board77

Very good advice, Pips.

You are snesible indeed.

Now, now, Guru, no need to inflate things quite to that extent. I hope we can all continue this discussion, with a modicum (like that word) of civility.

Actually, I cross-posted with your last apology. Had I seen it, I wouldn't have tagged you again on what appears to be a thoroughly exausted topic. My offer stands, BTW, although you are doing a fine job of expressing yourself forcefully yet politely in your latest posts.

I generally become quite civilly eloquent when I know I've screwed up...it's just when things first start off that I forget to engage my "nice" gears...or, I just get so caught up in things I stop giving a damn...

Is it time for a group hug yet?:P

Guru, are you concerned because you mentioned an NPO and no one responded positively to it? I don't know that much about NPOs. Please elaborate. You were also concerned about the idea of everyone having to literally buy into B77, which would make all of us equal shareholders, but would exclude those who couldn't afford it. Setting up a scholarship would solve the exclusion problem, but lessen the significance of buying into the board. Those are valid points. I haven't responded because I haven't thought of a good solution to the conundrums.

I noticed also that you were concerned that some people were changing their opinion during the conversation. I know this never happened in Movies or Manwe but it is delightful to see it here.

MariaHobbit - the marquee won't work because HTML is not enabled on this board. I enabled it on the B77experiment board.

Pips, for a young'un, you do indeed demonstrate a whole lotta snese!!

Quote:

I for one think that this thread was a fantastic idea, and I want to see this board run as a non-profit organisation that shares responsibilities.

The heart of this thread will hopefully remain alive and kicking. It "feels" right to me, and surely warrents an honest, civil, and constructive discussion.

Voronwe I have faith that your wisdom and judgement will guide you to whatever choice you ultimately must make about this matter. Thank-you for your exceedingly generous offer, and for helping to open new possibilities for this board. It took a good heart, and a great measure of good sense!

EDIT:

Guru wrote:

it's just when things first start off that I forget to engage my "nice" gears...or, I just get so caught up in things I stop giving a damn...

That's why I left to clean the oven a couple of pages ago. I've learned that venting on a greasy drip tray is a good first step in the "self-calming process".

The reason I was concerned about the change of opinions was that it seemed like no one was outright saying exactly what was being talked about. When I posted pretty much everyone was agreement about the following: "to be a voting member, one is required to pay a fee", but no one seemed to be calling it that. None of us liked that before...and I was completely baffled why people who really objected to it now liked the idea. I wanted to state it outright, make it very obvious what we were discussing.

Just so my conscience is clear, if my post had instead asked "so, we decided to go with mandatory financial contribution for voting rights" would, at that point, people have said "yes"?

*Begins to try to run this topic back on track*

I'm not commenting on the drama. It's done. Guru apologized.

Forget the monetary contributions for just a second. What other ways can we define voting-member which possbily sidesteps or creates a very easy to get around two level membership. I was, I think, the first to object to such a membership and since we've beaten the monetary side to death (where's our dead horse emoticon ), let's discuss the other option in an effort to lessen the tension.

I think some combination of time spent and maybe post count. I'm hesitant to include post count because of spam, but perhaps if post count was included as a secondary. For example: a member is granted voting rights after 3 months and 300 posts, or 2 months and 250, but not before that. So if someone reached 250 posts in a week, they wouldn't be eligible yet because they haven't reached the 2 month mark. This would show a contribution and committment by each new member.

I've belonged to organizations (mostly college clubs) where showing up was the only requirement enough to vote. We didn't use dues, but for other reasons. Granted our votes were usually towards the end of the semester, so by then we could tell who was going to be an active member and who came for one meeting to see what it was about.

Guruthostirn wrote:

. When I posted pretty much everyone was agreement about the following: "to be a voting member, one is required to pay a fee", but no one seemed to be calling it that.

I still don't think we have read the same thread, because I read everything else but that.

The reason I saw it as being that way was about half the posts right before mine were discussing things such as membership dues, which I saw as requiring financial contributions. However, I must admit there were several posts trying to discuss alternative methods of qualifying for voting membership.

Well, I for one am absolutely not done discussing this idea; in fact, I've been thinking about it all damn day. So I'm ignoring the DRAMA and going back to the discusiion. I invite all sensible folk to join me in doing so.
Not that I'm calling anyone in particular non-sensible, mind you. I'm just sayin' that this is what I personally think is the sensible course of action.

Jny,
Have I ever told you just how completely utterly and totally cool you are? If not, let me do so now. You once again managed to say exactly what I was thinking. Except you made it like... make sense and stuff.

Wampuskitty wrote:

It is sad but true that people take more seriously services for which they have paid. Whether this is true for such a small amount, I don't know. But I've seen it happen in a number of different settings.

Could it be that charging even a nominal membership fee will make the board more likely to attract the posters who really want to be here and less likely to attract trolls and troublemakers?

Yes it could be! My wife has a degree in Organizational Psychology, and I ran this idea past her. Truns out that studies back up this idea.
When you set a price on something, you have just assigned it a value. If you pay a price for something, you have just accepted that it has a value. That's all pretty obvious. Less obvious (but just as true) is that when you give something away for free, you are sending the unspoken message that it has no value. Even a price that is so small as to be of no practical significance has a significant psychological impact. Practically speaking, the difference between free and 25 cents is nothing, and a dollar is four times 25 cents. But psychologically, the distance between free and anything, even a measly little quarter, is frickin' HUGE.
You know those ads for puppies "free to a good home"? You're much more likely to find them a good home if you charge $5. Compared to the cost of their time and gas money to go get the dog, $5 ain't squat. But any amount at all is enough to weed out the people who might not have thought this whole puppy thing through. And those who do get the dog will actually value a $5 dog more than a free one. It's just the way our minds work.
So requiring something in return for voting rights (even if it's not money) will not only weed out the frivolous and malicious, it will also make those who do participate more likely to take things more seriously - to value those rights more than if they had just been given them.

Having said all that...

I really really really hated the way PM's work on TORC. The big red visible status symbol of the PM's just got all over my nerves. I know that it was intended as a small token of appreciation for those who contributed, but to me it felt like those who hadn't were being made to look like second-class citizens. On that note, I am very much against any and every visible symbol of distinction that could divide the board into diferent social classes.

However, the more I consider giving the immediate ability to determine the long-term fate of this board to any and every chucklehead with an email address, the dumber the idea sounds. Requiring something, some kind of contribution, from members before they're allowed to participate in the democratic process is, IMAO, just good common sense.

But what? What do we value from our members? What do we expect from our members? What, over and above all else, makes one a true member of the B77 family?

Participation. This board is a social exercise. To truly be a part of the board requires you to engage yourself in the social intercourse of the board. (Quit snickering - I said "social intercourse" ) SO I would like to see voting restricted to those with at least 100 posts...
**looks at own postcount**
...uh, ...fifty posts I mean.

Here's my proposal: the aforementioned chucklehead with an email account? He's a member immediately. He can join in discussions in the Business Room, he can post and read anywhere except the Voting Booth, which is read-only to anyone not a voting member. So if you want to gage the opinion of everyone including non-voters, post a non-binding poll in the Business Room. Votes that affect and/ or create policy, serving on a jury or serving as an Admin would be reserved for voting members.

Just my thoughts.

TED, after some thought I came to accept post count as a serviceable criteria, since the only way to learn anything about a poster is to read their posts. IMO, that would apply more to the bright future of b77 when hordes of brilliant, insightful people from all over the Net clamor for the right to post here. They might, you know. For the foreseeable time, virtually every new poster will come here from TORC, which means that we will have a pretty good idea of who they are, so maybe we could set the requisite post count somewhat lower (100?).

Someone has suggested giving certain privileges to those who volunteer as admins and/or jurors. This seems appealing, as those are the posters who put a lot of time and energy into this board. I am not clear how that would work in practice, as we only need so many admins and jurors. At the least it seems a good idea to require that the voting members enter into the pool for admin and juror selections, much like the privilege of being an American citizen comes with the responsibilities of being a juror and such.

As for mandatory payments, the idea does not sit well with me, but it actually may be a good one. If the board becomes member-owned, and there are expenses associated with running it, then the membership should share in the cost, especially as it is expected to be minimal. Maybe there could be an opportunity for members to do some community service instead, for those who cannot contribute for financial, philosophical or logistical reasons.

Just some thoughts.

Quote:

Here's my proposal: the aforementioned chucklehead with an email account? He's a member immediately. He can join in discussions in the Business Room, he can post and read anywhere except the Voting Booth, which is read-only to anyone not a voting member. So if you want to gage the opinion of everyone including non-voters, post a non-binding poll in the Business Room. Votes that affect and/ or create policy, serving on a jury or serving as an Admin would be reserved for voting members.

I don't think that is too unreasonable, though we are still left with two classes (I suppose this is unavoidable ). This was why I mentioned time spent plus post count. Any chucklehead can post 100 posts in a day, but then again, unless that chuckelhead is a troll, on a board he knows no one at, that is most likely not going to happen.

As for the monetary contributions, I think that we would need to offer something more than a messageboard if that is any distinguishing factor for membership and rights. Otherwise, I think setting up an anonymouse donation box (say 5 dollars maybe) might work. No one will know who donated accept the financial people. We can even make a case for donations: This site needs money to continue, please make a one-time donation blah blah. I like the idea of having no color distinctions between voting member and non-voting. The color distinctions didn't bother me at TORC, though. As for the "difficulty" of sending money, PayPal and credit cards aside, MONEY ORDERS. If your country has these, they work wonders. If not, check your local post office and inquire about safely transfering money. I know a number of countries or sellers (ebay and such) accept money orders from the States, so I assume that enough countries actually have them.

Ang

That post was ALMOST as well-thought out and convincing as your essays on Uruks' genitalia.

After taking into consideration the many sound ideas and opinions in this thread, here's what I like so far:

I like (REALLY LIKE) the idea of becoming a non-profit organization.

I like the idea of having some kind of set criteria for establishing full voting rights as a member of b77 (and a time/post count requisite sounds very acceptable at this point)

I like Ang's idea of a "Voting Booth" forum.

I like Alatar's idea of a "donation" button thingy to cover costs as needed.

I appreciate (REALLY APPRECIATE) the expertise, knowledge, experience, and wisdom of a great many people here.

Ang, may I be your fangirl? You and Jn have changed my mind since yesterday (I know, I'm such a wimp!), and I do think there has to be some kind of buy-in here. I don't know if I would make it just post count--I think there should at least be an agreement to make oneself available to serve the board in some capacity. Posting is fun; being on a jury is not. For it to be "buy-in," I think something has to be paid--time if not money.

But your idea for how the voting forum would work is a good one, and I strongly agree that there should not be a visible badge of voting membership.

I think an easy means of donating to the site would probably provide enough revenue to run it.

Guruthostirn wrote:

Just so my conscience is clear, if my post had instead asked "so, we decided to go with mandatory financial contribution for voting rights" would, at that point, people have said "yes"?

No--because as has been said, nothing at all is being decided here. If the question had been "So, we are talking about whether there should be a mandatory financial contribution for voting rights, or some other kind of requirement, or maybe it should be service, or maybe there should be no requirement at all, or if there is a financial requirement it should be sliding scale, or perhaps we could take anonymous donations?" then the answer would have been, "Yes, we are talking about that. And a few other things."

Guru: this thread is complex and many issues have been raised by many. The language of all the posts has been very civil and I'm saddened greatly that you tought it necessary to chime in the way you did. I'm also glad that you have apologized and I only hope Voronwe can find it in his heart to come back to this discussion.
All I can ask is please, Guru, be a more circumspect next time and perhaps think again before you hit that submit button.

~~~~

I think so far quite the majority in here don't think it's a good idea to allow voting rights only and exclusively to paying members. Angbasil raised some very interesting points and brought forward issues that I've also been thinking about. Even a farily nominal value paid would add to the sense of responsability... though I'm not saying with this qualification has to come solely through monetary means.
Issues always get hot when money comes into the talk, aye ?

Gauging the opinion of non-votings members is a possible and this is actually already happening now with the established Constitutional Pannel where people's voices outside of the pannel are also heard. In the end though - now NOT speaking about the panel but in a future scenario, it still comes down hard of who has voting rights and who doesn't. I still hold that this is something that will have to be earned - but not necessarily through monetary contribution. Actually, like most here, I'd like to leave monetary contributions totally out of it but rather have say minimum requirements for being a voting member set at e.g. minimum membership 3 months and a nominal postcount of 50post

Right now many are involved in the politics here.. but think up ahead for a moment. The constitution will stand. What are the chances that many people will want to change the consitution and/or create different rules etc? I would think it won't happen very easily and if so then only in a minor way.
So - frankly speaking, I think there's a lot of fretting over not that much

_______________
Resident witch

Here is my take so far. Subject to change at the drop of a hat. Or a kerchief.

If I am going to have to be a paying member and be held responsible in any way, then I want no part of that unless I can dictate all of the rules here. If it is going to be my butt in a sling even remotely, I want to call the shots. Needless to say that isn't going to happen.

I am willing to "donate" monies though.

As far as voting membership goes, I believe we hit upon that in the constitution, or will soon. I don't see money as being necessary, but more time and involvement.

Prim wrote:

I do think there has to be some kind of buy-in here. I don't know if I would make it just post count--I think there should at least be an agreement to make oneself available to serve the board in some capacity. Posting is fun; being on a jury is not. For it to be "buy-in," I think something has to be paid--time if not money.

Prim, I've been following (well, at least trying to follow) the committee's discussion in the Jury Room, and must admit that the idea of requiring some form of "service" is one that I basically agree with. In RL, I've been on enough committees, task forces, councils and boards to know the rather uncomfortably dark feelings that can arise in my heart when others, who quite frankly, don't give an issue more than two seconds of thought and who NEVER volunteer to take on any extra responsibility, are accorded exactly the same "rights" as those who do when it comes to important decisions. There's definitely no "black and white" solution to the problem, but it does get tiresome and potentially divisive when those who shoulder the vastly greater measure of responsibilities always seem to be the same people, over and over again. It will be interesting to hear what others feel about this. It's a tough issue.

Here late – blame the time zones. But I’ve just read the last couple of pages and I’ll be damned if I just let this slip. My apologies in advance for perpetuating it.

I want to say, that the discussion - at least here - isn't 'wavering between two ideas', and that the last I don't know how many posts have been to explain the concept of 'financial membership' in the broadest sense. Nothing is being settled here.

I feel somewhat affronted by Guru’s response that discussion on a certain point had to stop, just because some objections had been raised by some posters. I hadn’t even had a chance to read the thread until I first posted. I posted ‘as I saw it’ at the time I saw it. And in spirit of fleshing out an idea, and of exchanging information. And if the posts had been read carefully it would have been clear that tying voting rights to financial status was not something being strongly advocated. But it happens elsewhere, that’s just the way it is.

Voronwe

This is really not a good thread to read first thing in the morning.

[ / drama, drama, drama]

edited to add - and suddenly there are another half dozen very sensible posts and this one stands out like a sore thumb. However, rather than delete it I will let it stand and hope it won't derail the very sensible discussion any further.

samaranth, we have all decided to follow Pips down the path of good snese. Didn't you get the memo?

But it was a good post. And Voronwe got a hug out of it, for which he ought to be grateful.

I know how we can raise money.
I can open up a kissing booth. Sure.
All the lovely women will line up for miles on end. We'll make a fortune.
Good idea?
.
.
.
.
Anyone?
.
.
.
.
Anyone?