board77

The silent read is fine with me, Nin, if people have nothing to add.

Let me look at the agenda items for this topic again and see how much appears to be missing. I'll try to ask specific questions about things that might be left out.

Jn

Ack, sorry, Jny. This thread was quiet after the weekend, so I guess I made a subconscious note that there's nothing going on here.
LOL, the problem for me is that when there are a lot of active threads I simply forget which ones I've checked and which I've forgot, especially if one isn't at the top of the forum list. Not a very good excuse, but that's what's happening.

Comments on the new schedule:

Quote:

Admins have power to Edit Posts
• if they affect the display of the page, e.g. stretched pages

This is similar to deleting double posts, I think - I'd prefer if that were "at the request of posters" or "after notifying the poster".

Quote:

• if they contain objectionable content, defined as

for example: abuse of another poster, defamatory remarks about another poster, pornographic content that would be forbidden under those child-protection laws we discussed some time ago (which I admit I still don't fully understand), advertisement of products

Quote:

Admins have power to ban immediately
• Spamming the board with ads
• Refusing to abide by the Decision of Jury in an Arbitration
• Spamming the board with porn
• Hacking the board
• Threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against members
In all other cases the posters has the Right to a Hearing

Fine with all except the bit in blue, but only because I have difficulty imagining how that could work. What kind of decision could that be, and could it be so instantly clear that someone is violating it?

Quote:

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 [this provision becomes void if the Invite Forum is removed]
• In the Jury Room, if poster has interfered with an Arbitration or Hearing on a Ban, board-wide posting rights can be suspended until the Arbitration or Hearing is concluded
• In the There and Back Again forum, if more than one complaint has 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 more than one complaint has been made about the way a poster has been posting there, posting rights can be suspended until an arbitration can be held to determine the right of continued access to that forum.
• If a sig pic is arguably pornographic, violent or distasteful and the originator requests an arbitration, posting rights outside the Jury Room can be suspended until a decision is reached.

Again the bit in blue: I seem to remember asking this before, what is the crime if the originator requests an arbitration?
I think if someone receives a complaint about a pic and doesn't take it down when asked to do so, asking for arbitration means they are willing to argue their case according to the rules of the board, so why should their posting rights be restriced?
In such a case, I think it's enough if the sig is removed by the admins.

Quote:

Admins have power to convene a hearing on a ban
• Whenever a bannable offense is called to their attention.
Offenses that actually warrant a ban, and all other 'penalties' for breaking by-laws will be covered under member rights.

Admins have power to convene a hearing to reverse a ban
• if the duration of the ban was not specified
• at least (a)six months (b) one year has elapsed since the ban went into effect [it should be as long as the longest temp ban we enact]
• the banned poster has requested a new hearing in writing

Just not sure if I understand this one: so, a poster could request a hearing on reversal at any time?
(Hmmmh, I think they should be able to, though of course that might mean someone might send a lot of requests - only, I suppose that would not exactly increase their chance of having the ban removed. )

Quote:

Procedures for using special and emergency powers
Procedure that must be followed before suspending posting rights or executing an immediate ban

To be filled in, right?

Quote:

Extraordinary Powers of Admins
Recognizing that unforeseen events may occur which require a quick response, Board77 administrators are expected to use their best judgment in emergencies, and to take whatever action they believe necessary to protect the board. An emergency would be an event which threatened real and immediate harm, but which is not otherwise addressed by this charter. In such an event, the administrator(s) in question would be expected to explain the circumstances and consult with the board membership as soon as possible. Such measures are temporary by their nature and subject to review by some body as yet to be determined,

Very nice!

I don't believe an admin should have to ask permission if someone's post is stretching the page because that's a very big annoyance to all posters. I can agree with the admin notifying the person though.

.....and that's all I have time for.

TH - I'll have to get back to your comments later and incorporate them into the third post. I too have run out of time today.

Jn

TH - your comments:

"after notifying the poster"

I’ll add it now

for example: abuse of another poster, defamatory remarks about another poster, pornographic content that would be forbidden under those child-protection laws we discussed some time ago (which I admit I still don't fully understand), advertisement of products

I’ll add it in blue so that people will see it is new

What kind of decision could that be, and could it be so instantly clear that someone is violating it

Suppose one poster insults another on the board, it goes to arbitration, and the decision is that the insulting post should be edited. The poster refuses. The admin does the edit. The poster puts the same comment somewhere else, or refers to it obliquely in post after post - poof! grounds for banning.

There has to be a way to make arbitrations enforceable or else they aren't worth beans.

I think if someone receives a complaint about a pic and doesn't take it down when asked to do so, asking for arbitration means they are willing to argue their case according to the rules of the board, so why should their posting rights be restriced? In such a case, I think it's enough if the sig is removed by the admins.

You’re right. I’m pretty sure I wrote this provision, and I did it because I wasn't thinking that sig pics can be removed just like posts can. But it is the same problem as above - it has to be enforceable. How about if I change the wording as follows:

• If a sig pic is arguably pornographic, violent or distasteful it can be removed. If the poster persists in reposting it, posting rights outside the Jury Room can be suspended until an arbitration decision is reached.

Just not sure if I understand this one: so, a poster could request a hearing on reversal at any time?

No. The intention is that all three of those provisions must be met. This would only apply if the duration of the ban was not specified ... don’t ask me when that would happen! Bans for things that we can foresee will have an expiration date. But there will also be things we can’t foresee, and it might take time to figure out how long the punishment should be.

It also says that the time elapsed has to be the longest time imposed on a temp ban, and that doesn’t quite make sense, does it. Because by then the ban would have expired anyway.

I’ll take out the bracketed statement in the second bullet-point, and add the words “if the following three conditions are met.”

Procedures for using special and emergency powers:
Procedure that must be followed before suspending posting rights or executing an immediate ban

Friends, we still need to talk about these procedures ... do want it to be that one admin can do this without consultation and without follow-up?


Jn

The quick answer, I think, is yes. Maybe a review, later, by other admins would be appropriate. But early one morning on TORC I saw the mess that could be made by a single troll in a matter of minutes, posting threads with abhorrent titles all through Movies. If I came across that as an admin and was the only one around, for the peace of the membership I would want to be free to deal with it at once, deleting the threads and, at the very least, restricting the poster to the Bike Racks.

Prim - Fair enough. Follow up?

Jn

For openness, I think when something so drastic has happened the admin should be asked to post an explanation publicly as soon as possible.

Follow-up for the miscreant could just continue on along the procedures for when a member has gotten himself into the same pickle. I don't think we need to write anything special for this situation.

Hm ... I think I didn't state my question fully enough.

Admins can suspend posting rights in a couple forums - like England and RP and the Jury Room - if posters do ... something bad ... not defined yet (belongs in member rights). But for how long? Forever? There needs to be a decision process, like an arbitration or something, that follows the action and decides what the permanent resolution will be.

We might want to specify the procedure *after* the convention decides what kinds of juries there are going to be, but we need to add a sentence here that says what body this is going to be referred to.

On immediate bans - do we try to contact the person by email? What happens after a porn spammer is banned? We made all those bans temporary - so we need to decide how and when the time limit is set.

Jn

Just one thing: suspending poster rights - for how long?

I would say for the duration of arbitration - and then depending on the decision taken in arbitration.

Just my two Rappen.

Jn, if we work from the assumption that admins' judgment should be trusted as a default position, I think immediate bans should be followed at once up by an email of explanation--you're banned, this is what it means, here's why it happened, here's how long it will last--for existing members. It should be done immediately. We've all seen, and some of us know, how much worse it is to be banned without any explanation or communication.

However, some people register and then immediately commit a bannable offense, such as blatant trolling, porn, or commercial spam. I think there's a limit to how far we want to engage with people like that. As in, why even send an email, to which they could then reply? If there is something we need to know, they can find that address for themselves and tell us. I would like it understood that admins can elect not to communicate further with people in such cases. The last thing we need to do is tell them when they can come back.

Prim - Ok, so we leave the duration undefined, and then it automatically falls unders the rules of "Hearings to Reverse a Ban" and those rules require the poster to contact us.

Covers:
• Spamming the board with ads
• Refusing to abide by the Decision of Jury in an Arbitration
• Spamming the board with porn
• Hacking the board
• Threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against members

Hmmm, I was going to say that defying arbitration does not belong, but on second thought it does. If a person defied the arbitration, then it plays into their hands to say they have a right to a hearing without asking for one. They should have to ask for one in such a case. Unless someone disagrees with this.

Nin - OK, suspend posting rights until an arbitration is held. I think that we should define the penalties that a jury can impose, as we are doing for admin removals. This is one of those things where having a 'rule' to refer to helps prevent abuse of power.

Nin, I've forgotten what things are in that provision. Wait a sec while I go look at them again.

Jn

OK, I'm back. The provisions are in red. My comments are in black.

I'd like to approach these as 'maximum sentences' - that way an arbitration could restrict less if they wished, but they couldn't restrict more.

• In the Invite Forum, if information about the contents of an invitation thread has been revealed to a non-member, access can be suspended [this provision becomes void if the Invite Forum is removed]

Well, I hate this one, but chances are we will resume invites before the board is open, so I think this should be a restriction until the board is open. That's the maximum restriction that could be placed, logically.

• In the Jury Room, if poster has interfered with an Arbitration or Hearing on a Ban, board-wide posting rights can be suspended until the Arbitration or Hearing is concluded

We could just leave this as it is. Posting rights restored at the end of the arbitration. This isn't going to happen often because it would have to be someone who had a way of getting into the forum ... like an admin, or a juror or witness on that case or on another case. If it was done with extreme malice, there would be other grounds for demanding the person appear for an arbitration of their own or even a ban. So probably the penalty already named in the provision is the most we should impose.

• In the There and Back Again forum, if more than one complaint has 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.

I'd like to hear from the RPers on this. Is there any circumstance in which you would want someone barred from the forum permanently? What's a fair maximum, do you think, for someone who makes the thread unlivable?

• In the Thinking of England Forum, if more than one complaint has been made about the way a poster has been posting there, posting rights can be suspended until an arbitration can be held to determine the right of continued access to that forum.

Same story here. I never go to these two forums. What do the people who visit them think? How much protection do you want?

• If a sig pic is arguably pornographic, violent or distasteful it can be removed. If the poster persists in reposting it, posting rights outside the Jury Room can be suspended until an arbitration decision is reached.

I think a one-month suspension of board-wide posting rights is the most that should be imposed if someone gets 'cute' with porno pics.

Jn

Prim, I missed something important in your earlier post.

I keep thinking that someone who spams the board with ads or whatnot would be a fly-by, but it can also happen that a regular member ... gets drunk, whatever, and in such a case restricting posting rights to the Bike Racks until an arbitration can be held makes more sense in terms of the community feeling we're trying to build.

But I'm wondering what the cut-off should be. 20 Posts? Only brand-new members with 0 posts before that offense would get a ban of unspecified duration?

How shall we define the different between a fly-by and a wayward member?

Jn

Jn, from what I've seen there is a definite class of trolls who do the deed the day they register. The commercial spammers probably do it to dozens of sites a day. They can't be bothered to register and come back. And the other loons don't have the attention span.

I actually think 20 posts is too much, unless of course they're all trolling. Someone who's made any attempt at all to make social posts has earned at least a bit more consideration than the same-day saboteurs.

A time limit is less open to dispute and probably a better sifter. Seven days? Or is there some other short, convenient span of time we've already used?

There and back again forum - the voice of an RPer as per Jny's request

Is there any circumstance in which you would want someone barred from the forum permanently? What's a fair maximum, do you think, for someone who makes the thread unlivable?

Permanently is a BIG word and trust me, very VERY scary for anyone that labels themselves an RPer. It's the death sentence for a character - nothing less. (Sounds melodramatic? Well, RPers ARE )

As to circumstances that would warrant a temp ban: well, of course there could be some scenarios but they rarely happen for RPers usually suss it out via email (or in the OCC) and someone that repeatedly steps on other people's toes is usually dealth with swiftly. But to you non-RPers let me explain:

Each RP is different and each RP master/mistress makes up his/her own rules which, if it's a serious RP, are made public in the OCC. For a sample of such a 'serious' RP, may I perhaps point you to Seekers OCC (aside thread from the main story). But I must immediately point out, that not ALL RPs are run like that. It's the persons choice to do so or not who opens the story to lay ground-rules/guidelines as they see fit.
Of course if groundrules are laid, then the writers agree to comply. I did it with Seekers for I've seen many times how RPs are disrupted with people that dont' show respect to other writers/thread owner or don't co-operate. I did it also because I had one very sad case of this in an RP on the other site (long past).

Now let's assume, wether or not there are existing ground-rules in an OCC, an RP ID has become very disruptive and the members of that RP have not been able to talk sense to the writer (extremely rare!) either via email/PM or through the first instance in bikeracks (during which time the ID still has posting rights in the RP forum)

If enough evidence is provided without any resolution in bikeracks and the problem continues, it should then go to the Jury room; the ID needs to be temp restricted for access there only - and can hopefully be re-instated again once the Jury is finished. Maximum penalty for an RP ID should be 6 month.

In extremely EXTREMELY rare cases of stubbord persistance, perhaps there needs to be a limit of max 3 restrictions and on the 4th the ID would be permanently banned (this is me now thinking back to that 'case' I had long ago but I must say, it would be extremely rare. After all 3x 6months.. should it come to that, then there is probably something seriously 'wrong' with the poster and not just the RP ID)

Those are my recommendations


How shall we define the different between a fly-by and a wayward member
Prim has excellent points and works well for fly-by members.

What about wayward established members?
Thing is - I think this will need to be approached from a members rights/obligations angle rather than from an Admin Power angle. On the other hand, if an established member should suddenly 'loose it' in a major way and spam the hell out of several threads and fora, then that needs to be stopped too. In such a (rare - I hope) case I think it were best that an Admin post several warnings in the concerned thread as well as 1PM to the member in question, asking to quit this behavior immediately. Allow for 1h to pass and if not met with co-operation, temp restrict that persons access to bike-racks (to avoid further 'dammage'). If sorted in bikeracks, let 24h pass before resuming posting rights (poster can get a grip again ) If not resolved process moves to Jury room.

2 pennies from over here on a rainy Sat morning. Need more tea

And one last thing, picking up from another thread that just closed after the end of voting:

Jny wrote:

Do votes need to be left up longer - like 48 hours? If you think so, please let me know in one of the other open threads.

24h is tough - though I know how much we want/need to speed up the process. 48h for me is enough during the week, but barely so should you start a poll an a Friday, Sat, or Sunday. There's been a lot to try and stay on top of. I would rather see it running for 48 - 72h
_______________
Resident witch

I agree with everything Alandriel has said, including the duration of voting.

The one big problem with Rpers is that even with a penalty or suspension of posting rights in the "There and Back Forum", the dammage to the story is done... so maybe it would be a possibility that at request of the "RPowner", posts of a poster who is in the BikeRacks, or under arbitration because of a writing conflict can be edited by an admin for the sake of the story.

This could also go under member rights... RPsection.

Prim:

A time limit is less open to dispute and probably a better sifter. Seven days? Or is there some other short, convenient span of time we've already used?

There's no earlier decision to refer to, but Alandriel and Nin both agree with you about the seven day period so I'll add that provision momentarily.

Alandriel:

Maximum penalty for an RP ID should be 6 months.

OK

perhaps there needs to be a limit of max 3 restrictions

I'm going to save this for Member Rights (with character registry and other RP stuff) and the Judicial part of the agenda (coming up next) because this is a ban that would require a hearing and that's out of the hands of admins.

I think it were best that an Admin post several warnings ...

The earlier provision allows this, and people can always go to the bike racks. Here I just want to deal with the limits to what an admin can do.

edit to add: Alandriel, I forgot about your weekend constraint, but I see that you did make these three votes, so I'll extend them to 48 hours, and in the future I'll try to avoid votes that don't intersect a weekday. Silwen is not available on Tues-Wed. So I might post a permanent posting schedule - like days when votes will be held.

Jn

Quote:

• If a sig pic is arguably pornographic, violent or distasteful it can be removed. If the poster persists in reposting it, posting rights outside the Jury Room can be suspended until an arbitration decision is reached.

I think this language has the potential to open up a big can of worms.
Distasteful is very subjective, and not even the Supreme Court could define pornography.

Holby,

Do me a favor and suggest better language

edit: no, on second thought don't do that. This is the right language. It says ARGUABLY. We are empowering a member to complain about an offensive sig, empowering an admin to temporarily remove it, and empowering and arbitration to then decide whether the sig is consistent with the culture of the board or not.

The society is entitled to decide whether something is inappropriate to its culture or not.

Alandriel,

Back to your earlier post ... all that 'maximum sentence' stuff has to be with the judicial discussion, too. I'm going to leave it here, but it needs to be part of another package, too.

Jn