My eyes are glazing over.
Wampuscat, is this because the amendment text in the first post here seems like too much to read through, or are you referring more to the on-going discussion?
but rather because this process has demonstrated to me that a number of my fellow B77ers have a myopic and negative view of ToE and those who participate therein.
What this process has demonstrated to me is that a number of current ToE posters have a tendency to take offense at anything said by those who don't frequent the forum, a tendency to impute the very worst motives to those who are trying to understand the situation from the outside, and a tendency to interpret anything said as a demonstration of a negative view of those who participate in ToE.
Imp, I used your phraseology to frame my comment so that you would feel the sting of the kind of generalized jugmentalism that I thought your comment expressed (I do not say this was your intent). It is one thing to respond to something specific another poster has said in the effort to promote understanding; it is another thing to engage in negative generalization that, IMO, only promotes bad feeling and polarizes the discussion.
Please note that I'm not meaning to criticize you personally or trying to limit your freedom of expression. I'm simply suggesting that it would be better to keep our comments specific rather than referring to perceived groups of people and their perceived attitudes.
However, you also said that it was not the intention for people in ToE to discuss the matter, once one of those polls to exclude a member is up - I don't understand why that is - and really, how we can have a polling thread but forbid discussion in that thread?
IIRC, the concept of not having discussion in the thread developed as the result of a two-fold concern (largely expressed by myself I think, so if this ends up being perceived as controversial I must take the blame). My concern was that it isn't fair for someone to be discussed behind their back, and that when the person being discussed behind their back isn't there to defend themselves, there is a good potential for a 'bandwagon' effect developing with people jumping in to support objections in an abstract sense when they really don't have any first hand awareness of that person engaging in objectionable behavior.
As far as how we can forbid discussion in the thread, it is not a question of forbidding but of making it clear that the thread isn't intended for discussion. I see now that we neglected to include a specific reference to that in the instructions.
Also, you objected against the polling option for the reason that others might more easily be drawn along by seeing other people's votes - which is a good point, and it's the reason why I should think a discussion would at least enable people to voice favourable opinions and maybe sway the membership against voting for exclusion (even though the person in question can't be there, which admittedly does make it wrong).
Yes, it is a question of which one views as potentially more harmful. I think we would have benefitted from a larger committee with a more diverse input (which I don't say to try to make anyone feel guilty).
Frankly, I feel that the whole process reflects too much of my personal (and obviously limited) viewpoint, as I was in the unfortunate position of facilitating the discussion while being a strong and the only advocate for a certain point of view. So I personally apologize for any perceived inadequacies in the final proposals.
Above Voronwe and Cerin discussed what should happen if the membership votes against this amendment, and Cerin said the committee's decision to have this poll meant that a need for the amendment had been recognised. I'm afraid I don't agree with that. IMO, if the membership votes the amendment down, this means they believe that no amendment is needed!
This is really important. I did not mean to convey that I think a need for the amendment has been recognized. I do not say that a need for the amendment has been recognized (except on the part of those bringing the amendment). But your comment brings out a very important distinction, so I'm so glad that I did not make myself clear.
I think voting the amendment down
must represent the view that no amendment is needed, and must
not represent the view that an amendment is needed
but that this particular one is deficient. That was really the main point of my long-winded comments.
If you believe no amendment is needed or justified, then yes your recourse is to vote not to approve the amendment. If you believe there is a need for some kind of screening process for ToE, then please speak up in this thread about aspects of the proposal that you don't agree with, with the aim that the amendment be made acceptable.
- How did the amendment to Ranger-eligibility get in there?
Ok, it's a minor addition, and a good one, too, but it's got nothing to do with the issue at hand, it shouldn't be slipped in that way, and it's not right, IMO, to make such a small but useful addition dependent on the outcome of a larger vote.
It's no secret, I'm sure, that I intend to vote against the amendment, but I would regret to have to include objecting to such a sensible little addition.
This is another good point. I'm not sure how we would move to get that amendment included if this one goes down. I can't quite see going through the whole amendment process for just that? What would you suggest? Perhaps a loremaster would have a suggestion about that?
- Much as I like the caveats against abuse of the objection-system, I don't like to summarily punish something that appears to be a false accusation by an immediate ban!
We thought we had dealt with that by modifying the language to include 'up to and including'. So it would not be summarily punished by an immediate ban, but only after examination had indicated that the accusation had been knowingly and maliciously false would an immediate ban be imposed.
That's a pretty wild extrapolation Hobby. A more accurate reasoning would be:
If the membership votes the amendment down, this means they believe that this amendment is not the correct way to solve the problem.
Just because this may not be the correct solution doesn not mean that no problem exists.
But
Alatar, do you think that if this amendment is voted down or fails to make a quorum, there is a good chance of the effort being made again to establish protections for ToE?
I feel very strongly that if there are people who believe there should be protections for ToE but who believe that this amendment is not the correct way to solve the problem,
then they should speak up here and now and according to the provisions in the Charter Amendment Procedure text and the ratification text, we have the capacity to try to make the amendment acceptable to those people.
In other words, I do not think those people should vote not to approve before at least voicing here in this discussion what they see as the problems with this amendment.
That's what this discussion is for.
On the other hand, anyone who would be denied access to ToE would almost certainly be objected to if they applied for Ranger duty also.
I'm not sure this is the case, unless ToE members take responsibility for vigilance over the Ranger roster as well as the ToE petitioner roster. And I'm not sure I really like that idea. I thought the whole point of a separate system for ToE was because ToE has special needs because of the type of content posted there, but now we're saying that anyone denied access to ToE isn't fit to be a Ranger, either (ToE access aside)? This is definitely a thorny issue that we completely missed in committee.
Don't the Rangers automatically have access to ToE, even if they're not members of the ToE forum? That's why I think it's also added in here. If someone cannot be trusted enough to be given a normal access to ToE, that person hardly can be trusted with Rangerhood either.
Rowanberry, I believe truehobbit was referring to the addition we proposed to Article 3 of the Charter, i.e., that an email acknowledgement would be sent to anyone objecting to someone becoming a Ranger. There is nothing in this amendment challenging a Ranger's eligibility to have access to ToE. Though that does raise the interesting question referenced above; perhaps we need to include a statement somewhere that anyone who has been denied access to ToE is automatically disqualified from being a Ranger, since that seems to be what people are suggesting.
As you said, what triggered the amendment request would be a perceived deficiency, but may not be an actual deficiency in the minds of others.
Yes, this is what I think it is vital that a rejection of the amendment represent. I think it would be most unfortunate if a rejection of the amendment reflected a perceived deficiency in the amendment, rather than a perceived sufficiency in the Charter.
It's actually why this conversation is really getting on my nerves now. People have totally ignored the whole 'danger' aspect. You think we just made it up to keep you out?
And I'm sure your mischaracterization of people's sincere concerns is getting on other people's nerves as well. This defensiveness does not help the situation, and it will not help to get the amendment passed, IMO.
People have
not ignored the danger aspect, and they do
not think you made it up just to keep them out. What they are recognizing is that we need a system that is not subject to abuse
should anyone ever try to use it to keep people out for the wrong reasons, since sainthood is not a stated or verifiable requirement for posting in ToE.
It isn't a question of whether we want a forum with sex talk. If this doesn't pass, the forum will still be there.
Yes, thank you for pointing this out.