially since I can see situations in which a poster might well be more protective of someone than that someone was of themselves...

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 4:04 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Cerin, there is plenty of precedent for revotes with a committee. Whether you meant to or not, you were coming across as quite defensive, which I think is what set Estel off.

I would suggest one more preliminary vote revisiting Questions 1 (in terms of the language change that Estel had suggested, 10 (as per your suggestion) and 17 (to see if we can resolve the tie). But I agree that we should hear from the rest of the committee. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 4:31 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Quote:
Cerin, there is plenty of precedent for revotes with a committee. Whether you meant to or not, you were coming across as quite defensive
I was not aware of precedent for revotes, and so my desire was to proceed with caution. I do want what we do here to be viewed as legitimate, and I do want the rest of the committee to have their say as well.

Quote:
I would suggest one more preliminary vote revisiting Questions 1 (in terms of the language change that Estel had suggested, 10 (as per your suggestion) and 17 (to see if we can resolve the tie). But I agree that we should hear from the rest of the committee.
While we wait to hear from the rest of the committee on the subject of revotes in general, perhaps I could ask those of you who voted against the clause in Question 10 that would allow the petitioner to know what objections were voiced against them, to explain why you voted that way. If you can explain your concerns with that option, perhaps they can be addressed.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 5:36 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Once other members check in and if we do proceed with these revotes, I am willing to support the change in the language for Question 1 (since several committee members seem to think it would be an improvement), and upon reflection I am also willing to change my vote from A to B on question 17. So if it is deemed acceptable to proceed in a rather informal way, we would need only one more person approving the language change for Question 1, and if no one else desires to change their vote on Question 17, we can put that matter to rest as well.


Edited for clarity.

Last edited by Cerin on Wed 28 Sep , 2005 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 7:48 am
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
A European checking in here..........yawn.
The change in wording in Question 1 that Estel wants has my approval too. I am easy on the subject of revoting. It was a mammoth job to get the whole amendment sorted out, fine tuning is OK by me providing we don't keep gnawing the bone as it were.
I voted to keep objections private as from the wording presented it seemed that the objectors' texts would pass unaltered to the petitioner. This might lead in sensitive cases to the objector becoming known and danger ensuing. Wilma's suggestion that the Rangers provide a summary of the objection would meet with my approval.
I'm all for getting feedback from members before deciding which option to offer but bear in mind either and both choices might garner objections and the quickest off the mark or most voluble might not represent a majority. My biggest fear is not getting a quorum.
ETA, I just checked back to see which was Question 17. I picked option A because it used established criteria from the Charter but I'm not hung up on its importance.

_________________

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

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 8:22 am
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
I'm ok with revoting. It's up to us to wrangle this into something we're happy to put to the membership. We can paint it blue and hang it upside down if that's what's necessary to get it into a form we're happy with.

My problem with the objections question was similar to Tosh's. There may be cases when, due to the nature of the objection, a members anonymity would be compromised. An example:

Wilma's point about someone who harassed her at a moot. I f the petitioner were told "There was an objection lodged against you because of inappropriate behaviour at a moot", there's a fair bet he's going to know that Wilma vetoed him. Since the whole reason for PMing objections to a Ranger was to allow members to speak up without fear of reprisals I think this is a problem.

If we can find a way around the anonymity issue I'm happy to support it.

Alatar

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 10:04 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thank you, Alatar and Tosh. This developing consensus toward the notion of revotes is encouraging.
Quote:
Wilma's suggestion that the Rangers provide a summary of the objection would meet with my approval.
I wondered if the 'texts of the objections' compromising anonymity was the problem, and if so, that is what I was thinking of as a solution also.

Alatar, do you think the following wording would suffice to address the issue of anonymity?

At the end of the deliberation period, a Ranger will supply the petitioner with a summary stating the number and (general) nature of the objections lodged against them.
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:
I just checked back to see which was Question 17. I picked option A because it used established criteria from the Charter but I'm not hung up on its importance.
That was the reason for my preference as well; however, using option B for the second model would allow for a broader range of options to appear on the final ballot and I think it is also appropriate as a standard for that model (hence my willingness to change my vote on that question).


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 11:09 am
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
First, I will be absent from octobre 8th to octobre 14th, so I don't know if in fact I should remain a member of this commitee.

Second, I prefer rewording of question 1. Concerning the other question, I have a very strong feeling for the need of protection of being anonymous. I know I would not object, if the very wording of my objection would be transmitted to the applying poster. I did not feel that this was respected in the proposed text at all.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 11:54 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Nin, I don't think your absence during that period necessarily indicates you should leave the committee. We will almost certainly be done with our last vote on this stage of the amendment before 8th October; what we'll need to do beyond then, if anything, will depend on what happens in the membership discussion.

I know the contentiousness of the discussion has been difficult for you, and I appreciate that you were willing to stick with it.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 12:50 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Committee members, I realized that the instructions for objecting were meant to be included in the announcement text in the petitioner's threads, so ToE members will know how to proceed. Will everyone please compare the following texts, with the first being what is now shown in the first post of this thread (from announcement thread text up to Discretionary Exception), and the alternative, which is what I believe the arrangement should be, and let me know if you agree with these rearrangements (which sometimes involve sentence reconstruction).

Also, I was wondering if the italics for the Preamble, the sticky text and the announcement texts should be changed to regular type set off by quotes. I was finding the italics difficult to read. Please let me know if you have a preference.


The way the Poll model is currently arranged:

When a member requests access to the forum, 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. Please do not collude to deny the petitioner access for inappropriate reasons.

If a current ToE poster does not want the petitioning member to have access to the forum, then that poster will PM a Ranger/send an email to the Admin. account stating their objection and giving a brief explanation of the reasons.

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.

Once two objections have been received, a Ranger will announce in the petitioner's thread in the ToE forum 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. The poll will offer the following options, with the note placed in the question line of the poll:

Note that the only relevant option is 'I do not want this person to be a member of ToE'. Votes recorded for the second option will be disregarded.
-I do not want this person to be a member of ToE
-This option is only here because a poll requires at least two options

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 to the forum.



The rearrangement I am proposing, to include instructions in the petitioner thread text:

When a member requests access to the forum, 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. Objections with a brief explanation should be submitted by PM to a Ranger or by email to the Administrator account (List of Rangers and Admin. acct. email address). Once two objections are submitted, this thread will be updated with a summary of the nature of the objections received, and will continue to be updated in this way if additional objections are submitted. Approximately halfway through the objection period, a poll will be added to the thread; current ToE posters who believe the petitioner should be denied access based on the objections listed may indicate this by voting in the poll.

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


The poll will offer the following options, with the note placed in the question line of the poll:

Note that the only relevant option is 'I do not want this person to be a member of ToE'. Votes recorded for the second option will be disregarded.
-I do not want this person to be a member of ToE
-This option is only here because a poll requires at least two options

If 12 ToE members vote to exclude the petitioner, the petitioner will be denied access to the forum.

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.



The way the Objections model is currently arranged:

When a member requests access to the forum, 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.

Members will then submit their objections by PM to a Ranger or by email to the Administrator account with a brief explanation. 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. If 5 valid objections are received, the petitioner is denied access to the forum for 6 months.



The rearrangement I am proposing, to include instructions in the petitioner thread text:

When a member requests access to the forum, 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. Objections with a brief explanation should be submitted by PM to a Ranger or by email to the Administrator account (List of Rangers and Admin. acct. email address).

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

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. If 5 valid objections are received, the petitioner is denied access to the forum for 6 months.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 1:17 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
I prefer the newer wording (in blue) however I still have a problem with the line:

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

I dislike the tone of this statement. It's a little "preachy" and, I think, redundant. We don't have similar sermons in the rest of the charter. People are expected to do what's right without being specifically told so.

Alatar

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 2:48 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Alatar--

There isn't any other part of the Charter where collusion is forbidden, so of course it's going to sound preachy here. :D

Cerin et al--

I prefer a redacted version of objections to be transmitted and always have, and probably should have pressed for it to be an option. Ah well. The point is very much NOT to point out who said what, or even make it easy to guess. I don't think we can make it impossible to do so in all cases, though, even if no objections are passed on...if an applicant has a history of inappropriate RL behavior with one or more ToE posters, it's not going to take a Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus moment for them to figure out who vetoed them. But that doesn't mean we have to make it easy.

Example: applicant A has a history of insulting ToE poster B, and B objects. Applicant A is told: it is felt you have engaged in personal attacks.

Applicant C roomed with ToE poster D at a Gathering and ran out without paying for a share of the room. Applicant A is told: it is felt that you have behaved dishonestly.

Applicant E kept trying to grope ToE poster F at a moot. Applicant E is told: it is felt you are disrespectful of people.

You get the idea.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 2:57 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
No we can't make it impossible to identify complainants but we can do what we can. It is also up to the complainant in their e-mail or PM to a Ranger to explain the situation and ask for their assistance.

_________________

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

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 3:02 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
BTW, I'm fine with the reordering of the text.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 6:00 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Perhaps we could include the examples Axordil gave of redacted objections in whatever additions we make to the Ranger handbook.

Alatar, I share your displeasure with the wording of the 'do not collude' statement, I find it very awkward myself.

The thing is, here we have one group of posters having the power to deny others participation in this forum, and there is nothing to prevent people from getting together behind the scenes to keep someone out if they don't like them. I'm not suggesting that is going to be done here and now, but I think the possibility needs an acknowledgement of some kind in the instructions just because it exists.

I am completely open to different wording, but everything else I've tried becomes excessively wordy and therefore even more obvious than the current statement. How about:

Seeking to deny a petitioner access for unrelated reasons* is inappropriate.

*That would be, unrelated to the stated standard.

Seeking to deny a petitioner access for reasons unrelated to the stated standard is inappropriate.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 2 of 9  [ 179 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 59 »
Jump to: