board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTING OVER Final Ballot / Denial of Access

Post Reply   Page 4 of 9  [ 179 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 69 »
Author Message
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 5:12 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Well, I'm so confused about the whole ballot thing anyway, so I guess that covers it. I had thought everything in the ballot was referring to the models we talked about in this forum, with a couple other specific options added. I was unaware that someone else had put forward an entire poll objections model.


I am thoroughly confused now. Can you tell me which options in the ballot were from Wilmas model, and which were from mine? And can you tell me, where in the ballot options we voted on was that statement posted?

And can you link me to where Wilma puts forward her model? I thought I had done a good job of reading peoples posts, but I honestly don't remember a specific model being posted in the business room. I would like to read it.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 5:21 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Estel--

It's in the B-Room thread, unfortunately spread out over several days of her and Cerin talking. The last bit is on the next-to-last page of the discussion on my browser, on Saturday the 24th.

ADD: The gist of the various poll models were covered in Question 14. Wilma's suggestion was incorporated into choice B, which was the winner.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 5:27 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Thanks Ax :) I thought it was in reference to a specific post where a new model was put forward. I also thought, if that were the case, that the specific new model would be posted here.

But really, where are the differences on the ballot. I am now interested to see what I was voting for. And where is that statement on the ballot as well?


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 5:33 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
The language from 14B ended up in the first paragraph (in the reordered text) of the poll model. The italics below are what we approved for the poll model:
Quote:
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.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 5:34 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Estel, here are some links to help you follow the development of that proposal:

restatement of Wilma's initial proposal in preliminary Jury Room discussion, bottom portion of 11th post

Wilma's clarification of her proposal in the Business Room thread, 13th post

My restatement of Wilma's clarification in the Jury Room discussion 19th post followed by Alatar and Axordil responding that they thought it was sufficiently different to include on the ballot, and followed by my proposal for the actual wording on the ballot.


As to where the proposal appeared on the ballot:

PRELIMINARY BALLOT

That was in Part II, Question 14.
Quote:
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=
Your original proposal was option A, Wilma's proposal was option B, and your compromise proposal was option C, followed by the next two questions which only applied to your proposal.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 5:41 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Thanks for clearing that up.

Guess that that is what I get for trying to read, understand and vote on these things this week. I'll be backing out of all voting and discussion until I get a good nights sleep - that way, I'll actually be aware of what I am reading, discussing and voting on. See you all when that miracle happens. Needless to say, I would've voted differently on the options listed if I had realized the implications of them. I won't, however, ask for a revote simply because I didn't get my way; especially since it was my own mistake. I take responsibility for that.

Because I don't want to make any more mistakes, however, I do feel that I need to back out of this discussion and these votes until I feel that I can take part in them without anything, like lack of sleep, cloud my mind.


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 5:57 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
You'll need to ask Jn about how to calculate a quorum Cerin (hopefully she can explain how to do so in a post because I need to learn). The rangers will need to give the current number of active posters from the past 3 months as well.

_________________

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

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 6:02 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I'm going to attempt a summary of what is pending, since there has been a recent flurry of discussion.

- Proposed wording for the Question 10 provision, this incorporates Voronwe's latest suggestion for including a reference to protecting the identity of the person objecting (emphasis added just for our consideration here):

When the 10-day period is over a Ranger will announce in the ToE thread whether the petitioner is granted or denied access, will state the number of objections submitted and will supply the petitioner with a summary of the objections lodged against them, making every effort to avoid revealing the identity of those objecting.

My impression is that we have a majority agreement on including the summary of objections provision with some kind of allusion to protecting anonymity. So is this wording ok with five of us? It is fine with me.


- Various suggestions for the 'collusion' statement:

The original, which Estel said she supported and which I continue to think is the most straightforward way of saying what we mean:

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

Voronwe's suggestion: "It is a natural reaction to discuss these types of issues with your friends. However, in order to avoid unintentional abuses of this system, it is important that people avoid combining together to deny a petitioner access for inappropriate reasons."

which I didn't care for for the following reasons:
Quote:
I don't think joining together to deny a petitioner access for inappropriate reasons would be unintentional. I thought what we were trying to say here is, don't do this intentionally. Also, I would rather not encourage people to discuss amongst themselves by actually suggesting that it is the natural thing to do.
Then the variation based on Tosh's suggestion:

'Please do not attempt to organize a denial of access for inappropriate reasons.'

Where do we all stand on that question? Can five of us informally agree on one of these wordings? If not, I suppose we either default to the wording that passed or take a formal vote ranking the proposed choices (for which we would need full committee participation).


- The important question of how people have been viewing Poll model Proposal B, which was chosen for the final ballot. It seems to me the wording clearly indicates that the voting subsequent to the posting of the summarized objections is intended to be based on those objections, and therefore I have proposed changing the wording of the poll from the one devised for the model that offered no standard and required no explanations:

'I don't want this person to be a member of ToE'

to one tailored to the option that has been chosen:

'Based on the stated objections, I do not think the petitioner should be given access to ToE'

Tosh and I support the change, Estel has said she does not (based on her different understanding of the rationale behind this option, which Voronwe said he agreed with) and Nin says she would not object but doesn't see it as necessary. So it looks like we need two more committee members to agree to change the wording of the poll.

- I need verification as to whether the ratification vote remains open until midnight Eastern time on the last day of the vote.

Edited for clarity.

Last edited by Cerin on Thu 29 Sep , 2005 10:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 6:15 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Eru, this is what it says in the sticky 'How to calculate a quorum' in Michel Delving:
Quote:
It is the Mayor's job to calculate the quorum required to validate a vote each time a Binding Vote or Ratification Vote is held. Base numbers for calculations will be obtained from the Rangers. This post explains how the quorum is calculated, and the second post provides the data used in the calculation.
So can I ask you to please take charge of that and get back to me with the numbers?


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 6:16 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Cerin and Eru, the instructions for calculating a quorum are here in this thread in Michel Delving.

As you can see from the third post in that thread, the "Moving Average less 5%" of the past seven binding votes is 15.4%. When we are actually ready to start the vote, you will will need to obtain from the Rangers the number of members active during the last 60 days, and then subtract from this the number of registered RP characters. The quorum will be 15.4% of that number (in other words, multiply it by 0.154, and round up to the nearest integer).

Eru, after this vote is over, you will need to add a new post to the Michel Delving thread calculating the new "Moving Average less 5%" incorporating the percentage of active users that vote in this election. I think I understand how to do that, so if you need help (and Jn's not available ;)), I probably could help. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 6:24 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Right, did I not just post saying that I don't know how to calculate a quorum? I realize that thread is there but my learning type is being shown, not told. I need Jn or someone to go through the steps with me. I need to see exactly how a quorum is calculated. So no, I cannot just take charge of that and get back to you with the numbers.

_________________

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

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 6:39 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Eruname wrote:
Right, did I not just post saying that I don't know how to calculate a quorum? I realize that thread is there but my learning type is being shown, not told. I need Jn or someone to go through the steps with me. I need to see exactly how a quorum is calculated. So no, I cannot just take charge of that and get back to you with the numbers.
Well, what I'm asking is, can you get whatever help you need to figure it out and then get back to me with the numbers? In other words, may I leave this issue in your hands as the Mayor, rather than trying to deal with it myself?


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 7:11 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
That's fine.

_________________

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

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 7:36 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thanks, Eru. :)

Estel wrote:
Because I don't want to make any more mistakes, however, I do feel that I need to back out of this discussion and these votes until I feel that I can take part in them without anything, like lack of sleep, cloud my mind.
Estel, there is only one more official vote, and that is simply choosing between the two models presented on the ballot in the first post of the thread.

Of course, we will wait to vote until you feel you are ready.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 8:19 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Estel wrote:
Needless to say, I would've voted differently on the options listed if I had realized the implications of them.
Estel, looking back at the ballot tally, you ranked the options of Question 14 as 1=C 2=A 3=B, that is, you ranked your compromise proposal first, your straight poll proposal second and Wilma's proposal third. So in what way are you thinking you would have voted differently if you had realized the implications, and what are the implications you think you didn't realize that are reflected in your vote which you would now cast differently?

I ask because I think we want to eliminate if we can the suggestion that anyone's true preference was not correctly represented in the voting, or that someone's vote was based on a mistaken understanding of the implications.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 6:22 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thinking on that collusion statement again, what if we said:

Forum members are trusted not to try to deny the petitioner access for insufficient reasons.

or

Forum members are trusted not to try to deny the petitioner access without good reason.


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 8:05 am
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
Estel wrote:
my only problem with this is if someone has an objection based on a RL experience and is too ashamed to talk about it to Rangers. And I'm sorry, but shame is often the strongest emotions in these cases. That wording might prevent them from thinking they can vote, though they would dearly love to keep the person out.
I may have not have had read all the posts with the care and time they deserve, but I jsut wanted to express my support to Estel for thinking of this aspect. What I fear is when only one person has such an experience with an applying poster but does not dare to talk about it. Then thre would be no vote at all...

I have to read more carefully for the rest, but time is flowing away under my fingers.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 2:13 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Quote:
What I fear is when only one person has such an experience with an applying poster but does not dare to talk about it. Then thre would be no vote at all...
That's pretty much the worst-case scenario in that direction. And there is nothing we can do about it without sacrificing the open nature of the board. The sine qua non is that someone has to be willing to come forward to a Ranger, in confidence, with an objection of SOME sort. It doesn't have to be detailed. It doesn't have to have specifics. It simply has to be an objection to their past behavior, online or in RL.

We are not mind-readers.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 2:17 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin:

I would prefer "without good reason" because "insufficient" implies there has to be more than one. One really good reason is plenty in some cases.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 30 Sep , 2005 2:35 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Nin wrote:
What I fear is when only one person has such an experience with an applying poster but does not dare to talk about it.
If the person isn't willing to offer a one-sentence explanation based on their experience for the sake of protecting the forum, then I really don't see what we can do about it. I guess we'd have to hope that at least one other person is aware of the petitioner's objectionable behavior.



At the risk of seeming to nag, I'd like to try once again to focus attention on unsettled matters. As far as I'm aware, there are just three issues keeping us from a final vote.

- the wording on summary of objections (pertinent section underlined for this discussion only), we need to know if this wording has the approval of a majority of the committee

When the 10-day period is over a Ranger will announce in the ToE thread whether the petitioner is granted or denied access, will state the number of objections submitted and will supply the petitioner with a summary of the objections lodged against them, making every effort to avoid revealing the identity of those objecting.


- the wording on the collusion statement. Is the following acceptable to committee members or do we need to conduct an IRV vote ranking all the suggestions, or should we just default to the statement that passed in the preliminary vote?

Forum members are trusted to refrain from trying to deny the petitioner access without good reason.


- changing the wording of the poll to be consistent with the instructions in the announcement thread text

Based on the stated objections, I do not think this person should have access to ToE

rather than

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

Once we settle these issues I can put these texts in the amendments, we can review the ballot and vote between the two proposals.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 9  [ 179 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 69 »
Jump to: