board77

[Clarification]Cerin, that's not exactly what I proposed. I never suggested that the decision about who should be able to access TOE should be made by anyone other then those who already were TOE participants. What I suggested was that the same rules should apply to denying continued access to ToE to someone who already has access as would to denying access to someone who is first becoming eligible. But it would still only be current ToE participants who would have any say in that decision. I still believe that would have been the fairest approach, but I was overruled in the committee and as far as I am concerned that I idea is off the table.[/clarification]

I got that point Ax. It seemed to me Cerin was saying that it might have been a good idea to actually do that.

Only in a pedagogic sense, I think.

Voronwe, I didn't mean to suggest that was the exact thing you had proposed. What I meant to convey was that the retroactive approval of current ToE members was an issue you had raised.

Sorry to have been unclear.

*runs to look up 'pedagogic'*

I had only intended it as an illustration originally, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that that would truly have been the way to deal with this so as to put everyone on an equal footing and balance all concerns.


Lest anyone be unduly alarmed, let me hasten to add that I understand that that idea is not currently 'on the table'.

Get a room!

Well if that was the case I wouldn't worry since I feel that people would understand that I don't pose a danger to anyone. *shrugs* I just wait my 10 days.

When I first joined B77 I did not seek out to immediately have acces to ToE although I could have simply asked. Having access there does not validate my fullness of membership of B77. The whole point of requesting access was whether I wanted to discuss material of that nature or not. That is another thing I can't get my head my head around. If people don't want to discuss topics of that nature why request access? But I guess thats just my personal pet peeve with nosyness.

I was here for good while before I ever even considered getting access to ToE. I just never thought of it. But then, when I first came to B77 I did not even think about or look for my invite thread. *shrugs* It must have been good since I was invited, so why should I worry?

What I fear, since I feel this whole thing has been so mischaracterized is that people will vote against this amendment for fear of being barred form ToE themselves since they imagine someone will make up something against them. Since they may think it's a popularity contest rather then a danger issue. I have been so busy I have not even been able to read the amendment in full. Does it even say something like 'pose a danger'? I think terminology like that would help people inside and outside of ToE see that the amendment is not to be used lightly. Since one person has said they will not ask permission for the forum, I really can't even imagine this amendment being used anytime in the next 6 to 8 months. The tten days is just a formality. As in all those who are here now have nothing to worry about.

DP. Sorry my connection has been extremely slowed down.

Cerin thanks for trying to clarify what people are thinking. Because the impressions I am getting from people are not good. I really hope that is what they are thinking.

Also, I will say that if I ever felt someone was trying to abuse the amendment I would say something. For example if the amendment gets passed and the first 3 people who ask for access all get the amendment slapped on them. I would say something.

Also, umm if this amendment gets passed. It would also become aprt of the rules of ToE. So if it was abused it would be equal to breaking any of the other rules of ToE, and warrant the same penalties. IMHO. So if someone requested access only to try and abuse the amendment (this is getting confusing) I would think that would be carefully considered since not respecting the amendment is the same as not respecting any other rule in in ToE which is what for me what would qualify as a valid reason to bar a person from ToE.

That seemed like circular reasoning there but I hope I made myself clear.

Wilma wrote:

I have been so busy I have not even been able to read the amendment in full. Does it even say something like 'pose a danger'?

The committee voted on the various standard options, and chose the following:

" ... 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."

(The 'danger to the community' standard was chosen for the proposal that didn't make it out of committee.)

Quote:

I think terminology like that would help people inside and outside of ToE see that the amendment is not to be used lightly.

We've included a specific statement to that affect (to be added to the ToE forum sticky) and also specified it in the announcement thread text.

Thank you, Wilma, for continuing to persevere in trying to make the concerns of ToE posters understood, and for offering the proposal that succeeded most in balancing the various opposing concerns.

EDIT: I missed Cerin's post above.
Since I am going to bed soon I am going to sneak in another post.

Cerin wrote:

Wilma wrote:

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.

Well if someone is in ToE with malicious intent isn't this what the whole thing is about? The whole point is to keep out people with malicious intent. I think I answered that in my previous post.

Cerin wrote:

Wilma wrote:

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.

Well you know, until one or 2 posters came here I never even had the thought. Heck during the charter discussion many people thought 100 posts and 3 months was too much. Most people never thought that anyone would abuse the rules until the arrival of a certain individuals. In this case it is one bad apple spoiling the bunch I guess. I feel I have sufficently explained that I feel most people will not abuse the rules. Like I said if 30 people wanted in tomorrow who are here now I am sure I would have no issue. I have said that several times. So on my part people should not worry that I think they will break the rules. I know they won't. That is why I am not worried that this will be used frequently. Even if you hated my guts but respected the rules of ToE I would have no issue. That should be enough I think for someone to realize I don't think they will eagerly break the rules and make up objections against them. But although I have said this quite a few times I still get the impression that some people still think they will be barred. Why I don' know.

I was quite shocked that Vison thought someone would make even one comment about her if she ever requested access to ToE. There seemed to be alot of people actually worried that they would get barred from ToE. People who have no reason to worry whatsoever. It's not a popularity contest. But from what I read in turf that is how many people see this. I thought we were all past that sort of umm... immaturity. (That is the best word I can think of right now)

Cerin wrote:

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.

I stand by what I wrote, though with the addition of this sentence:

Quote:

While I have great faith in many individuals, it will take time to rebuild my trust in the goodwill of the larger community.

...which you chose to omit.

You, of course, may interpret it in whatever way you wish. That is your perogative.

(Tinsel, you did not cause me pain. I have felt disheartened by this issue for weeks.)

EDIT: I just read the off-the-cuff idea Cerin posted on the previous page, regarding the cancellation of all ToE permissions so that all who wish access must petition.

I know it's not a current proposal (and I missed it in the committee discussions - must have come up while I was MIA) but WHAT A BLOODY GOOD IDEA!

No, I'm not suggesting we change track now (I can hear collective groans) because I know that would open a huge can of worms, but still...I wish I had seen it during committee discussions as I would have urged that it be taken up.

Cerin, thank you for clarifying my position better than I could do myself.

Wilma, you've misunderstood me. One quote in particular:

Wilma wrote:

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 ammendment).

is so far from the truth that I'm equally exasperated and amused. It's because I am so DISTRUSTFUL of everybody, of human nature, myself included, that I approach the amendment with reservations (I have never stated that I am against it, so please don't say that I am! The potential misuses of this amendment concern me, but the only thing I've pretty much unequivocally stated my opposition to is the poll element. Chances are good that I will vote for this amendment. Please be careful when you’re summarizing my (or anyone else’s) point of view. This issue has upset many people, and it's bad enough trying to mend fences where there has been genuine and mutually understood disagreement of opinion, but even worse to have to mend fences that have been unnecessarily damaged by misinformation and distorted fact). Now, back to trust. I don’t distrust ToE members anymore than I do anybody else here. I just fear that exclusionary measures should be approached, very, very cautiously, because of the potential for misuse—even misuse through good intentions. Some of the bannings over the years at TORC (I’m not even referring to Snowdog) have taught me that people, good people, can be sharply divided on what constitutes things like “dangerâ€

Ah yes!!! See that is in part why I made that post I wanted people to clarify what they were thinking. Since asking to clarify really wasn't getting me anwhere.

In ToE the conversation concerning this is not continuing so not to worry. People are basically to tired or too hurt or both. Although how would you feel if the amendment didn't go through and most of the discussion on this amendment was deleted? Wouldn't you be just as frustrated?

Also, I will say here as Estel pointed out people would delete in an effort to protect themselves. If the lack of an amendment wouldn't protect them, the people have to find a way of protecting themseleves and deletion is the way to go.

I will say here I hate deleting posts. When I felt compelled to do it before the board opened (yes I did it, I admit it), I am pretty sure I cried most of the time. The idea of deleting is not an appealing one. But I felt I had to protect myself. Not from the general public either i must say. Just to a few certain individuals. Like I said one bad apple can spoil the bunch.

It's that last part of your post that kind of gets me, it's the stuff outside this amendment. If the amendment discussions weren't there I am sure there are people eager to see whats in there rather then discuss. That is what is creeping me out. It's the seeing part that somewhat bothers me since I actually post, I am vulnerable to all those who want to see. I want the forum safe for those who contribute, rather then make it easy for those who just want to see.

Do you see what I mean?

That is why people panicked at first I think. To be very honest I do not think the active posting memebership in ToE will actually increase. Those who have acess will increase but actual posting volume will not. As in, the lurk rate will just increase. I at least want some control over who lurks there since it is already difficult enough knowing there are lot more people reading my posts there then are letting on. At least that is what I think. I do try to say something in some threads just to let people know I am reading the thread. (This is where spam is a good thing ) I think if the lurk rate increases a whole ton I just won't participate as much. But no one knows the future.

Uh, I guess I should say here I had a uh, a not so pleasant experience with a lurker once and it freaked out some of the group I was with (including me). That was just with normal stuff. Hmmm.... I don't know. I just, I just know I don't get a good vibe from extensive lurking. Knowing potential dangerous person is lurking (in the shadows) bothers me much more.

I wonder how many perverted lurkers there really are and will be in ToE.

I asked for permissions when we had the first ToE ratification discussion in business, as I thought I should know what I was voting on. I took one look at the forum, decided it wasn't for me (though I thought it seemed like a nice place for those who do want to talk explicitly about sex) and never went back (until recently when this amendment broke out into Business, when I went back to read the related discussion threads).

I imagine this is the way it is for most people who don't post there, and will be for those who need to be able to check out the forum before deciding it isn't a place they'll want to hang out.

The idea that people lurk there to read sexual details about other people's lives ... I just wonder how true that really is. I mean, who would even want to do that? Don't people of a voyeuristic ilk have plenty of other, more explicit places to indulge their sexual proclivities on the net?

The impression I've gotten is that the reason most people who don't post there don't post there is because it is more information than they want. So why would they deliberately go there to read what they don't want to know?

I just hate to think of people in ToE unnecessarily suffering under the mistaken impression that creepy people are slathering over their posts. It also seems unfortunate that people would be so ready to assume that their fellow posters are really creeps in b77 clothing. If that is the auxiliary consequence of revealing personal information -- that the resultant natural feelings of vulnerability cause you to suspect your fellow b77 members of being perverts -- then to me, the benefits of discussing intimate details would not be worth that price.

Wilma--

I agree that nonparticipatory lurking is worth talking about in ToE, and always have thought it a little odd. But people of good will, whom I trust, assure me this is not necessarily the case.

In any case, I think that's more of a subject for debate internally in ToE, not because I want to keep it from everyone, but because it really IS an internal forum matter that doesn't affect anyone not there.

Tinsel_the_Elf wrote:

I assume from this statement that discussion of this issue has continued in the ToE, out of sight of those members who do not have access. In this thread you specifically named me, and what I supposedly think, but strongly misunderstood and mischaracterized those thoughts. I wonder if you may have done similarly in the posts in the closed ToE, yet I can't go in there and read what you wrote or try to set the record straight. Can't you understand why I am frustrated?

It hasn't. The last post in the committee thread (where all of this started) was on Sept. 14 by Ax. There was a tiny bit of discussion on this topic in the "So where do I stand thread" and the last post there was on Sept 21. The most recent thread was a one Ax started on Sept. 29 asking people to say which model they preferred. There were only seven posts in that thread, Wilma made a long one (and said pretty much the same thing she's been saying here) and Cerin responded...the last post was on Oct. 3. Aside from Wilma's post and Cerin's response there wasn't any discussion in that thread and your name didn't come up. The posts going on in ToE recently have been going on in threads related to subjects that should be in ToE.

Does that allieviate your concerns?

Tinsel:

And with one exception that I can think of, no one NOT on ToE who is at B77 has EVER been the subject of discussion in ToE.

We really don't gossip about y'all. And when you join us, you can not gossip too.