jewelsong wrote: Those things should be dealt with in a set of by-laws, which could be drawn up and modified as needed. The Charter itself should not be dealing with specifics (IMHO)
RELStuart wrote:
Also there is: No longer an age limit to join or post here. No longer a limit to how many usernames one may have. No longer denied or restricted access to new members to the TOE forum. No longer express (or any) prohibition on posting porn. I could go on but I would encourage people to compare the two charters. Frankly I like the specifics listed in Article 2 of the current Charter. I don't like the vague references to a "culture of respect" that Rangers have the ability to punish people for violating. I prefer that we have listed rights and responsibilities so people know what is expected of them.
A charter is more or less the overview of how things run. By-laws are for day-to-day shit and can be modified much more easily.
Let's get the new one in place and then by-laws can be drafted and voted upon.
I would say this new charter is pretty clear about the day to day operations of the Rangers. And I would re-iterate my dislike of the "culture of respect" theme in the Charter. There was a post tonight from a Ranger no less that IMHO violated a proper culture of respect. But that is my subjective opinion. And I would like to avoid Rangers having to deal with people based on their subjective opinion. Also the way I read the new Charter language if your posting privileges are suspended for less than two weeks there is no appeal method.
If there is a board wide vote on some future date on whether someone should be punished for a violation of the culture of respect I feel like that would be more likely to lend itself to popularity contests rather than the members or Rangers dealing with whether a rule was broken. For example, (though a somewhat silly one perhaps), Yovi posted the he ran naked through the forum in a thread. Everyone giggled, made remarks and moved on. But lets say a Ranger happened on it and felt like it was untoward and disrespectful in real life and therefore a violation of the culture of respect we believe in on this board. The Ranger could remove the post. The Ranger could suspend Yovi posting rights for a week. Lets say the Ranger was really ridiculous and suspended him for two weeks. Then the board could vote on if Yovi's actions really constituted a violation of the culture of respect.
It is all subjective. No "rule" was broken because we have none. We just have a culture of respect. And can you tell me that Yovi's popularity as a fun guy we all now and love would really not have any impact on the votes of the members if we voted on a two week suspension? What if we replaced Yovi in this example with Halplm? Would the vote still be the same?
Everyone deserves a fair shake. Which means that rules should apply to everyone the same. And I don't think we will be as effective doing that with a culture of respect instead of rules.
(Edited to reflect that a member can have a board wide vote on if they should be punished for a perceived infraction for less than a two week suspension.)