board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTING OVER Final Ballot / Denial of Access

Post Reply   Page 6 of 9  [ 179 posts ]
Jump to page « 14 5 6 7 8 9 »
Author Message
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 4:14 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
I would say a minimum of a two year ban from ToE, rather than a permanent one in the case where a person makes a mistake. If it's in a case where a person fucks up and makes a mistake, they should have a chance to redeem themselves... If the person is still an active and respected member of Board77 two years after their fuck-up, I think there should be at least the possibility of their access to the ToE going under review.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 4:37 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Fair enough. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 6:03 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Does anyone mind if I change 'lifetime' to 'permanent'?

If it is subsequently determined in a hearing that the accusation was false, the accusing member will be subject to penalties up to and including a permanent ban and always including a minimum two-year ban from the Thinking of England forum.


Is that what we want?

Voronwe, truehobbit mentioned something in the Bus. Room thread about the Charter prohibiting permanent bans? Can you check on that?


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 6:08 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Cerin wrote:
If it is subsequently determined in a hearing that the accusation was false, the accusing member will be subject to penalties up to and including a permanent ban and always including a minimum two-year ban from the Thinking of England forum.
This sounds good to me :)



Cerin wrote:
Voronwe, truehobbit mentioned something in the Bus. Room thread about the Charter prohibiting permanent bans? Can you check on that?
I think if we add a statement saying that the person can appeal the ban through email at any time, then this shouldn't be a problem. Doesn't mean the ban will be rescinded, but it gets rid of that pesky "permanent" implication ;)


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 6:38 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Cerin wrote:
Voronwe, truehobbit mentioned something in the Bus. Room thread about the Charter prohibiting permanent bans? Can you check on that?
Yes, that is correct. We have "indefinite bans" not "permanent bans". From Paragraph 9 of Article 5:
Quote:
There are no permanent, irreversible bans on Board77. But when a hearing is held to petition the reversal of a ban, the Jury is permitted to uphold the ban and specify a duration.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:04 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
So then should we say:

If it is subsequently determined in a hearing that the accusation was false, the accusing member will be subject to penalties up to and including an indefinite ban and always including a minimum two-year ban from the Thinking of England forum.

?


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:14 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 prefer permanent be the top end in this case, and yes, it requires that change under the penalties section. If someone abuses the system maliciously, as opposed to mistakenly, they've single-handedly destroyed the trust needed to keep ToE operating. It's one of the few ways to inflict permanent damage to the board, and the maximum penalty should be commensurate.

Edit to add: I could live with a two year ToE ban being the minimum, invoked in cases of honest mistakes. Estel is correct...some mistakes can be redeemed.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:34 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
So you're saying we have to amend the portion of Article 5 that says we have no permanent bans?


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:35 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Yes.

_________________

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: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:35 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Ax, I can't accept that.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:40 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Well, since we can't get them for slander in RL, it's the next best thing. We're talking about possibly someone making a false accusation of something as serious as rape here, using the system to defame someone, and destroying trust IN that system in the process. If anyone ever got nailed for making a false accusation, as far as I'm concerned that would make ToE a dead zone: who would trust in the system's ability to honestly screen people any more?

_________________

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: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:46 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
A person who does that is never going to get reinstated, Ax.

I can't accept changing such a basic point of the Charter. I think that it is beyond our purview to create a new penalty more stringent then what we explicitly stated. I don't see that the conduct you are talking about is necessarily any worse then the other offenses that merit indefinite bans.

I feel very strongly about this.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:47 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
So Voronwe, you would find it unacceptable to change this section

There are no permanent, irreversible bans on Board77. But when a hearing is held to petition the reversal of a ban, the Jury is permitted to uphold the ban and specify a duration.

to this:

When a hearing is held to petition the reversal of a ban, the Jury is permitted to uphold the ban and specify a duration. The only offense incurring a permanent, irreversible ban on Board77 is the intentional and malicious abuse of the Denial of Access Procedure for the Thinking of England Forum by knowingly bring a false accusation of RL harmful acts against a petitioning member in order to deny them access to that forum.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:56 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Voronwe--

Obviously I DO think it's worse. It's the thing that I think destroyed TORC: abuse of the system for personal vendetta. In the end, no one trusts the system, people have been slandered, and a little bit of the truth has been killed. It's using our own openness and sense of fair play against us. We need to scare people shitless, so this thought never even enters their mind in a serious way.

The only thing as serious on the books now is using the board to set up a criminal act.

If we could guarantee the duration assigned upon petition for reversal would be 99 years or such, I could live with striking the word permanent.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 7:58 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
We're talking about yet another amendment to the charter, which will take even more time.


Why don't we just say
Quote:
"indefinite, with the understanding that if the charter is changed to allow permanent bans, then this will become a permanent ban."

That way, if the charter is messed around with after all this ToE stuff is over, then the rule is there, however, we aren't waiting - and making other people wait - for that rule to change before we present this to the membership and get it taken care of.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 8:01 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
While we're at it, these are the other Charter amendments that have been suggested as an addendum to the amendment we're working on. Please review these and suggest any others you feel would be necessary:

It was suggested we add the receipt of objection provision (text in blue) to the Ranger objection provision in Article 3, ¶3 so that it would be consistent with the amendment we're working on.

If a member does have a concern or objection to a particular volunteer, these must be sent by email to the Administrator account, where they will also be forwarded to the Mayor so that the Mayor together with current Rangers can review them for merit. A Ranger will send an email acknowledgment to each person who submits an objection to let them know their objection has been received.


We would change the text shown in red from Article 3 ¶4: Routine powers of Rangers (excerpt) to the text shown in blue

• In the Jury Room and the Archive, enable posting rights, delete illegitimate posts from Hearings, and delete threads when they are finished;
• In the Thinking of England Forum, enable posting rights when age confirmations are received;
• Lock, split, or move threads upon request of members, or when it is necessary to improve the coherence of a forum; the thread originator must be notified beforehand;


In the Thinking of England Forum, initiate announcement threads and oversee consideration periods in accordance with the instructions in Article 6, ¶3.


Suggestions for Article 5, ¶9 addition in blue

Offenses for which the maximum penalty for a first offense is an immediate ban
- Spamming the board with ads;
- Spamming the board with pornography;
- Hacking the board;
- Refusing to abide by the Decision of the Jury in a Hearing [maximum penalty is
mandated by Article 3];
- Threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against members [maximum
penalty is mandated by Article 3];
- Deliberately introducing a virus to members of the board.
- Falsely accusing a member of harmful RL actions in order to deny them access to the Thinking of England forum.


The following provision from Article 2, section A, para 1 (Members Rights and Responsibilities) will be deleted:

(You have the right) to post in our Thiking ofEngland forum (a forum restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older) once you have met the eligibility requirements.

Last edited by Cerin on Sat 01 Oct , 2005 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 8:03 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Quote:
We're talking about yet another amendment to the charter, which will take even more time.

There are several other amendments already necessitated, so one more won't make that much difference.

These will be offered as an addendum to the principle amendment we're working on, since the Charter will have to be changed to accommodate the new amendment.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 8:08 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Noting Prim's agreement with Voronwe in Business thread.



Axordil from Business thread:
But I'll tell you what: make the duration of the ban assigned after rejection of reversal 99 years, and I'll drop the word permanent.

Can you suggest how I might incorporate that?


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 8:14 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
It would have to go after the "assign a duration" language.

Checking back over my notes...actually, I had suggested 10 years for the duration earlier, that being a lifetime in message board terms.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 01 Oct , 2005 8:18 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Is this what you had in mind, then?

There are no permanent, irreversible bans on Board77. But when a hearing is held to petition the reversal of a ban, the Jury is permitted to uphold the ban and specify a duration. In the case of a ban due to intentional and malicious abuse of the Denial of Access Procedure for the Thinking of England Forum by knowingly bringing a false accusation of RL harmful acts against a petitioning member in order to deny them access to that forum, the mandatory specified duration will be 10 years.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 6 of 9  [ 179 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 14 5 6 7 8 9 »
Jump to: