board77

Split from the thread about admin powers, since this seemed to be and issue.

I will be adding a poll after a week of discussion. Voting will continue till April 1st.




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.

Estel, I'm going to create a new category of Routine Powers of Admins, then past all your suggestions either into that or into the last category which has to do with temporary suspension of priveleges.

Jn

Alandriel wrote:

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:

Actually, I said that. Thanks for the compliment!

Quote:

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

I think these are perfect.

Quote:

Admins have power to temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a forum
• In the Invite Forum, if confidential information has been revealed, 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.

As to the first, I think it should depend onthe nature of the breach of confidence. I still don't see where the damage is in telling a friend you've put up an invite for them, for example.

As to the second, I don't rightly understand it. I thought the idea was that only the people concerned in the conflict could post in their threads in the first place, ie that posting rights would be given only to those who need them, when they need them. So, how can someone interfere in a hearing?

And the stress here is on "suspended" ,right? That is, temporary. Would that mean in such a case there'd be a hearing on this case then? Or talks about what happened and why?

Alandriel wrote:

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)

I think there should definitely always be the opportunity to revoke the ban (like suggested, I'm just stressing it because the possibility sounds a bit doubtful here).

Quote:

1. Admins should be able to create new forums if they see it fitting

No - why should they?
I doubt that the need for a new forum becomes so great over night that an executive decision is necessary. A new forum could easily be discussed and voted on, IMO.

Quote:

Admins should be able to create temporary admin positions (as I did with Alandriel) if the need is there;

I think if we allow that, we need a very exact definition of the cases in which that is allowed without prior asking on the boards.
In the recent case, I seem to remember that giving Alandriel temporary admin status was asked first in some thread. There was no official vote or long waiting time, but if someone had wanted to object they could have.
I can't imagine a great many cases in which it would really be necessary to do that, so let's not grant such power to the admin without thinking carefully about when and what for it should be used.

Quote:

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.

I'm with Alandriel that multiple IDs should remain restricted to the RP threads. So, what great harm could they do that would need special treatment?

Quote:

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.

Basically not against that, as that forum is particularly sensitive, but shouldn't there be an arbitration process immediately when a poster stirs up trouble there? I'm a bit confused about the procedure here.

On the whole: if a poster has done something that gets them into an arbitration or a hearing, should they continue to keep their posting rights?
If not, additional admin power is not needed.
If yes, it would be ok, I think, to give the admin power to cancel posting rights (beyond the arbitration thread) temporarily, if a poster continues to misbehave during arbitration.

Quote:

Quote:
1. Admins should be able to create new forums if they see it fitting

No - why should they?
I doubt that the need for a new forum becomes so great over night that an executive decision is necessary. A new forum could easily be discussed and voted on, IMO.

So I should have gotten a vote before I opened the music forum?
Or the Outside Forum?

Granted, I did a vote on the Thinking of England forum - I wasn't going to, but one poster requested discussion, so there was one.


And the other admins who created all the other forums - they should have had votes on those as well?

The voting just gets a bit to much on this board. A simple routine procedure like opening a forum because there is a need for it shouldn't be yet another thing that goes up for a vote - I mean, almost every single action an admin does is up for a vote - we can't do our jobs if it takes the board a week or two to decide on a simple little thing.

Let's not forget that admin decisions can be revoked if the majority wants them to be...right? All people have to do is say they disagree with the decision the admin made (not something that happened through a vote but an admin's action) and then the whole business can be put to a discussion and a vote. It's much more effective I think than voting on everything first.

After all we do trust the people we choose for admins. We must trust them if we choose them. And knowing that their decisions CAN be contested is enough of a restriction to their power, I think.

Thanks Ro

I guess that's been my biggest urk with the whole process since I became an admin. I mean, we were voted in, so obviously people trust us, but... we can't actually *do* anything anyway. Nobody has had a complaint with an exec decision yet, so why limit the powers even more? Define them, yes, but limit them beyond how far they already are limited? What's the point in having admins then?

Call us registers if that's the case, cause that's all that we would be - people who change the permissions of newly registered invitees. Let's see how many volunteers you get if *that* is the job description.

The new forums have always seemed obviously needed to me.

Another point to remember in all this is that if there really is a groundswell of opposition to an administrative decision, that opposition can be expressed with impunity (nice change) and might lead to a vote on revoking the decision. So I don't think there's any need to clog up simple routine procedures with votes--we've all got some recourse because of the very nature of this board.

Edit: As Ro said. . . .

TH - regarding your several questions:

As to the first, I think it should depend onthe nature of the breach of confidence. I still don't see where the damage is in telling a friend you've put up an invite for them, for example.

Telling a friend you’ve put up a thread for them is not a breach of confidentiality. Telling them how everyone in the thread voted is. I can clarify that point.

As to the second, I don't rightly understand it. I thought the idea was that only the people concerned in the conflict could post in their threads in the first place, ie that posting rights would be given only to those who need them, when they need them. So, how can someone interfere in a hearing?

Posters, jurors and witnesses are all enabled to post in the Jury Room. Probably no one would run amok once they got there, but they could. Restricted access keeps out deliberate trolls, but TH, you know some of the crazy things that people do when they’re upset. There has to be some way of enforcing our protocols and we don’t want enforcement to be arbitrary so we define exactly what happens in each cse.

And the stress here is on "suspended" ,right? That is, temporary. Would that mean in such a case there'd be a hearing on this case then? Or talks about what happened and why?

Suspended means temporary. If you want to offer a definition of how long that should be, or when a hearing should or should not take place, please do so. That’s what the thread is here for.

I think there should definitely always be the opportunity to revoke the ban (like suggested, I'm just stressing it because the possibility sounds a bit doubtful here).

Yes, in the Jury Room, third post of the sticky thread concerning Hearings on a Ban, it says that the decision must include (a) whether to ban (b) how long to ban (c) factors contributing to the decision.

One of the things we need to decide is the seriousness of various offenses and how severe the corresponding punishments should be.

I think if we allow that, we need a very exact definition of the cases in which that is allowed without prior asking on the boards.

What cases would you suggest as appropriate?

I'm with Alandriel that multiple IDs should remain restricted to the RP threads. So, what great harm could they do that would need special treatment?

Were you in the MOME thread that blew up on TORC, TH? I don’t envision this happening often, but sometime RP characters post in such a way that makes it impossible for everyone else to play. I assume that’s what Estel has in mind.

Jn

REMINDER: I am updating the list as we discuss, so please keep checking back to the middle of page 4 (at 10 posts per page).

Alassante_Estel wrote:

So I should have gotten a vote before I opened the music forum?
Or the Outside Forum?

Yes!

Or if not a formal vote, at least an announcement in a thread and the opportunity for people to give their opinion, if they wish to. Which is really what we had with the past forums, IIRC (not sure about music, though).

We had been discussing the Outside Forum, but when I got back here yesterday, and found it had been started, I was very surprised because I hadn't remembered anybody said 'ok, the result of the discussion is...' or something like that, which I would think the normal procedure.

We had discussed it though, and no one, I think had argued against it, so I thought, ok, the place is in uproar, someone went ahead and considered that discussion done - not a big deal, because to all intents and purposes it was done.

Quote:

Granted, I did a vote on the Thinking of England forum - I wasn't going to, but one poster requested discussion, so there was one.

Thanks to that poster!

Quote:

And the other admins who created all the other forums - they should have had votes on those as well?

Obviously there were some fora to start with. But as far as I remember all the changes since then were discussed, even if not formally voted upon.

Quote:

The voting just gets a bit to much on this board. A simple routine procedure like opening a forum because there is a need for it shouldn't be yet another thing that goes up for a vote - I mean, almost every single action an admin does is up for a vote - we can't do our jobs if it takes the board a week or two to decide on a simple little thing.

There'll be less voting once we have our structure installed.
Opening a new forum is not routine - and even less can it be a sudden necessity.
Why can't you do your jobs? All you have to do is to wait for the vote. Are you in some kind of hurry?

Quote:

The new forums have always seemed obviously needed to me.

How can there be such a desparate need for a music forum that we need an executive decision for it?
Obviously desired, yes!
Which means, it might just as well have been suggested in a thread first.

My problem with this whole thing is a general one:
Once something is decided, there'll be very few people willing to take the trouble to contradict and try to get it revoked.
Do you really think someone would protest against a forum once it exists?
Not that I can imagine a great many fora that would get opposed. It's just that presenting people with facts rather than asking what they would like, IMO is not the right way to handle things.

Executive powers of admin, IMO, should be for emergency only - and a new forum is hardly an emergency.

I'll reply to you in the next post, Jny - after a short break.

TH - I'll wait for your resonse to my other post

but meanwhile, in regard to the above ...

When I typed in Estel's suggestion, I put 'create new forums as necessary.' Now plainly it is a routine power of admins to be the ones who create a new forum. The question is: when is it necessary for them to do that?

I think the way to approach this is to ask just what kind of affirmation we need from the membership that they want a new forum. Does it have to be a vote? Can it be a discussion thread? How much of an apparent consensus does there have to be in order to do it without a vote?

Instead of just saying, 'the admins can't do this, and the admins can't do that,' we need to lay out the guidelines of when they can act on their own and when not.

I not only asked Estel to go ahead and create the outside forum, but I also moved to my hard drive the paragraph in which all decisions about conflict resolution were being updated and then I asked Eru to lock the discussion thread. It would have been impossible to take a vote on the contents of that thread because the discussion went all over the place. Everyone agreed there should be a forum for that purpose - no one objected. Much simpler to create the forum, put the results of the decision process in the forum where people can see exactly how it's going to work, and then vote on the final product!

There can't be a constitutional convention on how to hold a constitutional convention ... there can't be an infinite regress. We have to move forward in a way that seems reasonable, without eliminating the right of members to object. If people don't care enough to object, then as far as I'm concerned they're in agreement.

Jn

edit: TH, I've reiterated your questions about forum creation in the thread entitled New Forums and put in some of the options for doing this.

Just a few points (the easy bits ) about the first post, and then it's bed-time for me.

Jnyusa wrote:

Telling a friend you’ve put up a thread for them is not a breach of confidentiality. Telling them how everyone in the thread voted is. I can clarify that point.

Ok, I understand that. And (guess it's a bit pedantic, but it might be good to spell it out in order to hear whether there's objection): I also wouldn't see telling someone their vote went great, or it was close or something as a betrayal - especially if the person asks, which might happen. Only saying: 'soandso said this and that' is, I think. That's why I said (might have been over in Invites) that I think it depends on exactly what is being said.

Quote:

Posters, jurors and witnesses are all enabled to post in the Jury Room. Probably no one would run amok once they got there, but they could. Restricted access keeps out deliberate trolls, but TH, you know some of the crazy things that people do when they’re upset. There has to be some way of enforcing our protocols and we don’t want enforcement to be arbitrary so we define exactly what happens in each cse.

Ah, ok, I see - thanks. I didn't think of the people actually involved in the process going berserk, I thought it referred to interruptions from outside, somehow.

Quote:

Suspended means temporary. If you want to offer a definition of how long that should be, or when a hearing should or should not take place, please do so. That’s what the thread is here for.

I think in case someone interrupts a hearing, their own hearing should follow right afterwards.
But as to everything else, I'm afraid I've had no ideas so far.

Quote:

Yes, in the Jury Room, third post of the sticky thread concerning Hearings on a Ban, it says that the decision must include (a) whether to ban (b) how long to ban (c) factors contributing to the decision.

Soooorry - haven't got round to reading that, yet.

Quote:

Quote:

I think if we allow that, we need a very exact definition of the cases in which that is allowed without prior asking on the boards.

What cases would you suggest as appropriate?

Cases where there's some immediate danger to the boards, unless there is one or more additional admin.
For example if the board is flooded with spam or porn and there aren't enough people around to deal with it.
Or if there's only one admin around for some reason, who knows they won't have much time that day, but sees a lot of new people have registered (that is, without knowing what our future registration process will be, this can't be defined) or some quarrel has reached a climax.
It's hard to think of something, but in general I'm thinking of something urgent that might disrupt the boards.

A case where I'd say the boards should be asked is if the admin-shortage is foreseeable. If, for example, one admin reports PC trouble, another announces they'll soon be on holiday for a week, the remaining one or two (LOL, not sure just now how many there are going to be) could post a thread saying they propose to give admin power to whoever they choose as of the date in question.

Not a vote, you see, just a timely announcement (with the option to comment).

I think what bothers me is when I get here and things have changed I didn't expect to change. I try to keep pretty much up to date with the discussions, and still I get surprised all the time. Maybe people who don't join in here are just happily surprised with each new feature.
But there was a time when we even discussed and voted on what smilies we wanted, and I quite liked that.

Quote:

Quote:

I'm with Alandriel that multiple IDs should remain restricted to the RP threads. So, what great harm could they do that would need special treatment?

Were you in the MOME thread that blew up on TORC, TH? I don’t envision this happening often, but sometime RP characters post in such a way that makes it impossible for everyone else to play. I assume that’s what Estel has in mind.

No, never checked out MOME - what happened?

But, yes, I know from RP that a player can ruin a game. I just don't understand why this can't be handled like any other disruption of the board.
I think I might just be getting something wrong here, but I'm not sure what. (It's probably too late at night )
Special admin powers to deal with that make it seem that it's potentially more disruptive than, say, someone attacking posters in a normal discussion thread. I think it's the other way round. A normal poster attacking others could be a danger for the boards, because they could take it to all forums, while an RP character gone nuts could only disrupt RP. The poster behind the character would then face some conflict-resolution process.
Or is the idea to remove an ID without further repercussions and without removing any other IDs the same poster might use? Though that doesn't seem to make an awful lot of sense either.

TH - on the last point above, it might be wise to temporarily suspend the posting rights of anyone who is disrupting the board, not just in RP

Thing is, the kind of disruption that takes place in RP is a predictable kind. Disruptions in general might take many forms, so we'll have to define 'disruption'.

I was thinking that for an ordinary dispute, even though arbitration might be needed, there might not be a reason to suspend posting rights while the arbitration was going on. In most cases I would hope not.

But if we're going to empower admins to suspend posting rights, then it should be as clear as we can make it what circumstances would justify that.

Jn

I did try to do a vote on starting this forum and only 10 people participated in that vote.

I think that it's perfectly fine for admin to go ahead and start a new forum. Why waste time with a vote that is most certainly going to go for making the new forum? I agree that the admin should mention it and try to get some feedback, but no need for a formal vote. I don't feel like people care about that sort of thing *that* much.

I think we should reserve votes for the bigger issues because if we have too many votes, people will get burnt out and be even more apathetic.

This board is an experiment in democracy, but just because we are a democracy that doesn't mean that every member needs the opportunity to vote on every single issue. Take the US government for instance, one of the first democracies. US citizens elect representatives to go do all the policy making and law enforcement for them. They vote for these people because they trust we'll do the right thing. We're doing the same here. We vote for someone to be admin because we trust them and believe they'll do things that are in the best interest of the board. But what if they do something you feel is wrong? This is where being a democracy is handy: you can point out the mistake which can then be recalled and reassed.

I think we need to stop thinking that this board is a democracy in that we all get to decide upon every single issue, but that we all have a voice in how this board is run.

The admin are going to have to have more powers. It's the best way to get things done and keep some sort of order.

Eru, how does one 'reass' a decision?:P We spank the admin ?



Sorry, that made me chuckle.

I have one problem which others might or might not agree with...it's not a big deal because it's just terminology but it does bother me. Could we possibly not refer to bannings/suspensions etc as 'punishments'? It's such a negative word, and stuff like that isn't so much punishment as prevention. We won't ban someone to make them suffer, we ban them so they don't mess up our board.

Just semantics but I think semantics can influence people's reactions a lot more than it seems.

I posted this elsewhere, but I can see the need to post it in here as well.

If we are going to get bogged down in voting for every non-life threatening issue around here, then we may as well quit now. I can just see 200 people voting for a freakin smiley.

We need to elect some Representatives, and have some other type of "branch" to serve as a check and balance system. That way, the Reps can vote quickly and easily and keep things moving.

For crying out loud, GIVE THE ADMINS SOME POWER !!!!!
If an Admin can't open a new forum or add a smiley without a vote, then we are cutting our nose off to spite our face. The admins are reps of us, and they should be able to make small decisions like adding new forums etc without going through a week long process. This board is way too inefficient as it is. Streamline it and lets move on. This is not life or death.

We also need to realize that just because this is a democracy, doesn't mean that we will like every decision. Here are a few apt definitions from Princeton and the links....


the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


Please look at the last one especially.
I am not going to like every decision made here, and neither is anyone else. You can have your say in electing admins, or reps. I don't think we need to have a say in every single bit of minutiae. We can have referendums for the important issues, like should we be an open or closed board, but for the smaller decisions, please let us move on.

to Holby and wonders where she'll steal the time from to read those undoubtedly very valuable links

But I will.. eventually
_______________
Resident witch

Jny wrote:

TH - on the last point above, it might be wise to temporarily suspend the posting rights of anyone who is disrupting the board, not just in RP

Yes, but not before the person has been asked to change their behaviour and refused. For an admin to have the power to just suspend someone's posting rights - even if it's just for the day or so - when the admin thinks they are causing a disruption - that's opening the door to admin power abuse, IMO.

Eru wrote:

I did try to do a vote on starting this forum and only 10 people participated in that vote.

I think that it's perfectly fine for admin to go ahead and start a new forum. Why waste time with a vote that is most certainly going to go for making the new forum? I agree that the admin should mention it and try to get some feedback, but no need for a formal vote. I don't feel like people care about that sort of thing *that* much.

But the point is that everybody would have had the chance to participate if they had cared - and that's what makes all the difference.

I'm not saying there needs to be a formal vote - but there needs to be an announcement before the fact is created, so that people who care to know what's going on can keep informed and object in time if they wish to.

Why waste time? - That's similar to what Estel said. - I'm sorry, but I don't understand the hurry!

I had meant to post this in the other thread, but I don't remember which one it is - will re-post it there, if I find it:

Governance through objection IMO means giving people the opportunity to object before facts are created.
This requires, if not a formal voting procedure, at least a timely announcement of what's intended to be done.
Creating facts first and then waiting for people to object is counter-productive, I think.
If, say, a forum is created and someone really doesn't like it - this puts them into an awkward situation about objecting - the effect of this procedure is basically putting people off from raising objections in the first place.
That's why creating facts is a popular means of bureaucracy to forestall objection - you go ahead and do something, so people will be confronted with the results, if you know something you plan is going to raise protest if you ask beforehand.

Plus, if an objection is raised, it puts the admin into an even more awkward situation of maybe having to go back on what they've done.

Much easier IMO to ask first if people want something and then go ahead and do it if no one objects - that's what governance by objection is all about, I think.

Holby wrote:

For crying out loud, GIVE THE ADMINS SOME POWER !!!!!

Please also remember, all those who are so much in favour of admin power, that we are going to have a whole new set of admin each three or four months!
This means 12 different admins a year!
Say, each of them as an idea for a new forum, for a change in the smilies etc - the board might look different each week, if changing the design of the boards was a normal part of admin power.
And where do we stop? Smilies and forums are for the admin to decide on a whim? Then what about layout? What if an admin decides the boards should be pink?
(Please note that I'm not saying anyone ever decided anything on a whim so far - but that's what the empowerment would imply, the way it's suggested here.)

I think everything concerning the layout and design of the forum should not belong to admin powers to decide on, for two reasons:

- admins change frequently. If we don't want surprises from an admin playing around with the board, we should not give them the liberty to change things without at least announcing the intention and waiting for feedback.

- it's just part of my basic principle for a democratic board that admin powers are limited to regular processes and emergency situations.
Regular processes, for example, are approving new members, locking and deleting invite threads.
Emergencies are getting rid of trolls and spammers.
There's no way in which I can see the creation of a new forum as either a regular process or an emergency need.

Yes, but not before the person has been asked to change their behaviour and refused.

That's right. Estel's submission says 'when there are multiple complaints,' and this would have to be true in all cases, imo.

Jn

Ok - we agree on that then.

I just don't think it's really the same as what Estel said (though I'm sure she meant it).
If you just say: "multiple complaints", that could also mean an admin just collects the complaints and when they've had enough they ban the user from posting.
I was stressing that before any suspension it is necessary to talk to the user and try to get them to change their behaviour, because I didn't see that specifically mentioned in the propositions so far. It might go without saying - but then, in contexts of law, nothing goes without saying, does it?

Alassante_Estel wrote:

Call us registers if that's the case, cause that's all that we would be - people who change the permissions of newly registered invitees. Let's see how many volunteers you get if *that* is the job description.

I forgot that I had meant to comment on this: I seriously hope no one wants to be an admin because of the powers involved.
IMO, *that* is exactly the job description (with the addition of the even less pleasant task of responding to an emergency).
The reason to volunteer for this is because it benefits the community. If we don't get enough volunteers under these conditions, I think the community, that is our experiment of a self-governed community, has failed.