board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

NOW VOTING - Member Ratification, Amendment to Article 6

Post Reply   Page 5 of 25  [ 481 posts ]
Jump to page « 13 4 5 6 725 »
Do you approve the amendment to Article 6?
Yes
  
76% [ 45 ]
No
  
24% [ 14 ]
Total votes: 59
Author Message
Snowdog
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 7:34 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue 19 Jul , 2005 12:56 am
Location: Among the Shadows of Smoke and Mirrors
 
:rofl:

Here's the one exception. :devil:

Why don't you just call this amendment the anti-Snowdog amendment?

Better yet, the 'Private Club' amendment, because the Rules of Entrance reads similarly to some of the Masonic orders out there.
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.

ToE members who object to the petitioner gaining access should submit a brief explanation by PM to a Ranger or by email to the Administrator account (List of Rangers and Admin. acct. email address). 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 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.
This is what makes it a private club.... The ones that are 'in' have the say over those who are 'out' but want in. If two 'in' members put their black balls into the hat (submits an objection), the 'in' members will begin to discuss the objections to the person in question.
Quote:
Approximately halfway (five days) into the objection period, a poll will be added to the thread; ToE members who believe the petitioner should be denied access based on the objections listed may indicate this by voting in the poll. If 12 ToE members vote to exclude the petitioner, the petitioner will be denied access to the forum for six months. Forum members are trusted to refrain from trying to deny the petitioner access without good reason."
Officially the campaign starts in the thread started in the private forum, but unofficially the campaign will be conducted by private message, email, phone, real life, etc.

So whats the worse case? Two or more people object to an applicant, and after the 10 day discussion and poll vote, the applicant has 11 votes against, so they are in. Oh, but wait, there is the RL clause that a couple folks can bring up...

Yeah, anyway... if this amendment passes, it should be obvious to anyone applying for entrance that they open themselves up this scrutiny from those already in the private forum.

So the vote should be coming up soon?

_________________

"C'mon boy, we gots some Piratin' to do!"


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 8:09 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Repost concerning this "private club" issue.

America has a list of "undesirables' - people they do not want on American soil, such as suspected terrorists, suspected infiltrators, race-hate activists etc.

Does that mean that America and the people who visit it belong in a private club?

No. It's just an exclusion list to make America feel safer and more secure.

The debate here is about how a name gets on the exclusion list in the first place. The method that balances the new member and the ToE posters rights. No one wants an OTT list that America has. Anything that excludes Cat Stevens is obvious incorrect.

In a private club, de facto, people cannot join and something special needs to happen, such as a vote or a screening, before they can. The exact opposite is the case here. De facto, people can join, and it takes something special to happen for them not to.

That's a whole different black-ballgame.

Last edited by Lidless on Fri 07 Oct , 2005 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 8:35 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Snowdog wrote:
This is what makes it a private club.... The ones that are 'in' have the say over those who are 'out' but want in.
Yes. That's why I think it would be better if everyone on the board considered the suitability of petitioners to the Age Restricted forum. Unfortunately the idea didn't occur to me until after the committee deliberations were over, and it's too late now to suggest incorporating that into the finished proposal. I think the alternate proposal (the one that wasn't voted out of committee) had less of this connotation of the group excluding people, as all the objections were to be voiced privately and independently.

As for the vote, this discussion is scheduled to end on Friday, Oct. 14 and the ratification vote will open then and run for 10 days.

May I say that I don't know you or any of the things about your conduct on TORC that seem to concern so many members here. I think you have borne the public comments and scrutiny you've been subjected to with good humor, and I hope the days will soon be over when there is reason for others to make public comments about you on the board.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 8:51 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I actually think the committee is going to have to address this issue about the Rangers, and the possibility of a Ranger being someone who has been denied access to ToE.

The one possibility that occurs to me would be to automatically exclude from the Ranger pool anyone who has been denied access to ToE.

I would ask the members of the committee to return to the Jury Room thread to discuss this.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 8:54 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Why not have the current Rangers try to find a way for a Ranger to be a Ranger, but not have access to the ToE first, before we make up a bunch more rules for this and have the process take even longer.

I'm sorry, but it's not fair for the members of one forum to decide whether or not a person should be a ranger.

It's also unfair for the members of the forum to have someone they strongly rejected have access to said forum.

There has to be a middle ground - we just need a way to find it.


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 9:01 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
A person could be made a moderator instead of admin..but they couldn't do things like activating members or changing ranks. They could only lock, move, delete things.

_________________

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: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 9:06 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I don't know enough about the technical aspects of being a Ranger to know if there is a middle ground, but it shouldn't be too hard to determine if there is or there isn't.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 9:08 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 agree with Estel...for now at least, we should let the Rangers handle this as an administrative matter.

If it ever comes up in RL it will go to a hearing anyway, and if necessary we can look to that for precedent in the future. But I think it is possible to anticipate TOO much...and complicate an already murky picture to the point of unintelligibility.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 9:09 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Being a Ranger is all or nothing, unfortunately—Rangers are admins, as they have to be to do their jobs, and admins can't be excluded from any part of the board.

This was thought of in a minor way during the charter process—it's why Rangers have to be 18.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 9:10 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
A ranger is made an Administrator. Administrators have access to all part of the board. I don't believe you can pick and choose where an admin can have access. A moderator should be able to be made a mod of certain forums, not all of them, but at the same time I don't think they'd have access to the Admin panel and therefore wouldn't be able to complete certain ranger duties...though they are mundane ranger duties.

It could be a compromise. Though if a person is denied access to ToE I find it unlikely that people would trust them in the role of an admin. They could do some pretty nasty things with that power.

_________________

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
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 9:15 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
And again I say...if someone who's been blocked from ToE applies for Rangerhood (or for that matter, someone who doubted they would make it in to ToE and skipped that process), it's up to us to see them on the list and object, and bring it to a hearing.

We can't cover every hypothetical, nor should we try to.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 9:17 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Ax, please take into consideration the times these posts were posted. I was typing before you posted.

_________________

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
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 9:19 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Eruname--
I know...I was mostly replying to Prim. :)

I just don't know if Ranger, second class is something worth pursuing...it seems baroque even for me.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Wilma
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 9:20 pm
Takoyaki is love
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
 
That is a very unfortunate side affect from this. :(

Also, ummm Snowdog the whole point of having the poll model is to prevent 1 or 2 people form deciding something for the whole group. I find it highly unlikely 12 people on B77 will agree on anything. Just look at this conversation!! The more people who get to involved in this the less likely there is collusion. Also, it seems the penalty for out and out lying is pretty high at least in my opinion.

_________________

Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 9:29 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Ax, actually I agree with you. As I keep telling my kids, "Let's burn that bridge when we come to it."

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 9:31 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
What would that mean, Ax, 'handle as an administrative manner'?


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Oct , 2005 10:20 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin--

It means let the portions of the Charter that already apply take care of it. Someone complains about a potential Ranger, it ends up in a hearing, it gets dealt with through the current channels. If that happens more than once, THEN I would say we need to make Charter fixes.

_________________

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 07 Oct , 2005 10:29 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Sounds good to me. I won't worry about it anymore in the context of this vote.

:)


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 08 Oct , 2005 11:31 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Cerin, thanks for your well-reasoned answer to my previous post, and the clarification on some of my questions! :hug:

There'd be so much so reply to, so I can only address some points summarily.

First: just reading the idea of combining Ranger eligibility with ToE access scared the hell out of me!
The two issues are entirely separate!
When someone is suggested for a Ranger, their name is posted in a list, and anyone who has an objection to make is supposed to do it according to the process laid down in the charter. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that person has been earlier or is at the same time discussed in ToE!

More to the point under discussion here -

(DISCLAIMER: when I say "ToE-members", I'm not trying to polarise! I don't see a line between ToE-members and non-members at all - I am a ToE-member myself, even though I don't go there much! I might have said "a part of the people who call for a screening process", or something like that, but that's too long. :) )

Let me say something in general first, but before someone stomps off with offense at this, I ask you to read on, because afterwards I'm trying to give a more detailed explanation of where I see the problem now, after having followed the discussion a bit.


Originally, I had a very general problem with this whole idea of a screening process for ToE. The reason for my general problem with this is that I was here during the invites, and I was here when we started thinking about a veto-option for invites.
At the time there was a fear by some members that people who they didn't want to see here would get invited in because they were popular with other members. So they called for a way to enable a minority of members to keep someone out if there were sufficiently grave reasons for this in the opinion of the minority. We ended up having a one-time veto-right for each member.
I'm sorry if I have to say that the whole idea of having a screening for ToE smacked totally of this, and discussing it still leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. (Which is why I haven't been able to join this discussion as much as I might otherwise have done, although I did almost feel guilty not to have supported Cerin in the committee).

After having read the finished proposal and reasonable discussion here, though, I think I see the problem in a more complex way.

The way I see it, there are two different levels of the problem:

One level is: - the idea of the amendment is to prevent people who have already proved themselves untrustworthy in their time on this board from gaining access to ToE.

I would be perfectly happy with such a security measure!

The other level is: - whenever ToE members talk about their need for this security measure, they say that "there are already one or two people they wouldn't trust to get access".

AFAIK, no one on this board has in their time here committed anything to prove themselves untrustworthy!

Therefore, this view of people who asked for having an amendment in the first place proves to me without doubt (I'm afraid) that the security measure given above is not going to solve their problem!

They already know who they want to keep out, whether or not they have done or will ever do anything wrong!

Wilma (sorry, not picking on you here, just giving the source of my argument) mentioned "preventing damage" was better than repairing it - but according to the clause under proposal here, some damage needs already have happened!

The proposed amendment is talking about people who have already proved themselves untrustworthy here - ToE members are talking about keeping out people who might at some time be untrustworthy! I'm afraid it really seems to me that ToE members expect something much different from what the amendment actually says.

I therefore believe that either ToE-members won't be happy with the amendment as it is now, or (sorry to say that) they will have to try to use it in a manner that is not in accordance with the idea of the text (because in the current situation, with no misconduct by anyone so far, it would be no use to them to have the amendment) - in any case, I believe it is not going to solve the problems ToE-members profess having.


Cerin, your idea with having a revote for all of us is wonderful, because it would indeed be an eye-opener about the mistrust already among us. I'm sure some who are now members would find themselves unwelcome.
I hope I'm not wrong if I say that I can conclude that much from Impenitent's post?

And again, this proves to me even more that ToE-members are in favour of keeping out people on distrust merely, rather than on evident misbehaviour!

Last edited by truehobbit on Sat 08 Oct , 2005 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 08 Oct , 2005 11:41 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
Cerin, your idea with having a revote for all of us is wonderful, because it would indeed be an eye-opener about the mistrust already among us. I'm sure many who are now members would find themselves unwelcome.
I hope I'm not wrong if I say that I can conclude that much from Impenitent's post?
I disagree very much. If there were people in there who couldn't be trusted people wouldn't be posting in the forum or would have already deleted everything.

_________________

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
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 5 of 25  [ 481 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 13 4 5 6 725 »
Jump to: