board77

Maybe it would help if people thought of this amendment as a way of making sure that ToE will be here and will be available to new members in more or less the same form in which it exists now.

Without the protections in this amendment, ToE would radically change; it would not be for new members what it is now. I don't see the post deletions as a threat to force the rest of us to vote a particular way. The people involved are seriously afraid, and they want the rest of us to understand what's at stake.

I've never participated in ToE beyond committee discussions and have canceled my privileges there, with no plans to renew them. But I trust the people in there; they're my friends. What they value and want to protect, I value too for their sakes.

I will vote for the amendment.

THank You Ax and Prim. You guys seem to be trying.

I have just become frustrated since I have tried to explain and it does not seem many people understand. There are some who do though. TheMary who has never seen ToE, totally understands why we are having this amendment and gave a perfect scenario as to why we need it. I think I will ask her if she can post that scenario here.

I will also, say I did have concerns about unsavoury people before I had access to ToE also. I think that is why I am so frustrated as to why people can't understand a scenario until they witness it. To me it just seems a little nosy, and gives the implication that we are untrustworthy.

OK I will be mentioning the trust and trustworthyness in the rest of this post and I only mean it in the sense of respecting the rules of ToE and the rest of the board,

The whole post deleting comment from Tinsel basically said even if this amendment gets passed, she still thinks us ToErs don't trust her or new people who will come into the forum. That, that is what I find so disheartening. A comment like that seems to indicate to me that she thinks this whole amendment is about keeping people out of ToE and she has missed the whole point of this thing since she thinks it's really about trust and distrust. OldB77 vs. new B77 and the trust issue rather then saving someonme from sexual harrasment.

I can understand why Imp responded the way she did. The way I looked at it was she felt that Tinsel thinks Imp dosen't trust her and hence won't trust her in turn. Rather then starting off with the implication of trust.

I think what Tinsel didn't seem to understand is that it took a great deal of bravery on Imps part to reveal whatever she mentioned/mentions in ToE. It does for me too sometimes. We are really counting on people respecting the rules there or we get screwed.

I think if everyone came to the ToeE forum thinking no one trusts them (to respect the rules) then ToE does not work. Most people would not say anything if they don't trust that the people in there will respect the rules.
I think Tinsel is of the mind that of course everyone will respct the rules so we should trust everybody. (At least that is the idea I get from those who seem to be very against the amendment). But some people who seem to be against this amendment seem to operate on the implication that they can't trust Toers. Toers should trusty them but they don't trust Toers.

It also seems to me that people don't understand is that there are individuals who will not respect the rules and are hence are untrustworthy. If they demonstrate that attitude before they they get into ToE, why should we let them in and cause some disaster?

I think what some people don't want to understand is that there is some sensitive stuff in that forum. If there is sensitive stuff they want to know what that sensistive stuff is so they can judge for themseleves how sensistive it really is rather then taking ToEers word for it. With an attitude of wanting to see it for yourself it implies you don't trust us Toers word, although we are the ones who posted the sensitive stuff so we should know. They may want to see it since they think us Toers are overreacting and really trying for veiled invites. Which implies again that Toers are untrustworthy since we are making things up to keep a private club. In my previous post you all know how I feel about the club comment. That is a pretty serious implication to me.

Does anyone see a gulf in trust there? The people who feel untrusted don't seem to trust the Toers in return. Although no ToEers ever said all non-Toers are untrustworthy.

I wonder if that made sense. It did to me anyway.
Anyway I have homework to do.

"Homework"—yay, Wilma! I must have missed something—you found a way to make school work out? Hurray for you!

[Osgililiate] The money issue is still an issue but I am muddling through. [/osgilliate]

Wampuscat wrote:

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?

Impenitent wrote:

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.

truehobbit wrote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

- 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?

Quote:

- 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.

Alatar wrote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Rowanberry wrote:

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.

Fixer wrote:

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.

Wilma wrote:

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.

Axordil wrote:

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.

Wilma:

There is a perception among some non-ToE folks that the active posters in ToE, as a group, have a overly proprietary feeling towards it and B77 in general.

This perception is based on:

1) The initial reaction to discovering the deficiency in screening mechanism was one of panic, followed by discussion of pulling the forum off the board (or at least the parts of it people wanted to protect) when it appeared some people might not agree with the earliest proposed measures to deal with it.

2) Statements that people would have preferred the entire board stay closed and invite only, if opening it led to this.

3) The fact that no one not in ToE knows what gets talked about in there, including the long discussion that eventually let to a charter amendment committee, except second-hand.

4) The fact that it took us at least a month longer than it should have to get our act together and start the committee really put it in some people's minds that ToE folks would rather see any attempt to fix things fail, so that the "ToE crowd" could just remove "their" forum and run itself as it saw fit.

Yes, there is a gulf in trust. No, it is not one-sided. And so long as people try to make it out to be, this discussion cannot end well.

I am sorry if I made it seem one sided.

To me I just try and read between the lines too much I guess.

Cerin wrote:

Wampuscat wrote:

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?

I'm sorry I was unclear. Yes to both. I had been following the discussion from the beginning -- other than the part that was held in ToE since I never bothered to get access -- and was troubled by the occasional hard words and hurt feelings. Eventually I decided to stop reading about the controversy and just drop in once an amendment was finalized by the committee.

When I got the global message, I was glad: at last, an amendment! But frankly I found it confusing. Perhaps I was just too tired at the time, or expecting something more concise. My post was a half-frustrated, half-joking cry for help.

I'm sure I would feel more strongly one way or the other if I frequented the forum, and I apologize to those of you who take the matter very seriously and might have been put off by my remark. I care very much about your safety and sense of community here, and I value the committee's work.

Quote:

Perhaps I was just too tired at the time, or expecting something more concise.

You have no idea how many committee members empathize with you. Wait, sure you do, you can count to eight.

I am going to try to make these my last words on this amendment before the vote starts. (So I guess I better make them good).

First, and most importantly, I urge everyone to remember that there are no enemies here. There are no sides. This is not a battle between "ToEers" and "non-ToEers". We are one community, made up of a bunch of individuals, all with their own unique perspectives. This is about the community trying to deal as best it can with a sensitive issue and accommodate all of those different perspectives as much as possible. No one wishes ill will on anyone. The posts that I have seen that seem to suggest that people believe the contrary are painful for me to see.

Secondly, it is my honest opinion that the only viable choices that we have are to either approve this amendment, or not approve it. Setting aside Cerin and my disagreement over exactly what the Charter allows or doesn't allow in terms of removing "controversial provisions," I do not believe that any committee, be it the presently constitued one that came up with this amendment, or some newly constituted committee, is going to be able to produce an alternative compromise model. The process of reaching the compromise proposal that we came up with was emotionally gruelling. I can't speak for the rest of the committee, but I myself am not willing to put myself through more of the same.

This compromise proposal balances the different interests about as well as I could imagine. It is the nature of a compromise that no one is going to be completely happy with it. But I believe any attempt to fiddle with it further, one way or the other, is going to make it less palatable to more people, rather then more palatable to more people. I urge people to accept it as is rather then risk further fragmenting our community.

Wampuscat wrote:

When I got the global message, I was glad: at last, an amendment! But frankly I found it confusing. Perhaps I was just too tired at the time, or expecting something more concise. My post was a half-frustrated, half-joking cry for help.

I really want to help! I know, though, that it can be hard to point out what in particular one find's confusing about the thing that is confusing.

I had considered putting the amendment in smaller type like this, just because it makes it easier to grasp as a piece, visually.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT plus ADDENDUM -----------------------------------------------

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.

AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 6: PROCEDURE FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS

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.

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.

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."

The poll will offer the following options:
-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

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.


ADDENDUM of Minor Companion Amendments

1. The text in blue below will be added to Article 3, ¶3 Selection of Rangers:

While volunteers are listed as new entrants, all members are responsible for reviewing the roster to determine whether they know any good reason why a particular volunteer would not make a good Ranger and should not immediately enter the pool of full Rangers when their training is complete. If no member expresses a concern or objection volunteers will enter the pool of full Rangers without delay. If a member does have a concern or objection to a particular volunteer, these must be sent by email to the Administrator account, where they will also be forwarded to the Mayor so that the Mayor together with current Rangers can review them for merit. A Ranger will send an email acknowledgment to each person who submits an objection to let them know their objection has been received.


2. This text from Article 3 ¶4: Routine powers of Rangers:

• In the Thinking of England Forum, enable posting rights when age confirmations are received;

will be changed to read:

• In the Thinking of England Forum, initiate announcement threads and oversee consideration periods in accordance with the instructions in Article 6, ¶3.


3. The text in blue will be added to Article 5, ¶9: Offenses That Merit a Penalty

Offenses for which the maximum penalty for a first offense is an immediate ban
- Spamming the board with ads;
- Spamming the board with pornography;
- Hacking the board;
- Refusing to abide by the Decision of the Jury in a Hearing [maximum penalty is
mandated by Article 3];
- Threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against members [maximum
penalty is mandated by Article 3];
- Deliberately introducing a virus to members of the board.
- Falsely accusing a member of harmful RL actions in order to deny them access to the Thinking of England forum.


4. The following provision from Article 2, section A, ¶1: Members Rights and Responsibilities:

(You have the right) to post in our Thiking of England forum (a forum restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older) once you have met the eligibility requirements.

will be changed to read:

You have the right) to post in our Thinking of England forum (a forum restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older) once you have met the eligibility requirements and if you have not been denied access pursuant to Article 6 ¶3.

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

The other possibility would have been to summarize the amendment, as has been done for past ratifications. The reason I decided against that was because I felt that so much of understanding the principles underlying the amendment relies on seeing the actual texts of the disclaimer and announcement thread instructions.

Here is a summary of the amendment:

Members are admonished to refrain from trying to deny access to the forum for reasons unrelated to an awareness of a petitioner's inappropriate behavior either here or elsewhere.

When someone asks for access to the forum, the forum members will be asked to consider whether they have reason to believe it is likely that the petitioner will not follow the rules for posting in the forum. If a member does have reason to believe it is likely that the petitioner will not follow the rules for posting in the forum, they are asked to submit a brief explanation of these reasons to the Rangers either by PM to a particular Ranger or by email to the Admin. account. A summary of these submitted objections will be posted in a thread in the forum (if at least two of them are received), and then the ToE members who believe the petitioner should be denied access based on the stated objections will be allowed to voice this viewpoint by voting in a poll that is added to the thread. If 12 ToE members vote to exclude the petitioner, then they will be denied access to the forum.

Do people feel this is an accurate summary, and do people feel it would be helpful to include this before the actual text of the amendment in the first post?

I would mention that the denial has a lifespan and an applicant can try again, but other than that, it's a good summary of a looooong piece of work.

Alright, then I'm going to modify the first post in an effort to make this less confusing. I'll put the summary in (with the addition you mentioned, Ax) and reduce the size of the actual amendment text.



Voronwe, I don't mean to try and entice you to comment further, so please don't feel you need to reply here.

The thing that keeps me from agreeing with the point of view you have expressed regarding the amendment, is the knowledge that excepting yourself and myself, the committee was composed entirely of ToE posters who, naturally, share a particular point of view regarding then needs of the forum and which, as it happened, you also shared. In other words, I do not believe a non-ToE perspective was proportionally represented in committee, and therefore I do not share your belief that the proposal that was voted out of committee necessarily represents the best chance for ratification of a screening process for the forum.

I believe we instituted the 'controversial portions will be removed' provision for a reason, for the very reason that what came out of committee might not best represent the views of the membership at large, and that the broader purpose of whatever article or amendment is presented need not be defeated because of this possibility.

Cerin, can I recommend that you put the Summary first as many people will simply not make it to the bottom of that post

I just want to reiterate (sp?) the point Prim made.

I am one of the people who will delete all posts in the ToE if the amendment is not passed. This is not a threat of any sort. Rather, it is a decision on my part to respond to a threat I feel rather strongly. I am not willing to have what I wrote in that forum be in the hands of someone whom I know is untrustworthy, and I know of at least one person on this board who I don't trust for what I consider very good reasons.

This isn't a threat to make the amendment pass. I'm not stupid enough to think that my posts are that important. It is simply a very carefully thought out reaction on my part at the prospect of someone joining the ToE, who I would never in a million years want to read any of the posts I have in there.

Please don't make the people who are planning on doing this into some sort of pariahs who are only saying it to get their way. We're not. We are scared and without protection, we feel that we must protect ourselves in some other manner.

Alatar wrote:

Cerin, can I recommend that you put the Summary first as many people will simply not make it to the bottom of that post

Thank you, Alatar. I have put the summary first. I regret that I did not initially include a summary, and I hope not too many people were put off by this omission.

Wilma wrote:

The whole post deleting comment from Tinsel basically said even if this amendment gets passed, she still thinks us ToErs don't trust her or new people who will come into the forum.

That is not how I read her post. What I heard Tinsel saying is that she thinks ToE posters may still feel too vulnerable to leave their posts in the forum, even if the amendment passes. And I believe she indicated that she understands why that might be the case. This is not a slight of any kind on ToE posters, IMO.

Quote:

A comment like that seems to indicate to me that she thinks this whole amendment is about keeping people out of ToE

That is exactly what this amendment is about. Keeping certain people out of ToE. It is pointless to try and pretend that the amendment is not about keeping people out of ToE. That is what the procedure is for -- keeping certain people out (for good reason).

Quote:

she has missed the whole point of this thing since she thinks it's really about trust and distrust.

It is about trust and distrust. It is about not trusting people who have given reason not to be trusted.

Quote:

The way I looked at it was she felt that Tinsel thinks Imp dosen't trust her and hence won't trust her in turn.

The way I saw it, Tinsel said nothing of the kind.

Quote:

I think if everyone came to the ToeE forum thinking no one trusts them (to respect the rules) then ToE does not work.

I honestly don't see where you have arrived at this idea. I don't recall anyone suggesting that they think current ToE posters think new arrivals will not respect the rules.

Quote:

I think Tinsel is of the mind that of course everyone will respct the rules so we should trust everybody.

Wilma, that is exactly the position that it seems to me you have taken with respect to ToE posters. You seem to be of the mind that everyone who ever belongs to ToE will only vote to exclude someone for good reason, so we should just trust everybody and not worry about having a system that can be abused by someone with malicious intent.

Quote:

But some people who seem to be against this amendment seem to operate on the implication that they can't trust Toers. Toers should trusty them but they don't trust Toers.

You seem offended by the idea that ToE posters would ever abuse the right to exclude others, yet you don't seem to understand why non-ToE members are offended by the suggestion that some of them might abuse the right to post there.

It should go both ways. You don't believe everyone should automatically be trusted to have access to ToE, so you want a system to screen out people who have proved themselves untrustworthy. Non ToE members don't believe everyone who will ever post in ToE should automatically be trusted to object for only the right kinds of reasons, so they want a system that protects petitioners from being excluded for the wrong reasons.

Quote:

It also seems to me that people don't understand is that there are individuals who will not respect the rules and are hence are untrustworthy.

I believe people do understand this. Do you, in turn, understand that there might someday be an individual or individuals within ToE who will not respect the rules for denying access, and people are concerned about that potential as well?

Quote:

If they demonstrate that attitude before they they get into ToE, why should we let them in and cause some disaster?

That is the basic question around having an amendment (this particular proposal aside).

Granted, some people don't see this need, or don't think that need can be addressed in a way that is consistent with our stated board principles. I think those are the people who will and should vote against the amendment.

Quote:

I think what some people don't want to understand is that there is some sensitive stuff in that forum. If there is sensitive stuff they want to know what that sensistive stuff is so they can judge for themseleves how sensistive it really is rather then taking ToEers word for it.

I honestly don't think this is an issue. I think for people who don't see a need for a screening process, it isn't based on not understanding the intimate nature of the conversation in the forum.


Wilma, I'm not trying to single you out, and I know you are busy so I don't want you to feel obligated to reply to my comments. I'm just trying to promote understanding over what seems to be a kind of gulf in perception between ToE posters and those who don't post there.

Something just occurred to me.

I would like everyone reading this thread to imagine for a moment that this amendment includes the following provision:

All current permissions to ToE will be cancelled and everyone who wants access to the forum, including the b77 members who currently have access to ToE, must seek access in the Business Room. The b77 membership as a whole will assess the suitability of all petitioners to the Age Restricted Forum, using the standards set forth in the proposed amendment.

Perhaps that will help current ToE posters to understand the perspective of those who will be required to petition them for access.

The idea was actually raised in committee by Voronwe, that this type of retroactive provision was the only way to make the process fair. I spoke against it as unnecessary at the time, but I wonder now if that would have been the best way to really put the issues involved in relief for all to understand.

But the current members have already been "affirmed" because anybody who is currently in ToE was invited to this board.

Not the point, Eruname. Cerin is asking people who don't "get" why non-ToE people might feel less than positively about the process to consider what it would look like if they were outsiders.