board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTING OVER Final Ballot / Denial of Access

Post Reply   Page 3 of 9  [ 179 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 59 »
Author Message
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 28 Sep , 2005 8:02 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
I am ok with this statement and do think it is necessary.
Quote:
"Please do not collude to deny the petitioner access for inappropriate reasons"
It may sound preachy, but I think it does need to be pointed out that this is not allowed.

I am happy to do a revote if others feel it is necessary.

For option 10, I don't remember what I voted. However, I like the idea of a Ranger supplying a summary of the objections to the person.


I don't remember what I voted for option 17, but upon rereading it just now, I don't really care which option is chosen.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 2:43 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I've updated the first post in the following ways:

Question 1 wording change as proposed by Estel (Estel, will you please check that I've got that right?).

Question 10, added The petitioner will be supplied with a summary of the objections lodged against them (pending approval of wording by committee)

Edit
Put option B of Question 17 into place in the second model.

I noticed this: If no member voices an objection, the petitioner will be granted access to the forum

and changed it to this:

If the number of objections is less than that required to deny access, the petitioner will be granted access to the forum

Incorporated re-arrangement of text as presented earlier, to put instructions for objecting into the thread announcements.

Put the post in the form of a ballot with two choices.


This leaves us with a couple of things to consider that I'm aware of.

Alatar is not pleased with the 'do not collude' statement, so we could use more feedback on that and possible other wording suggestions.

What did people think about the idea of changing the poll wording to fit the option that's been chosen, i.e. changing

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

to something like,

'Based on the objections stated, I do not believe the petitioner should be granted access to ToE.'

Does anyone else think this would be an improvement?

Edit

So do people want to discuss the ballot and the potential advantages of one option over the other, or do we just want to review the ballot and move to the vote?


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 6:23 am
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
I'd say let's just rewiew the ballot and proceed to vote (now of course, in my selfish manner, I have my deadline in mind).

I don't mind the change of wording in the poll, even if I find it unnecessary and a tad lengthy. The result is the same in both polls, in the end.

For the addition to question 10, if it's possible could we add: "The petitioner will be supplied with a summary of the objections lodged against them" which guarantees as far as possible the anonymosity of the objector.
Shouldn't we also say that it is a ranger who supplies the summary?

For question 17, I would have to look up what I have voted, but I did not feel very strongly about it too.

I'll have to check collude in my dictionnary before I say more.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 7:42 am
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Quote:
'I do not want this person to be a member of ToE'

to something like,

'Based on the objections stated, I do not believe the petitioner should be granted access to ToE.'

Does anyone else think this would be an improvement?
I think this is an improvement.

I don't know if we can improve the wording of the 'collude' statement but the sentiment is worth presenting somewhere. Can anyone work their way around a wording such as:
'Please do not try to organise a denial of the forum to anyone for inadequate reasons.'
Quote:
The petitioner will be supplied with a summary of the objections lodged against them
This wording looks fine to me. Perhaps it needs 'by a Ranger/ the Rangers' at the end of the sentence.

_________________

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

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 2:39 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Can the collusion language be added to the preamble? Would it seem less out of place there?

Once the last content issues are addressed and the reordering approved, I think we should probably proceed straight to selection. If we're not familiar with the reasoning behind all of these by now we never will be.

_________________

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: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 2:53 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
The petitioner will be supplied with a summary of the objections lodged against them
How about:
Quote:
The Rangers will supply the petitioner with a summary of the objections lodged against them, unless a majority of the Rangers concludes that such a summary can not be provided without revealing the source of the objections.
Quote:
Please do not collude to deny the petitioner access for inappropriate reasons
How about:
Quote:
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.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 3:03 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
BTW, at the risk of destroying civilization as we know it, I officially asked in ToE for people to let us know in the B-Room which model they prefer. But I did NOT attach a poll :D

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 3:04 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8272
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
I like both of those Voronwe.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 3:10 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I think it is ALWAYS possible to redact an objection to the point where an outside person wouldn't be able to figure out who is objecting. See examples above.

If the Rangers ever have a problem in doing so, they can come to me. I have a lifetime of experience in obscuring specifics in favor of truths. :D

_________________

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 3:24 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
The problem with this
Quote:
'Based on the objections stated, I do not believe the petitioner should be granted access to ToE.'

Is that the person voting might very well have their own objections, and not be basing their veto on the objections stated. For instance, the objections stated all refer to the petitioner as being a trouble-maker on the boards, but one of the people voting hasn't stated their objection because, even in summary, they will be recognizable from their reason.

I think that adding "Based on the objections stated" is to specific, and it also bases the votes on other peoples objections rather than personal ones. I thought that was something we were trying to avoid.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 3:39 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
Applicant E kept trying to grope ToE poster F at a moot. Applicant E is told: it is felt you are disrespectful of people.
Ax, that's not really redacting in my book. That is generalizing to the point where the reason for the objection really is not revealed.

If I were a Ranger (Eru forbid that such an unholy state should ever exist again) and I was asked to provide a summary of the reasons why Applicant E was being objected to, I would not just say that "it is felt that you are disrespectful of people."

An alternative language might be:
Quote:
The Rangers will supply the petitioner with a summary of the objections lodged against them, but will make every effort to avoid revealing the source of the objections.
Edit to add: I agree with Estel.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 3:46 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Estel:

I believe I have demonstrated that ANY objection can be redacted into anonymity. Give me one you think can't be, and I will show you how it's done.

I submit in such a case as you describe, the assumption of the applicant will be that they were kept out because of the reason they already know about, even if it ISN'T stated. If someone knows they did something bad to a ToE member, they're going to assume any objection is really about that, no matter what forms the objections of record take.

This is not to say that we can force people to align their votes with the objections at hand. There are always going to be occasions when people will have their own reasons. And I agree that ultimately, posted objections are going to be evidence for the juries of our own consciences, not verdicts to be accepted or rejected.

So I agree with your conclusion, just not with all of your argument. :D

_________________

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 4:42 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thanks for all the excellent feedback, everyone!
Axordil wrote:
Can the collusion language be added to the preamble? Would it seem less out of place there?
I think the collusion language must be included in the announcement thread instructions to be of any practical use.


Regarding the wording of the Question 10 provision, I like Nin's suggestion. In the following proposal on how to incorporate it, I've put it with the surrounding information into one sentence so as to avoid repeating 'A Ranger will'. I also changed Nin's wording somewhat to address the concerns just expressed:

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 that is of sufficient vagueness to ensure the anonymity of those objecting.

or taking your latest suggestion, Voronwe:

...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.


Voronwe, I agree with Ax, I don't see how it would ever not be possible to protect someone's identity, you would just be as vague as you needed to be.

Quote:
Applicant E kept trying to grope ToE poster F at a moot. Applicant E is told: it is felt you are disrespectful of people.
Would this not fall under the exception clause? I consider attempts at groping to be 'RL contact of a seriously harmful nature'.

Quote:
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.
Voronwe, 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.

Tosh had suggested, 'Please do not try to organise a denial of the forum to anyone for inadequate reasons.'

I prefer 'inappropriate' to inadequate, and arrived at, 'Please do not attempt to organize a denial of access for inappropriate reasons.'

I'm thinking at this point that the original language is the most accurate and to the point.

Estel wrote:
Is that the person voting might very well have their own objections, and not be basing their veto on the objections stated.
I'm very glad you brought this up, Estel. It was my understanding that what differentiates this model from your compromise model was that people may not voice their objections anonymously, but everyone with a specific objection must submit that objection by email. This is the main feature that would allow me to back this model if it is the one that comes out of committee. The voting, as I understood it, was to be exclusively based on the summarized objections, which is why I felt that should be reiterated in the poll wording. I believe this is explicitly stated in the instructions (emphasis added for this comment only).

Objections with a brief explanation should be submitted by PM to a Ranger or by email to the Administrator account (link). 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 if 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.

Now with this evident lack of clarity, I would propose changing the above wording, possibly to:

Any ToE member who has 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 in an email to the Administrator account (List of Rangers and Admin. acct. email address).

Quote:
For instance, the objections stated all refer to the petitioner as being a trouble-maker on the boards, but one of the people voting hasn't stated their objection because, even in summary, they will be recognizable from their reason.
As I said, I don't think anyone will be recognizable from a sufficiently redacted objection.
Quote:
I think that adding "Based on the objections stated" is to specific, and it also bases the votes on other peoples objections rather than personal ones. I thought that was something we were trying to avoid.
That was in the case where not all objections were known. In this case we're having all objectors state their objections in email, all objections will be posted in the thread in a redacted version, and the community bases their decisions on that shared information.

I'm a bit disturbed to see that Voronwe agrees with Estel's interpretation of the model. I had thought the intent of Wilma's proposal was clear, and that the language in the instructions is also clear, but perhaps I am mistaken.

Axordil wrote:
BTW, at the risk of destroying civilization as we know it, I officially asked in ToE for people to let us know in the B-Room which model they prefer.

Might ToE members' preference be different from what the membership as a whole would prefer (that is, which one has a better likelihood of passing?) I see no one has responded in the Business Room thread, perhaps not a good portent for achieving a quorum.

Speaking of quorums, I NEED HELP figuring out the quorum for this amendment vote. Also I'll need to put the period of voting in the ratification presentation. Did we decide in one of the last votes that we will vote 'til midnight Eastern time of the last day of voting, or did I imagine that?


Edit
Axordil wrote:
Once the last content issues are addressed and the reordering approved, I think we should probably proceed straight to selection. If we're not familiar with the reasoning behind all of these by now we never will be.
Well it seems there is a difference of understanding on the reasoning behind the poll model.

Edit
Nin wrote:
I'll have to check collude in my dictionnary before I say more.
Nin, what we're saying is, 'Please don't plot with your friends behind the scenes to keep someone out of the forum for inappropriate reasons (like, you just don't like them).'

Last edited by Cerin on Fri 30 Sep , 2005 6:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 4:51 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Cerin - 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.

If it is stated in the instructions, does not need to be said again in the poll options.

All that said, I don't remember having this
Quote:
current ToE posters who believe the petitioner should be denied access based on the objections listed may indicate this by voting in the poll.
in the poll model I gave. In fact, I remember having people PM or email their explanations to Rangers in that model.

Have I missed a change made to the model I created somewhere? Cause I certainly don't remember expressing any approval of having that added to it.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 4:54 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Voronwe:

Which is worse, generalizing or leaving it out entirely? Besides, I maintain that in ANY case where we're dealing with an objection arising out of personal contact, everyone involved will know exactly what is going on, unless the difference in perception of the event is so great that what was harmful personal contact to one wasn't worth remembering to the other.

If that's the case, a generalized redaction is EXACTLY what's needed, as the clueless petitioner STILL won't get it, but at least will have SOME reason given.

_________________

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 5:01 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
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.
We have included a provision for this very type of case (the discretionary exception), but if the person is not willing to avail themselves of that provision, I don't really see what we can do about that. There would be nothing to prevent that person from voting based on any other objections listed in the thread.

Quote:
If it is stated in the instructions, does not need to be said again in the poll options.
This lack of clarity about the intentions of the model has conviced me that it does need to be restated in the poll, so I guess we'll have to have a formal re-vote on this question if you object to making the change.

Quote:
All that said, I don't remember having this

current ToE posters who believe the petitioner should be denied access based on the objections listed may indicate this by voting in the poll.

in the poll model I gave. In fact, I remember having people PM or email their explanations to Rangers in that model.
It wasn't in your model, Estel, it was in Wilma's model, which is the one that was chosen. That is how it differs from yours, as you pointed out above.

Quote:
Have I missed a change made to the model I created somewhere? Cause I certainly don't remember expressing any approval of having that added to it.
Estel, your model wasn't the one chosen.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 5:05 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin--
Quote:
It was my understanding that what differentiates this model from your compromise model was that people may not voice their objections anonymously, but everyone with a specific objection must submit that objection by email.
Or anyone who has an objection they wish to share. We cannot FORCE people to object. Nor can we FORCE them to vote only on the objections submitted. We cannot look into people's minds and hearts, nor should we want to.

The objections are evidence that people will evaluate, but I would hazard a guess that in many cases they will be weighed along with other evidence in people's minds, some of which might be negative towards a petitioner, some positive. And I don't have a problem with that, mainly because it's impossible to stop.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 5:06 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Quote:
Might ToE members' preference be different from what the membership as a whole would prefer (that is, which one has a better likelihood of passing?) I see no one has responded in the Business Room thread, perhaps not a good portent for achieving a quorum.
Yes, they might. But you can't MAKE me post anything ToE-related outside of ToE or the Business Forum at this point, and we already asked in the Business Forum.

_________________

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 5:08 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Axordil wrote:
Or anyone who has an objection they wish to share. We cannot FORCE people to object. Nor can we FORCE them to vote only on the objections submitted.
Of course we cannot force it, but did you understand that to be the intent of the proposal -- that the summarized objections would be what the group decision is based on?

If not, I see no rationale for supporting this proposal over the one that wasn't chosen, and no rationale that really separates one from the other.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 29 Sep , 2005 5:10 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Axordil wrote:
Yes, they might. But you can't MAKE me post anything ToE-related outside of ToE or the Business Forum at this point, and we already asked in the Business Forum.
I wouldn't dream of asking you to do so, much less trying to make you. :)


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