board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Wed 26 Sep , 2018 9:39 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon 26 Sep , 2005 3:16 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
BALLOT

WE ARE CHOOSING WHICH AMENDMENT TO PRESENT TO THE MEMBERSHIP FOR RATIFICATION

Note that areas of difference between the two proposals are shown in blue.

AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 6: Age Restricted Forum

¶3: Eligibility to Access the Age Restricted Forum

A member becomes eligible to access the "Thinking of England" forum after three months and 100 posts. After this time, a member can request access to the forum from a Ranger.

Question 1. Please select which proposal you would like to put before the membership as the amendment to Article 6, option A or option B:

A. PROCEDURE FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS (Public Objections-Poll 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 for eligibility, we propose the following amendment:

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 personal feelings of vulnerability to others by trying to keep them out of this forum if the concern is not in some way related to an awareness of questionable behavior on their part."

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. Those who have reason to object to the petitioner gaining access to the forum should submit their objection with a brief explanation 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, a summary of those objections will be posted in this thread and the thread will continue to be updated in this way as more objections are received. Approximately halfway (five days) into 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. Forum members are trusted to refrain from trying to deny the petitioner access without good reason."

The poll will offer the following options, with the note placed in the question line of the poll:
Note that 'I do not think this person should have access to ToE ...' is the only relevant option. Votes recorded for the second option will be disregarded.
-I do not think this person should have access to ToE based on the objections stated in the thread
-This option is only here because a poll requires at least two options

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 12 ToE members vote to exclude the petitioner, the petitioner will be denied access to the forum for six months.


Discretionary Exception for Extraordinary Circumstance

If a Ranger receives a communication that a ToE member has had a RL experience of a seriously harmful nature with the petitioner, 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 subject to penalties up to and including an immediate ban and always including a minimum two-year ban from the Thinking of England forum.

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 petitioner's thread will be left up for an additional three days, after which time a Ranger will delete it.

If the number of objections is less than that required to deny access, the petitioner will be granted access to the forum and should announce their arrival in the Welcome thread in the forum, which will be created for this purpose.

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


B. PROCEDURE FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS (Private Objections 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 for eligibility, we propose the following amendment:

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 personal feelings of vulnerability to others by trying to keep them out of this forum if the concern is not in some way related to an awareness of questionable behavior on their part."

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

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.


Discretionary Exception for Extraordinary Circumstance

If a Ranger receives a communication that a ToE member has had a RL experience of a seriously harmful nature with the petitioner, 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 subject to penalties up to and including an immediate ban and always including a minimum two-year ban from the Thinking of England forum.

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 petitioner's thread will be left up for an additional three days, after which time a Ranger will delete it.

If the number of objections is less than that required to deny access, the petitioner will be granted access to the forum and should announce their arrival in the Welcome thread in the forum, which will be created for this purpose.

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.


Last edited by Cerin on Tue 04 Oct , 2005 3:15 pm, edited 17 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 6:31 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Dear Committee members

My heart is heavy because of the result of Question 10:

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.

Option A prevailed. I only added this choice at the last moment, in deference to Nin who had expressed reservations about the objections being turned over in conjunction with the objector's name.

I feel the need to speak frankly, member to member at this time. I will not be able to support an amendment that does not let the petitioner know why people objected to their gaining access to ToE. I believe it goes against our stated principles of respect, equality and openness, and is unbelievably callous and cruel. In addition, I can't fathom a single reason why the texts of the objections should not be turned over to the rejected petitioner if the names are not included.

I hope given the amount of time and energy I have put into this that no one will think that my opposition to the amendment is motivated by malice or a lack of concern for ToE. I had fervently hoped that I would be able to support the amendment that came out of committee, and I had high hopes after Wilma's suggestion was submitted that no matter which amendment we ultimately chose, I would be able to support it before the membership. I have given everything I could to make my concerns understood and to understand the concerns of ToE members, and to help fashion an amendment that would protect ToE while not violating our stated board principles and ideals. From my perspective, that goal was certainly within our grasp.

And now on to the task at hand.

We need to examine the two models in the first post and consider if there is anything that has to be added for clarity or re-arranged now that the various components have been put together.

We need to decide what to do about the tie in the second model.

After we vote on which model to send to the membership, you mustn't go away! We will have to add some provisions concerning amendments to other areas of the charter (this we should be able to do by simple acclamation in the thread, as there won't be choices). Then I will want you to read over the presentation to the membership before I post it in the Business Room. Then we will still have to be ready to come back here to work on anything that proves controversial in the membership discussion. After the discussion period is over and the ratification process begins, then we will be able to adjourn the session and dissolve the committee.

Thank you all for your persistence. Let's press on through, we're not far from the end now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 6:41 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Can we make the change from "your" to what Estel suggested in the preamble language? I don't see the generic use of the second person as adversarial, but I can see someone doing so, and it doesn't change the meaning at all.

More urgently:

So, if we offer one amendment, the choices are yes or no. If we offer two, the choices are A, B...or what? The Charter specifies a yes/no vote, so the ONLY way I can see using a multi-amendment presentation is if "Neither" is also a choice, thus providing two "yes" options and one "no" option. However, this would then need to be done via IRV, as there would be three options up for grabs...

And I don't see how a 2/3 IRV can work. Let's say A, B, and C are all choices. In round 1, A gets 40% of the first rank votes, B 35%, and C 25%. In round 2, though, let us say that C's second rank votes all went to B...So that A has 40% and B 60%. None of the choices reach a 2/3 approval.

Now, if C here is "Neither" we end up with a situation where only 25% voted for Neither, but it wins by default...not good.

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

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 6:56 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5134
Loremaster time.

We CAN NOT offer a choice of different options. That is simply not compatible with the Charter. I will put my foot down on this one. IT CAN NOT BE DONE. We must offer a specific amendment to which the membership either says yes or no.

This is the point that I wanted to do a straw poll of the membership to help guide our final choice. Unfortunately that is not really an option at this point.

Quote:
Can we make the change from "your" to what Estel suggested in the preamble language? I don't see the generic use of the second person as adversarial, but I can see someone doing so, and it doesn't change the meaning at all.


I would approve such a change. With Ax and Estel herself that makes three that agree with this change. If at least two others also agree, it should be done.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 6:59 pm 
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Posts: 8748
Location: UK
Cerin, I know I voted for B in question 10. I figured it was wrong to deny someone membership without telling them why. I just assumed names wouldn't be part of the text given the denied member.

But this has been voted on, so I'm not sure what can be done.

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

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 7:00 pm 
Thanks to Holby

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


Last edited by Cerin on Tue 27 Sep , 2005 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 7:04 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
I see Voronwe is essentially suggesting a re-vote on Question 1. If this is permitted, then I'd like to ask for a re-vote on Question 10.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 7:05 pm 
Not so deep as a well

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

And the Charter is on really good mathematical grounds in this case. :D

Cerin--

I share your concerns in regards to #10. Not only do I think it's going to make either amendment a harder sale for those who think this whole affair gives ToE people special rights, I think it makes the notion of a "temporary" denial meaningless. If someone doesn't get why they're being denied access, it seems they are pretty much destined to remain clueless in perpetuity unless someone tells them informally...

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

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 7:30 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
I'd like to add this link (List of Rangers and Admin. acct. email address) to the thread announcement text in whichever amendment we send forward.

Any objections?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 7:36 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
In the event that we send forward the Poll Model, I wonder if we could modify the wording of the poll question, given that we have now chosen Option B for the procedure.

The former wording was composed with the first model in mind, where no reasons were being given, so 'I don't want this person to be a member of ToE' makes sense. Now, however, the vote is supposed to be based on the objections listed in the thread.

So how about something like, 'Based on the objections listed in the thread, I do not believe the petitioner should be allowed access to ToE.'

?????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 7:39 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Well, it WOULD demonstrate some cause and effect...:D

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

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 8:08 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Here is another thing to consider:

This text is from one of the later Charter Ratification threads, which I am using as a model for our presentation of this amendment in Business:

if enough people dislike certain provisions we will remove them from the text before the voting begins and allow the committee to work on them again until they are more acceptable to the membership.

I think it would behoove us ( :D do you suppose that expression is horse-related?) to decide ahead of time what we're going to do if it looks like whichever amendment we send up isn't enjoying a positive reception.

For example, if we send out the Poll model and a significant number of people object to the idea of a vote as too similar to the loathed invitation thread dynamic, do we reserve the right to withdraw that amendment and offer the other one?

I'm sure you could imagine a reverse scenario as well. If we agree ahead of time on what to do I think it will lessen the chances that committee members might feel disgruntled, or think someone is trying to make an end-run around proper procedure.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 8:30 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5134
Cerin wrote:
I see Voronwe is essentially suggesting a re-vote on Question 1. If this is permitted, then I'd like to ask for a re-vote on Question 10.


Cerin, the difference is that what I am suggesting is not to revisit the two original choices but instead to revisit making a change to the winning choice that was suggested before the vote but not included on the ballot (unless I am completely confused).

That having been said, I would not be adverse to considering further arguments on the subject. I can't promise that I would change my vote, but I will at least consider what you say.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 8:39 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
Cerin, the difference is that what I am suggesting is not to revisit the two original choices but instead to revisit making a change to the winning choice that was suggested before the vote but not included on the ballot

Well, yes, it all depends on how you parse the question. :) The original two choices were to include the statement or not include it. The statement was included. Now it has been proposed that not that statement, but a differently worded statement be included instead of the one that was voted on to be included.

Clearly I would like to find a rationale for re-visiting the question of objections being shared with petitioners. It seems to me that if it can be proposed that the result of Question 1 not stand as voted on, then it could also fairly be proposed that the result of Question 10 not stand as voted on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 8:53 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5134
I did say that I would not be adverse to considering further arguments on the subject, in case you did not notice. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 10:52 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
The Amendment process makes it clear that pulling a proposed amendment is fine, and that pulling parts of it for later discussion is also fine:

Quote:
The membership will be given ten full days to discuss the amendment. During that period, anything deemed controversial may be removed and tabled for later consideration, or the amendment may be withdrawn. Following the discussion a yes/no poll will be posted in the thread and members will vote for ten full days, whether or not to ratify the amendment.


In this case we already have a backup ready to go, either way. I don't see anything that would prevent an amendment from being yanked BEFORE the yes/no vote takes place and replaced with another one, since this is only a condensed version of the process described. We shouldn't be penalized for being prepared.

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

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 11:18 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5134
Ax, I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting. :scratch:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 11:23 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
V, I think Ax was responding to these comments of mine:


Quote:
Here is another thing to consider:

This text is from one of the later Charter Ratification threads, which I am using as a model for our presentation of this amendment in Business:

if enough people dislike certain provisions we will remove them from the text before the voting begins and allow the committee to work on them again until they are more acceptable to the membership.

I think it would behoove us ( do you suppose that expression is horse-related?) to decide ahead of time what we're going to do if it looks like whichever amendment we send up isn't enjoying a positive reception.

For example, if we send out the Poll model and a significant number of people object to the idea of a vote as too similar to the loathed invitation thread dynamic, do we reserve the right to withdraw that amendment and offer the other one?

I'm sure you could imagine a reverse scenario as well. If we agree ahead of time on what to do I think it will lessen the chances that committee members might feel disgruntled, or think someone is trying to make an end-run around proper procedure.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 27 Sep , 2005 11:33 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5134
Oh. I completely missed that post. :oops: Now it makes perfect sense. My apologies to both of you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 12:15 am 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Nothing to see here, move along. :D

_________________
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 Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  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