board77

Cerin, I apologize for not discussing this further in the jury room when you brought it up then. I did not think that getting into a big debate about it at the time was the way to go. I really wanted to get the process completed so that we could present something to the membership.

I do not believe that the Charter actually supports the idea of going back in committee and reworking something before the vote occurs. But I do agree that the whole "controversial provision" thing is vague and ambiguous. I was never in favor of including any kind of provision of that sort. My experience has always been that when something is put up for ratification, it is either ratified, or not. Like Iraq's constitution, for instance.

In any event, there has certainly been no great groundswell against the poll option in particular, so at this time it is a moot point. If 20 people speak up saying that they want the poll removed, and only a couple speak up in favor of keeping the poll, I agree that we should consider what action to take. Otherwise, I think we should proceed with the vote on the amendment as the committee devised it.

Basically what I'm saying is, I would prefer that people speak up if they object to something so that we can try to work something out, rather than that they keep silent during the discussion and register their objection by voting not to approve the amendment. And I believe that is exactly the sentiment that the language in the Charter text reflects (rather than the notion of simply ratifying something or not).

Quote:

If 20 people speak up saying that they want the poll removed, and only a couple speak up in favor of keeping the poll, I agree that we should consider what action to take.

That threshold for deeming something controversial seems rather high to me considering the relatively small number of members who generally participate in these types of discussions.

Quote:

considering the relatively small number of members who generally participate in these types of discussions.

Especially the small number who haven't already discussed this stuff in committee.

May I politely suggest committe members hold off on more posts on this thread, to give a bit of clear ground to everyone else? Answering questions not included of course.

And has that global email gone out yet alerting people that the discussion period has started?

I certainly haven't gotten one, Ax.

Sorry. I said I would look into the global email last night, but other obligations interfered. I did have to chance to research a few things though. The charter does say that a global email shall go out for both the discussion of voting phases of an amendment ratification - two emails. I know that we did not do that for the last few votes, and after checking my personal mailbox I have only received notifications for voting, not discussion. The concern was that sending out too many emails would turn people off from the process. Since “overexposureâ€

For what it's worth, Cerin, if I'd been on the committee I would have voted "B" with you.

I really hate the poll. I really hate the fact the poll does not provide an option for members to voice their NON-objection to a new poster's access to ToE. I hate the fact that even if this ammendment is ratified, I'm willing to bet that a lot of ToE members will start deleting their posts anyway, in the face of an opening board.

The part I like the best about this (now) tiring and worrisome business is:

Quote:

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.

So if the system does end up being abused, at least there's a potential remedy. If I vote yes on this ammendment, it will be because of the above clause.


(My burnt-out attitude does not preclude me from heartily and sincerely thanking each and evey member of the Committee for the time and effort they have dedicated to this ammendment. I know it hasn't been a pleasant process, but democracy ain't easy. You all are super. )

Tinwe--

Perhaps if we made it clear in the emails that the Charter specifies two, reasonable folks won't get cranky about it. We haven't sent out notifications for amendments before, because we haven't had any...just binding votes.

Ok, the email has been sent. I hope your are all happy with yourselves <sobs>.

Sorry, it's not often I get to be sarcastic.

My eyes are glazing over. Would some responsible person please tell me how I should vote? I can be bribed.

Tinsel_the_Elf wrote:

... I hate the fact that even if this amendment is ratified, I'm willing to bet that a lot of ToE members will start deleting their posts anyway, in the face of an opening board.

Actually, I am daily tempted to delete my posts and not because I anticipate new arrivals in ToE, 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. For me at least, that realisation has killed stone dead my willingness, which took some courage on my part, to discuss very personal and difficult issues. While I have great faith in many individuals, it will take time to rebuild my trust in the goodwill of the larger community.

The statement above demonstrates in a most devastating manner for me that the motives of ToE posters are largely mis-characterised.

You guys are all pretty amazing. I am astonished at the amount of work you have done.

I think the proposal is good and will vote for it.

Impenitent wrote:

Tinsel_the_Elf wrote:

... I hate the fact that even if this amendment is ratified, I'm willing to bet that a lot of ToE members will start deleting their posts anyway, in the face of an opening board.

Actually, I am daily tempted to delete my posts and not because I anticipate new arrivals in ToE, 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. For me at least, that realisation has killed stone dead my willingness, which took some courage on my part, to discuss very personal and difficult issues. While I have great faith in many individuals, it will take time to rebuild my trust in the goodwill of the larger community.

The statement above demonstrates in a most devastating manner for me that the motives of ToE posters are largely mis-characterised.

My apologies if my post caused you pain, Impenitent. I mean that. But I also meant what I wrote. For the record, I don't consider myself to have a myopic or negative view of ToE--the truth is that I have little view at all. I have no objective evidence on which to base an opinion -- I've never read anything posted within ToE, and though I've read opinions from those who love it and those who could care less about it, my opinion is (at least in my own mind) pretty neutral. I'm voting in this issue because (for better or worse) ToE is a part of B77, B77 has been opened to the public to join, and as a member of B77 and potential future member of B77, I probably should vote on this issue.

As to my surmise that a lot of posters will end up deleting their posts anyway, I hate to say this, but your post only sadly affirms my opinion. ToE obviously means a lot emotionally to many of the participants (several of whom have openly and repeatedly stated their intention to delete if this measure is not passed). I just don't know with something that emotionally charged, dealing with such sensitive and personal subject matter, if some posters will continue to feel comfortable with fresh and unfamiliar eyes reading their intimate histories. My opinion and assessment may very well be wrong , but it is my opinion. My statement wasn't meant to be cruel, and it probably could have been more sensitively worded, but I also feel like *I've* just been mischaracterized.

tinwe, thanks for pointing us to this thread in the announcement, and for a very well phrased e-mail about this!

Cerin, I haven't thanked you yet for your well-reasoned answer to my questions in the previous member-discussion thread - sorry about that! - I did read it, I just never got round to making an answer!

Tinsel, you make some very good points, I don't absolutely hate the poll as it stands, but I agree to a large extent with both your posts.
What I like, apart from the offer to re-visit the issue, is the warning it gives at the beginning, stating that despite the current comfort level of ToE-posters, sooner or later there will be new members in ToE, because it's in the nature of the board.

Cerin, in the other thread you explained that objections are only to be made when someone in their time here has already proven to be untrustworthy - if it should work out that way, it would be acceptable.

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?
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).

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!

Some more points about the current poll:

- 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.

- 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! I pointed out the problems with that last time I posted in the member-input thread. I could imagine it would be very difficult to find out whether such an accusation is true or false anyway. Therefore I'd say that we are dealing here with long-term members of this board, who are not doing anything immediately destructive (like hacking or spamming). A false accusation should result in a formal hearing on a ban, IMO.

Quote:

IMO, if the membership votes the amendment down, this means they believe that no amendment is needed!

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.

truehobbit wrote:

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.

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.

For its purpose, I see no significant problems with the proposed amendment.

Cerin wrote:

Please forgive me if I seem abrupt, I'm writing in haste.

As I understand it (and speaking as a b77 member), the purpose of bringing an amendment to the Charter is to address some perceived deficiency in the Charter. The Charter was created to serve the community; the Charter in the case of Article 6 was seen to be deficient in its provisions for the Age Restricted Forum. We are trying to remedy that with this amendment.

It seems to me that to fail to pass some kind of remedy is to say that the amendment procedure itself is a failure.

If there is insufficient support for the amendment to pass it, I don't see how that would mean that the amendment procedure is a failure. It would merely mean that the users of b77 do not agree with the proposed amendment or see the need for it to be added. 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.

Alatar wrote:

Quote:

IMO, if the membership votes the amendment down, this means they believe that no amendment is needed!

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.

As I have been the sole voice crying out that there is a problem before, and the majority disagreed and I was told to be silent (not here), I can understand your reasoning. I do, however, believe that if the majority decides that there is not a problem, then there is not a problem at that time and when it becomes a problem, then the myopic may then work on it. If it comes down where you don't get 2/3 but you get over half, then you can say with some validity that it is publicly recognized there is a problem but disagreement as to what to do about it.

Rowanberry wrote:

truehobbit wrote:

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.

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.

If all Rangers are Administrators, they have access to ALL forums regardless of membership in a given group. In this manner, a person denied access to ToE through normal procedures but who gains Ranger status can then browse and post within ToE as they wish.

Fixer wrote:

If all Rangers are Administrators, they have access to ALL forums regardless of membership in a given group. In this manner, a person denied access to ToE through normal procedures but who gains Ranger status can then browse and post within ToE as they wish.

That's a very good point Fixer, and one that I hadn't considered. I'll have to think this over. On the one hand someone should not be denied the opportunity to be a Ranger simply because they have been refused access to ToE. 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. The problem is, what happens if there is a difference in the result of the objections.

TH--
The change in Ranger vetting was made to bring it in line with the proposed ToE changes, since it represents the only existing model for objecting to someone getting access. It was felt if we were aligning one with the other, we should align them both.

Fixer--

Good question, and one which might bring up the dilemma Alatar mentions.

The text in question in regards to volunteers for Ranger duty:


[quote]If the concern or objection involves a serious violation of by-laws for which a formal action of some kind is required, then the volunteer will not enter the pool of full Rangers until the issue is resolved. The Mayor and current Rangers together will inform the volunteer immediately, attempt to verify the merit of the accusation insofar as possible, and if it has merit they will initiate whatever procedure is called for in the by-laws. If exonerated, the volunteer may enter the pool of full Rangers when training is complete. If restrictions are placed on the volunteer as a result of the procedure, they will not enter the pool of full Rangers until the by-laws allow them to do so.

If the concern or objection involves matters of courtesy, or unfamiliarity with certain forums, or anything else affecting only the comfort level of the members, the Mayor or an appropriate Ranger will explain the problem to the volunteer as tactfully as possible and suggest ways that their posting might become more “visible and contributoryâ€

In response to Tinsel's post I posted some of my feelings on this in ToE. I personally feel extremely mischaracterized. This whole thing I think has been misrepresented. God forbid a sexual predator sneaks their way into ToE because of some lofty principle and a highly non-functional amendment. That is what we are trying to prevent.
Anyway here is what I posted in ToE probably about a week ago.

I prefer the poll model since it prevents only one or 2 people from determining the validity of objections. With the objection model, the basic effect is 2 rangers or admin deciding who gets into ToE. Rather then those in ToE decidinng, although they are the ones who will be directly effected by this decision. A ranger may not be particularly effected the decision.

Personally think I think some practical scenarios should be given so that way people will understand what we are truly trying to do. Themary gave an excellent example in turf.

I find it very disapoointing that people think we would eagerly and easily reject people for extremely minor or imagined incidents. I thought people knew us better then that. I guess not. I can't believe people only look at this veiled invites rather then protecting ourselves from sexual harrasment or worse. The whole point of this amendment is preventing the perpetration of harmful acts against anyone in ToE. Rather then letting it happen and then punishing. By then the damage is already done!!!! An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I guess not many people have heard that expression.

The discussion has been very very disheartening. The comments of private club are very insulting to me. It says basicaly all us ToEers are close minded snobs. I thought people understood us better then that. I thought people understood why B77 was closed in the first place. It wasn't because we hated evreybody, it was because there were no frelling rules!!!! If we truly were snobs the board never would have opened in the first place. As far as I know we voted to open the board, didn't we? We could have easily voted the other way.

I think there is more judging of ToE members by non-ToEers, and non-ToEers are bringing in their preconceived notions of a closed B77 to this discusion. I wonder what they all thought of B77 while we were closed? For goodness sakes It was extremely rare that people didn't get invited back then, sheesh. I think in part this whole ToE discussion is more about peoples feelings about B77 as a closed board, and resentment they were not invited back then. I think everyone who wasn't here when we were closed imagined they weren't invited for some reason. Sheesh. Basically if we remebered your name, had your contact info or you simply asked, you were in. Sorry for not remembering the names of every single Torcer and taking down their email address. I personally think the poll questions in turf played on that sentiment.

Also, I find it creepy that people eagerly want to join this forum. I wonder if they will post or are they just nosy. I am sorry to say that but I am not a fan of nosy people. This is particularly why I am not a fan of lurking either.
Sorry for my rant. If I ever get brave enough I will actually post this in other parts of the board.

Sorry, but I really get this resentment of not being invited vibe from quite a few people. I really do. 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? I just feel there is no trust by quite a few people who came here after opening. I really thought people knew us better then that.

Quote:

I just feel there is no trust by quite a few people who came here after opening. I really thought people knew us better then that.

Wilma (and Tinsel, and all):

There are people on the other side of the argument saying pretty much exactly the same thing.

What this would normally tell me is that a poor job is being done of communicating. However, I see a lot of posts on the same topic going around and around, and they actually do seem to say what they need to say.

I thus conclude that people are doing a poor job of UNDERSTANDING.

You don't understand why your friends don't trust you "on this." Your friends don't understand why you don't trust them "on this." You say, if you knew what we were protecting, you would agree with us. They say, we can't know what you're protecting because we can't SEE it, and all we hear is how you might have to delete posts if you don't get your way.

It's easy to trust people when one is no danger of losing something. But it's pretty obvious to me that all sides here think something could be lost.

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. It isn't even a question of whether we want a forum where people can feel comfortable talking about intimate, sexual issues. Some people are comfortable talking about intimate things ANYWHERE. It's a question of whether we want a forum where those who need a more protected, comfortable enviornment to open up about intimate, sexual issues can do it, and if so, whether these steps are the best way to do it.