board77

That's quite a ballot.

I have no objections.

<sets aside serious business>

Griff, you are extremely cute in that avatar. Faramond permitting.

<resumes serious business>

So, Jn, do I understand correctly that we might not have to make rules, here, about admins resigning/being dismissed when they're going to be gone a long time? Goody!

Fabulous ballot!

(I'm sorry about the capitalization nits. It's habit I've learned over the years--when you notice a mistake, even on the first skim through a piece of writing, always fix it right then--because when you're making the official editing pass, you might miss it.)

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

That's quite a ballot.

Isn't it, though?

This morning I was wondering how I was going to put everything we had discussed in a ballot, and I was wondering when I would do it, and then suddenly out of the blue Jn mentions that she's written up a ballot, and is going to send it to me look over and then post into the thread.

Being thread leader should always be this easy.







*hugses Griff*

Oh, right ...

Ahem --- the convention is no place for that! Take it to Turf us two!

Oh, wow, she did change her avatar ...

(I have no objection to you telling the truth, Prim.)

Ahem.




I have some questions about the process for Formal Complaints and warnings.

The current language says that the complaint is brought to the attention of the admins --- does this mean that each time a complaint against one admin is made, every admin MUST see it, or that only one admin needs to see it for it to have been brought to the attention of the group.

Let's say I'm an admin, and I am made aware of a complaint against Ted, who has mysteriously been invited to B77 and been made an admin. I look at the complaint, and decide that it's bogus. Do I still need to make sure the other admins see it? Can I just quash it right there as if it never happened, because at least one admin out of the pool saw it and rejected it?

What is the proper channel for making complaints, anyway? PM to an admin? Posting in a thread? (Surely not, if we want to avoid carrion bird mentality. But then is publically airing complaints against admins not allowed? Or do we just not worry about it?)

Is it the responsibility of the complainer to PM as many admins as possible (except for Ted, of course) to make sure they all hear about the complaint agaisnt Ted?

Can an admin initiate the complaint for a warning? I mean, fellow admins are by far the most likely people to witness some of these violations. If an admin can initiate, I assume two admins other than the initiator must approve of the complaint ... or do I assume too much?

I guess if more than two admins start looking into something, they can decide like rational adults among themselves which two should concentrate on it. I guess. Unless they don't talk enough among themselves. But it would all come out when they contacted Ted about the complaint against him --- Ted would wonder why two pairs of admins were looking into the same complaint. Okay, but once a pair of admins says a complaint is BS, then I suppose all other admins can't act on that complaint anymore? Maybe this is imlicit in the procedure.

Wouldn't it be strange if four admins think a complaint against Ted is hogwash, but two others press ahead with it anyway and go ahead and give Ted a warning?

Well, I'm just trying to imagine this process in the worst possible light, to see what little demons jump out. I realize a lot of my objections are overcome by just saying, "We need to trust the admins at some point." So don't say it, Jn. But I have to ask.

Faramond, you're a man after my own heart (if Griffy will permit me the phraseology). Worst case scenarios!

Faramond wrote:

The current language says that the complaint is brought to the attention of the admins --- does this mean that each time a complaint against one admin is made, every admin MUST see it, or that only one admin needs to see it for it to have been brought to the attention of the group.

Let's say I'm an admin, and I am made aware of a complaint against Ted, who has mysteriously been invited to B77 and been made an admin. I look at the complaint, and decide that it's bogus. Do I still need to make sure the other admins see it? Can I just quash it right there as if it never happened, because at least one admin out of the pool saw it and rejected it?

The problem is that there is nothing preventing any admin from doing exactly that--except that most people are decent. And this is a case where the cure would involve, say, putting in a system of logging all complaints in through the mayor and having him/her note disposition, or entitling people who complain to detailed followup, or strongly urging members with complaints to send them to all admins at once. All, in my opinion, solutions that are worse than the problem. Trust that most people are decent, and punish the defaulters when and if you catch them.

And yet, this makes me think of something:

Faramond wrote:

What is the proper channel for making complaints, anyway? PM to an admin? Posting in a thread? (Surely not, if we want to avoid carrion bird mentality. But then is publically airing complaints against admins not allowed? Or do we just not worry about it?)

Is it the responsibility of the complainer to PM as many admins as possible (except for Ted, of course) to make sure they all hear about the complaint agaisnt Ted?

Would it be enough, for rectitude, to have complaints sent to the mayor? He/she would then automatically pass them on to the admins not named in the complaint and let them handle it. Knowing that the mayor and other admins had seen the complaint might prevent abuse by any one admin. The mayor would not log them or deal with them in any way but forwarding. No followup--keep it simple.

If the admins won't act, a member who feels his complaint hasn't been treated seriously enough will have other avenues to make it known. Which is why we don't want to treat complaints dismissively at all, but neither do we want them to become the consuming busines of this board's administrative structure.

Faramond wrote:

Can an admin initiate the complaint for a warning? I mean, fellow admins are by far the most likely people to witness some of these violations. If an admin can initiate, I assume two admins other than the initiator must approve of the complaint ... or do I assume too much?

Yes. No.

Faramond wrote:

I guess if more than two admins start looking into something, they can decide like rational adults among themselves which two should concentrate on it. I guess. Unless they don't talk enough among themselves. But it would all come out when they contacted Ted about the complaint against him --- Ted would wonder why two pairs of admins were looking into the same complaint. Okay, but once a pair of admins says a complaint is BS, then I suppose all other admins can't act on that complaint anymore? Maybe this is imlicit in the procedure.

This is why I'm starting to really like my idea of funneling complaints through the mayor. Every admin would know every other admin had seen it. Settling who followed up would be straightforward.

However--

Faramond wrote:

Wouldn't it be strange if four admins think a complaint against Ted is hogwash, but two others press ahead with it anyway and go ahead and give Ted a warning?

Shouldn't we just say that's what a warning is--that two admins agreed that a warning was deserved? Then the other four could disagree all they liked. In any case, having all admins vote on every complaint is excessive. If two admins are on it, their decision should be enough.

Faramond wrote:

Well, I'm just trying to imagine this process in the worst possible light, to see what little demons jump out. I realize a lot of my objections are overcome by just saying, "We need to trust the admins at some point." So don't say it, Jn. But I have to ask.

I think Jn is wise in this. But I think Voronwe was wise, too, a while back thinking up the idea of the mayor--a consistent presence who could be, basically, the familiar face of governance--the person a member would go to first, much of the time, even if all that then happened was that the mayor would forward the complaint or problem to an admin or admins for solution.

Just thinking through all Faramond's scenarios have increased my sense of the importance of this role.

*winks at Faramond* The occasional hug in public is fine innit?

Prim - Thank you! That hat comes from the same Octoberfest that provided my two gigantic draught beer mugs I still think back fondly to that one!

But spleesh! I've permitted enough now! Mine!

*hugses Faramond again*

I'm at work so I can't add any meat to the discussion - I'll do that tonight at home - IF I get to go home before tomorrow morning Work is hectic

I have to apologise for not reading the last few pages too thoroughly, but I will get back to them. Great work Faramond and Jny!

Two issues I'd like to raise.

There seems to be no facility for a member to request publication of their warning file. As this has been a point of contention on TORC I think it should be raised here. Any member should have the right to challenge the admins if they feel they are being unfairly treated and demand that their warn file be made public. The reasons for this are, I think, self-evident.

I'm a little worried about the "criminal activities" clause. If I offer to send Iavas an MP3 of a song he likes am I encouraging criminal activites? If I offer to send food products to someone in the swap shop am I breaking some customs law I'm unaware of? What is criminal in one country is not in another. I'll give a facetious example. If someone in the Symposium suggested that I should get a gun for self defense they are encouraging me to engage in a criminal activity according to the laws of my country. It's simply too vague. I would prefer if it was dropped and common sense was allowed to prevail, but if not I would like it changed to "activities which might bring the board into disrepute" or something of the kind.

Alatar

P.S. Nice avatar Griff!

Are warn files being kept on individual members now?

Is this going to happen in the future?

Fess up, Prim. How long is my warn file?

Faramond, Prim and Alatar,

I'm going to resist writing excessive detail into the charter because, frankly, members are starting to complain to me about it by PM.

I know the answers to your questions as I understood what was written, but my answer in this thread is not going to become precedent. Future admins are going to have to read the handbook and in rare cases the charter itself and figure out what it means.

So let me ask you instead to try to answer your own questions by reading the provisions of the charter more carefully and see whether the answer is worded clearly enough or not:

Faramond:

1. I look at the complaint, and decide that it's bogus. Do I still need to make sure the other admins see it?

How many admins does it say?

2. But then is publically airing complaints against admins not allowed?

Should we put a prohibition against members criticizing an admin in an Article about the responsibilities of an admin?

3. Is it the responsibility of the complainer to PM as many admins as possible

Pretend that you're a member and just saw something bad happen. You can PM an admin or you can send an email to the admin account. Would your first action be to PM all five admins? Say you PM Prim, a day goes by and no one answers. What do you do next?

Can an admin initiate the complaint for a warning?

"Must be brought to the attention of the admins." Does this exclude anyone from bringing a complaint?

Prim:

1. The problem is that there is nothing preventing any admin from doing exactly that--[quash a complaint]

You mean, first lie to the member that the complaint has been handled and then not handle it, right? Because what will the member do if they receive no acknowledgment of their PM/email?

Should we add a provision that says "admins shall not lie to the members" -?

2. Would it be enough, for rectitude, to have complaints sent to the mayor?

And what will stop a bad mayor from doing the same thing a bad admin might do? Mayors will serve much longer terms: do you want to give them unilateral power over complaints?

If yes, would the Powers of the Mayor belong in the Article about admins?

Generally - everyone is aware, right?, that the admins have a forum where they talk to one another. How much conspiracy would it require, on a board where people do nothing but talk to one another all day, for one admin to be the only admin a member ever talks to, and to be hiding recurring complaints from everyone's sight - getting to the mailbox first every time and hiding the mail - while telling the member the complaint was handled - and for three months no one ever finds out?

Alatar:

1. Alatar There seems to be no facility for a member to request publication of their warning file.

Warning file? You're going to show me, aren't you, where in this article Admins are empowered to keep a warning file on members.

*****

Alatar - regarding your objection to prohibiting illegal activity, you said, "I would prefer if it was dropped and common sense was allowed to prevail, but if not I would like it changed to "activities which might bring the board into disrepute" or something of the kind."

The laws of Holland are not going to apply to a board domiciled in the U.S. It doesn't matter whether the member is from Holland - using this board to tell another member where to buy the best grass in New York will get us a visit from the FBI. If you think that doesn't happen, think again. I know someone it happend to (not about grass, about something else)

Is it illegal for a member from Holland to tell another member where to buy the best grass in Amsterdam? Seriously - what do you think the answer to this is?

Jn

Geez, lots of difficult stuff here - good ballot, but I have to read it again two or three times before I could make up my mind on some things.

So for now, here's just something I don't understand:

Quote:

Question 2:
2. Except for those special cases listed, no single violation or act of negligence will be sufficient to remove an admin from office. If a hearing is convened, a pattern of repeated violations or negligence damaging to the board must be shown, and an admin must have received warnings and Formal Complaints.

Where are those special cases? I don't know what list that refers to.

Oh, and something else:

Quote:

2. Desertion: An admin who deserts the board and cannot be contacted for a period of 30 days should be removed from office.

I agree they should be removed, but I think this sounds a bit too punitive.
It's possible someone falls really ill or so, and can't be contacted for a month.
So, I'd feel bad if that would automatically be thought of as willful desertion. Maybe it could be talked of in terms such as "their admin account will be closed because of continuous absence".
Then, if the person comes back, they should get a chance to explain, and if the explanation is satisfactory, should not be kept from holding office in the future.

TH -"those special cases listed" are the cases listed under grounds for removal. There have to be general provisions at the very beginning that lay out the broad scope - - that can be seen at a glance. I'm not going to reiterate all the provisions that follow in these general statements. There has to be some common sense applied.

"their admin account will be closed because of continuous absence".

I have no objection to this wording and if Faramond will change it that's fine with me.

Though I can't imagine that someone who was so ill they could not talk for 30 days would give a hoot about what's happening on a messageboard.

Prim - to answer your last question - Yes! let's take that whole paragraph out, if Faramond would be so kind.

Folks, I've posted that the vote on this will start at midnight tonight EST, that's 5:00AM GMT. Any last minute edits of a minor nature - speak now or forever hold your peace.

I want to be through with this whole bloody article by the end of the weekend because we've been at it for more than a month.

Jn

Jnyusa wrote:

Alatar:

1. Alatar There seems to be no facility for a member to request publication of their warning file.

Warning file? You're going to show me, aren't you, where in this article Admins are empowered to keep a warning file on members.

*****

Alatar - regarding your objection to prohibiting illegal activity, you said, "I would prefer if it was dropped and common sense was allowed to prevail, but if not I would like it changed to "activities which might bring the board into disrepute" or something of the kind."

The laws of Holland are not going to apply to a board domiciled in the U.S. It doesn't matter whether the member is from Holland - using this board to tell another member where to buy the best grass in New York will get us a visit from the FBI. If you think that doesn't happen, think again. I know someone it happend to (not about grass, about something else)

Is it illegal for a member from Holland to tell another member where to buy the best grass in Amsterdam? Seriously - what do you think the answer to this is?

Jn

In answer to your first question, that's what the following reads like to me:

Quote:

Question 6: How is the record of warnings maintained

A. The record of warnings is maintained by the Mayor and does not become public unless it aggregates to a Formal Complaint.

B. The record of warnings is maintained in a thread in the admin view post only section of the admin forum during the term of the admin in question, after which it is deleted.

C. The record of warnings is maintained by the Mayor. A member who makes a complaint is told if it resulted in a warning or not. [So warnings in effect are no longer private.]

D. The record of warnings is maintained in a thread in the admin view post only section of the admin forum during the term of the admin in question, after which it is deleted. A member who makes a complaint is told if it resulted in a warning or not. [So warnings in effect are no longer private.]

Call it a record of warnings, call it a warn file, it sound the same to me. My point is that I think it should be permissable for a person to call for the publication of the "record of warnings" if they so desire.


Regarding your second question. I think the answer should be no. It is not illegal for a member from Holland to tell another member where to buy the best grass in Amsterdam. However, that is not clear in the charter.

Alatar

Alatar, only admins get warnings. The record is kept only during the time an admin serves. Then it's dumped. There won't be any other files on members.

When this sort of thing has come up on TORC, as I recall, it was in relation to a decision to ban someone. If an admin was under consideration for banning, I imagine everything would be dragged out in public--it's a public process here. Do I have that right, Jn?

Jn, in my post where I said "the problem is, there is nothing keeping them from doing exactly that," I was arguing against trying to do anything about it because there's no way the possibility of "quashing" can be eliminated if one is willing to believe a conspiracy of all admins. Then I fell into the trap of inventing a hoop we could all jump through to reduce the perception of the possibility of corruption. Thanks for smacking me with the Ruler of Get Real, Jn. I withdraw my suggestion.

Alatar, forgive me for being grumpy, but ...

Call it a record of warnings, call it a warn file, it sound the same to me.

These are warnings against ADMINS for violation of the by-laws or Code of Conduct, not warnings against members. We're writing the Article on Admins, not the article on member rights.

Of course the admins know when they get a warning and how many they have, etc. - it has to be discussed with them first.

It is not illegal for a member from Holland to tell another member where to buy the best grass in Amsterdam. However, that is not clear in the charter

You want to add the Criminal Code of the United States to the charter??? The WTO? The International Court of Justice? I understand that we need to take care with the wording of things, but allow me to plead for some common sense. If it is NOT illegal in the place where people are doing it then of course it does not violate the charter.

What we have to worry about is people on this board encouraging illegal activities in the country where this board is subject to the law. There's simply no way around that. If this place becomes a board where people are swapping illegally obtained CDs, then we CAN be shut down.

Are you really suggesting that we should allow admins to sell grass and bootleg downloads on B77?

Jn

Jnyusa wrote:

TH -"those special cases listed" are the cases listed under grounds for removal. There have to be general provisions at the very beginning that lay out the broad scope - - that can be seen at a glance. I'm not going to reiterate all the provisions that follow in these general statements. There has to be some common sense applied.

Thanks - I thought that's what must be meant - so (just so that I can check if I've got it all right) that means in case of
- continued absence
- extreme abuse of power (arbitrary banning)
- revealing private info
- giving a third party access to the admin panel
- encouraging criminal behaviour

a single violation is enough to lead to a hearing to remove an admin from office.

In all other cases, there must have been repeated violations AND subsequent warnings AND Formal Complaints.

If that's the right reading, I think I'm fine with it, as the really bad things are covered.

But I think there's something else I don't get now (sooooorrrry ):

In: Grounds for Removal it says:

Quote:

1. Pattern of Absences and Failure to Respond: If a series of warnings or violations results in three Formal Complaints, the other admins may consider whether to convene a hearing to remove that admin. If five Formal Complaints have been filed, a hearing is required. [Note: this means there must be at least 15 separate complaints about the admin.]

My problem here is that this sounds as if it were only about the warnings that may accumulate about absence - what about patterns that evolve (i.e warnings and Complaints that may accumulate) about the other reasons you might get a warning or a complaint for, i.e.

- Posting hidden at times when the admin is needed to be visible.

- Special treatment of posters or arbitrary enforcement of the by-laws.

- Conduct Unbecoming an Administrator, such as discourtesy or intimidation, or attempting to influence poster behavior on other messageboards

- Deliberate unilateral actions for which the by-laws require a majority of admins to agree, or any other deliberate and direct violation of the by laws.

- Failing to convene and oversee an arbitration when required, or refusing to convene a hearing on a ban when this is necessary

(these last two from the list of grounds for a Formal Complaint)


Are these meant to be included in the first point about grounds for removal, or are they not supposed to lead to a ground for removal?

And if they are, do we need 15 instances/5 complaints respectively of each of those as well?

I'm sorry if that's common sense again - maybe common sense fails me the more I ponder these problems.

Quote:

Though I can't imagine that someone who was so ill they could not talk for 30 days would give a hoot about what's happening on a messageboard.

True, but we'd feel guilty (or, at least, I'd feel guilty ), if we found out that we'd been going "fire that lazy bugger" about someone who's seriously ill - so I guess I'm just trying to ease our own conscience.
(Plus, they might be rather miffed if they got back and found they'd been penalized and treated like a criminal for something they couldn't help. )

No Jn, but I'm worried about the tendency to create a police force of the admins. The next step is that an admin will edit a post of mine where I am offering an MP3 to a friend. This is the slippery slope that I'm afraid of.


Will admins be required to police the members? Will members have the same limitations as we are currently applying to admins? If so, I'f like to stop it here and get it out of the charter. I don't believe we should have the ability or the desire to police the board. This is the internet. Of course people are going to share MP3s and links to whatever or wherever. I understand the need to protect ourselves, but I honestly believe this is taking it too far.

Alatar

On the other hand, I would hate to see the board get sued into oblivion by the RIAA...

The admins are not cops or lawyers or anything, so I suspect only the most blatant and obvious things would be targeted...which is already supported by part of the charter previously passed, re: illegal activities.

Quote:

Should we add a provision that says "admins shall not lie to the members" -?

Some things really need to go without saying.

Alatar, the way I read it, this is not supposed to mean that admins have to take care no one else engages in criminal activities - it just says that admins aren't supposed to - I think that goes with what it says in the Code of Conduct, that admins should try to be model posters.

Practically, th, I expect people would be worried far more than angry. I was on a board once where this happened--a prominent member, a very articulate and prolific poster and quite a young man, simply vanished. Long after the fact a family member posted that he had died of cancer (had in fact been known he was dying the whole time). It was awful.

In the Pattern of Complaints clause--I think "[Note: this means there must be at least 15 separate complaints about the admin.]" should just be removed, because as th points out, getting three warnings is not the only way to get a Formal Complaint.