board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Admin Powers and Bannings

Post Reply   Page 4 of 5  [ 92 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:07 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
ROFL, Maria! :D

I agree, I'd probably not want to go through a quiz or anything like it. I don't even like it when I get asked more than a mail address for registering anywhere.
We'd probably lose a lot of potentially good people - those who are a bit introvert and those who think twice before jumping into stuff.

So, Ax, yes - LOL - many people here would like to keep the place invitation only, but we've heard a lot of good arguments against it, and somehow it got decided we'd need to open up.

Ethel, I had a look at the Austen board - LOL, I love Austen, but I don't think I have that level of obsession they demand. I didn't read all of the mile-long FAQ, but while the front page was nice and welcoming, the FAQ was a bit off-putting. Guess I'll check out the actual discussions some other time. :)
What I really meant to say: I think you could help us out a lot by explaining a bit more from your experience!
You said you liked the "take it outside" idea, but thought the "jury and facilitation" processes wouldn't work. Why is that?

I also have a problem trying to imagine actual cases of conflict and conflict resolution. Maybe that's because I don't know a great lot about internet communities.

Some of the things you said, Ethel, are things we are either already trying to have (a handful of people in management functions, rotating regularly), and I think the rule to be respectful is both reasonable and clear - or would you say it needs better definition? Actually, I think the rules on TORC are similarly put: you don't get a list of what's allowed and what isn't, it just says to behave in an orderly way, which is what we ask here, too. So, why do you see a problem with our just saying "be respectful"?
(I'm not criticising your opinions, on the contrary, I think with your experience you could help us understand where we are actually going. :) )

_________________

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
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 2:34 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Oh good - lots of discussion going on now! (I've been out shopping all day.) :D

Well, if the talk has moved into the area of what actual rules we need, that's a good sign. It means that people are now thinking about how governance would work in practice instead of thinking about it in theory.

It is hard to consider these interlocking things separately; but in the "Modding: Decision Thread" it seemed that the number of topics listed for discussion was just too broad. It was hard to focus. So I separated things that are not really divisible in practice.

It's important to remember what our main objectives have been ... what kind of community we've been trying to envision. The idea of juries and member-control over bannings arose from our conviction that members of the community should have some ultimate say in what happens to other members of the community. Also, the burden of constant problem-solving should not be on the admins because our admins are voluntary and receive no 'psychic income' in the form of 'power over others.'

But 'members of the community,' are those who are a part of us. Those among us who have experience modding other boards have advised us that the troll problem must be dealt with swiftly, but I don't think anyone here is suggesting that people who spam us with porn overnight and then disappear are entitled to any kind of hearing. So what we really need to do now is decide just when and where the various rules apply and where the power of the admins begins and ends. Certainly there are some cases where the acting admins need power to make decisions on their own, and what democracy means is that we members will be the ones who decide how far that power will extend.

So I think that we should start discussing that now.

Let's try to do it in this thread, for economy's sake.

Regarding random psychotic behavior by admins ... the unpredictable can't be predicted. :( It is impossible to plan for things that are random. The most we can do is put our trust in people we deem trustworthy. More than that no one can do, even in RL. Some things are simply beyond prediction and control. We have to do our planning around the things that we can control, and not live in fear of psychotic breaks. :neutral:

It was also suggested somewhere that we should play some troll games :) .... Run through some mock disputes and see exactly how the system would work. Like companies who hire people to try to break into their computer system to see how secure it really is, when we've got a short list of rules that define the power of the admins we can see how ingenious we areat bending them to frustrate the admins. :scratch

Opening the board ... well it's not been put to a vote but the question does seem to creep into many threads. Thing is, there are lots of people who are very anxious to open the boards, just as there are some who dread it. I continue to think that this is the last decision that we will make, and we should forge ahead with everything required for opening the board without concerning ourselves right now when if ever that will happen. Much of what we're doing now will be needed even if we remain invite-only but grow much larger than we are now.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 11:48 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Amazing stuff!! :mrgreen: :bow: and :love: :love: to Jny (any day now you'll pass the bar ;) )

Not much to add really … you've done all of the thinking for me ;)
Just maybe a couple of things:

- re access and posting rights to the to be created 'outside' forum (or whatever it's going to be named though I must say I love just this name): easiest would be to give global 'read only' access to all members and then change individually the posting settings for those that need it, when they need it.

Also I like Estels suggestion of two categories within the forum – the bike-rack :mrgreen: and the 'jury room'. Full access to every member for the bike-rack / Jury-room access restricted as said above (a quick settings change by the admin – no big deal but it would keep 'de-railings' to a minimum) – and a third (the vault, read access only) for keeping the 'history' (txt only see below)
Jny wrote:
If a member has committed a bannable offense that entitles them to a Hearing, any current administrator may propose the ban and convene a jury for a Hearing.
In such case the admin should restrict access of the offender to only read/posting rights in the 'outside' forum until the dispute is resolved. After that the poster is either permanently banned or re-instated.

- possible other terminology for jury: (members of the) conclave (I kind of like that one lol)

- re: voting on who the ‘jury’ would be was suggested several times. There may be a more efficient way to do this.
Although voting in the 'jury' (or conclave ;) ) will take time (it's 8 days now? – sorry I'm behind and furiously catching up. I thought voting in takes 10 days) I feel this delay is actually beneficial, giving people time to think and cool off ;)
Quote:
If a recommendation to ban is overturned by a vote of the membership, the poster will be on x-month probation. If new bannable offenses are committed during that period, a new jury with three different members will be convened according to the same terms as above, but this time the decision of the jury will be final.
3 months probation is good.
However, if a poster keeps repeating bannable offenses – are you going to 'forever' hold council? I think there should be a max allowance of 2 offences – 3rd time (within the probation period) and the hammer comes down. And only 2 probations periods per year otherwise we'd end up having perpetual problem cases. If after 2 probation periods the poster yet makes another bannable offence – he/she should be banned without means of recourse. Perhaps, if the offender truly repents, (contact to other members via email or IM) then after e.g. 6 months (long enough to really consider) under certain circumstances and with member discussion he/she might be allowed back (again, initially on 3 month probation)

- keeping 'old' jury threads for ref purposes, txt only without posters names is a great idea (transparency all the way :mrgreen) and I think should be kept in an archive forum (within the 'outside' forum) read-only (and locked) for ref purposes.
Farawen wrote:
I have no idea what will happen once we open up or become a larger community.
The point is, for me, even if the experiment has failed a hundred times before - I just want to try it yet once more.
I don't like the idea of giving up on an ideal just because it usually fails. It's like giving up pre-emptively, and I don't like that idea.
I'm also the eternal optimist – could not have said it better myself :mrgreen:


- About opening B77 – like Ethel said: don't worry too much about the when. Eventually we'll be ready to take that step though some of us undoubtedly will fondly remember 'the good ol' times' ;)
Jny wrote:
So what we really need to do now is decide just when and where the various rules apply and where the power of the admins begins and ends. Certainly there are some cases where the acting admins need power to make decisions on their own, and what democracy means is that we members will be the ones who decide how far that power will extend.
'Powa' of the admins, aye? ;) It is very much a trust issue as has been stated. We trust the integrity of the people we vote in as admins (and hope they won't throw a mid-life crisis during the duration of their term ;) )

What powers do the admins have?

- they can lock/move threads upon request of members or when it's necessary during 'clean-up' sessions. If someone has a problem with that, they need to contact the admin (e.g. PM, email). If it ends up in a tug-a-war (which I highly doubt) then they can take it to a thread 'outside'

- admins should not edit or delete any posts unless it's clear troll behaviour

- Admins have the right to instantly ban trolls, delete their posts and threads. In such a case they should also send an email to the offender. Should the email get an apologetic reply, it could be posted for the member to then discuss and vote if that person is allowed back in.
In the highly unlikely event that a member (let's say someone who's been aboard for a minimum of 3 month) starts trolling, I think the admin should have the right to restrict posting rights to such a poster to read/post only in the 'outside' forum. The offending member then has two choices – either go public (or semi-public) with the dispute (arbitration process) or leave. If there is no reply in that thread for say 8 days, the thread will be locked and the user banned.

- Admins should have the right to limit posting rights to 'outside' when it is found the poster has registered an invalid email address

- Double IDs: even when we go public, I would like to see the rule of multiple IDs we so far have here kept. Meaning, they're only allowed for RP purposes and as such need to be 'claimed'. They will be given access only to the RP forum. If it is found (when we're public) that a user has registered with multiple IDs for non-RP purposes, the Admin should have the right to instantly ban those alternative ID's notifying the perpetrator via email.

- and then there are the 'lets make new smileys and meddle with the styles' stuff, but we don't really need to get into that. Btw – did you upload some style setting here? Doh! I said I'm not getting into that.

Now it's definitely time for another cuppa tea.

Thanks again to Jny and all you wonderful people for your input. This place is truly a wonder to behold :mrgreen:

____________
Resident witch
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 4:18 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Alandriel - excellent suggestions one and all! Thank you!

I wondered how the limited access issues would actually work in practice, but I see that there are already efficient mechanisms for doing that. Makes the admin job ever so much easier.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Teherin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 25 Feb , 2005 8:39 pm
Titch
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 2:43 pm
 
Sorry .. a LOT of info to take in in the small amount of time and much :bow: to all of you who have taken the time and effort to discuss and think these things through.

I certainly agree with the idea of a jury, of self-moderation and of not giving up on ideals, but in my experience of running a gaming clan, which, granted was not the same as running this sort of board, however one of the main areas that I felt was important was understanding that there are boundaries.
As Alandriel said, there should be a definite understanding by all members, and I am thinking especially of when we open things up, that continuous and repetitive offenses will not be tolerated, and that a specific number is allowed before a complete removal from the board. We all know how much disruption a single person could cause and there needs to be a mechanism for dealing with this circumstance in the very unlikely (we hope) event that it might arise.
Thanks for all of you who have taken the time to spell things out - it is all clear and very brilliantly argued / presented :)

_________________

All I have to do
Is forget I ever loved him ...


Where are you Sirel ...


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 4:20 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Although the OUTSIDE forum looks just totally spliff :D this discussion is still very important for the future and possible suggestions on how to improve things apart from also filing out the last details.

Please read the important Announcement at the top of this forum.
According to that I'm stickying this one.

Thanks for your understanding and continued efforts

_______________
Resident witch
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 5:55 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
RED NOTICE


This is the former "Resolution of Disputes Among Members" thread. Decisions regarding disputes were edited into the first post of this thread as they were made and you can read them there. The section of our board reserved for dispute resolution is now called "Outside" and you can see it from the index. How to use each of the three Outside Forums is explained in a sticky at the top of each forum. Discussion about the content of those stickies is now taking place HERE

This thread has moved on to a discussion of the powers of administrators and the nature of bannable offenses. The title has been changed accordingly. The new discussion begins on approximately at the top of this page.

This edit has been done to help clean-up the Business Forum.
Thank you.


Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 8:44 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
We've started to discuss bannings procedures - where the admins have absolute power and where they have to hold a hearing.

There are some stickies in the Jury Room that address procedure and discussion of those points is taking place HERE.

I would like to keep this post updated with your suggestions. Thus - I've divided the discussion into three (now four) parts and typed in the suggestions that have already been made.

Routine power of the Admins
• activate memberships
• create new forums as necessary
• move the appropriate threads into newly created forums as necessary
• create temporary admin positions as needed, provided that the posters so empowered have served as admins in the past and no formal complaint has been issued against them for their actions as an admin. Time limit for the temporary position?
• enable posting rights in the Jury Room and the Archive, delete illegitimate posts from Arbitrations and Hearings, and delete threads when they are finished.
• enable posting rights in the Thinking of England Forum when age confirmations are received.

Admins have power to ban immediately
• Spamming the board with ads
• Spamming the board with porn
• Hacking the board
• Threats of RL violence against members

Poster has the Right to a Hearing
• Refusing to participate in a required Arbitration
• Refusing to abide by the Decision of Jury in an Arbitration
• Interfering with any thread in an Arbitration or a Hearing on a Ban where poster has not been asked to participate.
• Accusations of stalking or harrassment in RL that has resulted from acquaintance made on this board
• Solicitation of a minor on the board for any activity in RL that would be illegal, or using the board to arrange RL meetings with minors for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity
• Deliberately exposing any member of the board to a computer virus

Admins have power to temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a forum
• In the Invite Forum, if information about the contents of an invitation thread has been revealed to a non-member, access can be suspended
• In the Jury Room, if poster has interfered with an Arbitration or Hearing on a Ban, board-wide posting rights can be suspended.
• In the There and Back Again forum, if multiple complaints have been made against the way an RP identity has been used, posting rights can be suspended until an arbitration can be held regarding the continuation of that identity.
• In the Thinking of England Forum, if multiple complaints have been made about the way a poster has been posting there, posting rights can be suspended until an arbitration can be held


Please discuss additions to/subtractions from this list and I will update as discussion proceeds.

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon 07 Mar , 2005 6:54 pm, edited 10 times in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 8:54 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
I'd think Posting AND Reading rights should be suspended in the last case.

I also think...though I'm not sure whether this is the place to say it, but I think there should be a publically visible thread where the admin will log all instant bans.

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 9:03 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
If there is a lot of agreement with that, Rodio, I'll add a fourth category: Admins have power to suspend registration temporarily.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 9:10 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
(you just correctly used my name in vocative :Q )

But...that's not what I said at all...is it? I'm confused...all I meant is that

Admins have power to temporarily suspend posting rights
• In the Invite Forum, if confidential information has been revealed

in this case it would make sense to also suspend their reading rights so they don't go off spilling more of the confidential stuff out of spite.

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 9:20 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
:doh1:

Yes, of course you're right, Rodia.

It does come down to a temporary suspension ... oh wait, I see. I just comes down to removing their right to see that forum. I get it now. Yes, let me change that directly, because it doesn't make sense the way I've done it.

And I am so sorry for that spelling error. Does this mean I was Polish in another lifetime?? :)

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 9:28 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
LOL confusion all around I see. :P Hey, you make more sense in that whole post than I did in all my life, actually.

Now I'm thinking. Would that be Rodio or Rodiu? Hmmm...both I guess, enough to mark you Honourary Polish. :P

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 9:49 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
And it *is* an honor! :D

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Teherin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 9:54 pm
Titch
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 2:43 pm
 
sounds good .. I am sure that in the (hopefully rare) event that these powers are required, that changes will need to be made .. but that is what Democracy is about :)

How about RL stalking .. ie if a poster stalks another in RL without bringing it to the baords ? Or is that to be kept out of the boards ... I am speaking from personal experience on this one (Not TORC or B77 I might add). Basically 2 people on a forum, one started stalking the other in RL (calling / emaling / IMing etc) and kept on as normal on the board - resulted in stalked person leaving forum as no one would ban the other ...... might be too 'far out' for this board, but just a thought :)

_________________

All I have to do
Is forget I ever loved him ...


Where are you Sirel ...


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 10:08 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Teherin, I'm going to add it because I think it falls in the same category as threatening RL violence on the boards - it carries what's here out into RL in a way that we can't control and should be able to ban if necessary.

I'm also going to add one or two problems talked about which happened on TORC.

Jn

edit: I put it under things that would require a hearing, because we don't want spurious accusations used to get rid of people

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 07 Mar , 2005 12:59 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
This post was here previous to the splitting of the thread. If you wish to address the issue of admins creating forums, please address it in the thread for that topic.

Thanks :)


Other than the banning/restricting posting/reading access, here are a few things I think should fall into admin powers without having to get a vote on it first....
  • 1. Admins should be able to create new forums if they see it fitting

    2. Admins should be able to move the appropriate threads into newly created forums if they see it fitting.

    3. Admins should be able to create temporary admin positions (as I did with Alandriel) if the need is there;
    HOWEVER, these temporary admin positions must be filled with people who were voted in as admins in the past, and have never had a formal complaint issued against them for admin actions.

    4. Admins should be able to temporarily remove posting ability of RP ID'S if there are multiple complaints against how that ID has been used.
    This is only a temporary thing - time to be decided later - and, if such an extreme measure is requested by the posters, would have to go to mediation/arbitration - not the BikeRacks.

    5. Admins should be able to temporarily remove posting ability of any ID in the "Thinking of England" forum if there are multiple complaints about how that poster has been posting there.
    This would only be a temporary thing - time to be decided later - and, if such an extreme measure is requested by the posters, would have to go to mediation/arbitration - not the BikeRacks.


That's all I can think of for now :)


Top
Profile Quote
Rowanberry
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 07 Mar , 2005 1:44 pm
Can never be buggered at all
Offline
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 3:50 pm
 
Sorry if this post is partly off-topic; please move it if that's the case.

I only just had time to read through all of this thread, and noticed that there was a suggestion of some kind of an "entrance exam" after this board becomes public.

As I'm a member of all too many messageboards :blackeye , I've encountered that procedure on one of the boards, a Tolkien MB with about 2000 members. Anyone can register, but before they are granted posting rights, they must answer an e-mail from the admin with three short questions: how familiar they are with Tolkien's works, why they want to join the site, and a third one I don't recall. In practice, anyone who gives a relevant answer to those questions is approved. It definitely acts as some kind of a troll filter. Another thing with that board is that, the admin hasn't wanted to appoint any mods; if necessary, he takes action himself, and there is a surprisingly functional peer control. I guess it works because the board isn't bigger than that.

But, about the admins (and possibly mods in the future): I don't know if you've discussed this before but, an admin who doesn't take care of his/her duties or abuses his/her power should be able to be removed from their position even in the middle of their term. Not that I should expect it to happen any time soon, but we have to be prepared for anything...

I'd like to present as an example the Realms of the Council of Elrond website. Each Realm, a members-only forum, has one admin and two leaders (=mods); the admin position is permanent, the leaders can't serve for more than two three-month terms. The admin and leaders can be removed for

- neglecting their duties
- not getting things done in a timely fashion
- trying to take the Realm into a place not consistent with its purpose
- flaunting authority
- bragging about their 'leader' status
- giving special treatment to their friends
- favoritism
- discouraging members from joining other realms

I think these reasons (except the last one of course) would be valid for this site as well.

Just my two cents.

_________________

People, you and me, are not trusted. The right doesn't like us because we don't do what we're told by our betters, and the left doesn't like us because it secretly thinks we would be on the right given half a chance and a lottery win. And both think we should not make our own decisions, because we might make the wrong ones. ~ Terry Pratchett


Top
Profile Quote
Leoba
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 07 Mar , 2005 1:48 pm
Troubadour of Ithilien
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3539
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:04 am
Location: Bree, Buckinghamshire
 
Alassante_Estel wrote:
3. Admins should be able to create temporary admin positions (as I did with Alandriel) if the need is there;
HOWEVER, these temporary admin positions must be filled with people who were voted in as admins in the past, and have never had a formal complaint issued against them for admin actions.
I have no argument with this. But I wonder whether, in the circumstances where an ex admin comes on board again temporarily, we ought to set a finite period that they will do so?

_________________

Also found on Facebook - hunt me down via the MetaTORC group.

[ img ]

I just adore the concept of washing Dirty Horseboys!


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 07 Mar , 2005 6:53 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Rowanberry,

Thanks for raising that issue. It is one of the things on the agenda for the constitutional convention. :)

With your permission, I've copied the list for us to discuss when we get to that issue.

Leoba - I'm going to edit your suggestion into the summary in my earlier post as well, so that posters reading there will see it.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 5  [ 92 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Jump to: