board77

I'll add it. It doesn't really need to be voted on, I think, but it doesn't 'fit' logically into any of the existing provisions so I will have to add it as a separate provision on the ballot.

Quote:

Jn wrote:

As Prim says, it works both ways. TOE posters did not want to be considered the pariahs of the board, and that means that in things covered by the charter they have to be treated the same as the rest of the board.

I agree with this and your further arguments. There is no reason to suppose that members who don’t post in the ToE forum cannot sift the evidence on its merits and in line with the by-laws of the charter. Besides, if a juror feels uncomfortable about sitting on ANY hearing, s/he can turn it down.

I think I originally brought this up, so I'll go ahead and say thank you to everyone for their input, and for understanding my POV.

I've also started reading the original thread about ToE and opening the board (I'm not finished yet... it's quite long!) but I find it very helpful in understanding more of what is being discussed in this thread.

I will try to finish with that one before I post here again. I want to be able to ask questions and make suggestions that aren't covering already well-covered ground.




P.S. I love to find new and kewl words---> "amanuensis" AND new and kewl phrases----> "to keep a weather eye". I really do learn a lot, here!

Haven't been keeping up with this topic at all so sorry if this is old news; II just saw Impy's announcement about this ballot on ToE, I don't like the sponsorship thing much at all but not enough to oppose the ballot. One thing I'm not clear on: how will we know that we're supposed to sponsor somebody? Will an admin start a thread saying "JoeBob has requested sponsorship to ToE"? If so, will sponsorships be done in that thread? Again, sorry if this has been covered...

yova, the draft ballot is in the first post - it's very short, won't take you a minute to read.

The sponsorship provisions are question 4 - it outlines the whole process for you.

Please do give us your arguments on this! I would be very grateful. (Of course, you could simply vote down that particular question when the vote opens on Friday).

Impenitent,

Thank you for taking care of this.

How does one currently gain access to the ToE forum?

At the moment, one just asks an admin to turn on permission to view and post. No other criteria.

Looks great

Thank you, Imp.

Absolutely splendid job taking a thorny issue by the horns!

Meh! This ain't thorny! You want to see thorny, check out the convention thread on members rights!

*shudders*

Lack of time has kept me out of this debate, so I come late to the table, to read:

Quote:

Question 3. A member becomes eligible to access the "Thinking of England" forum after three months and 100 posts. After this time, a member can request access to the forum from an administrator.

and:

Quote:

Question 5: Before permission is activated, two (or more) current “Thinking of England” posters must sponsor the new applicant. The sponsorship will be in confidence and will take the form of PM to the administrator handling the permissions, stating “I am willing to sponsor [name of applicant]” and will be in response to a notifying post in that forum stating “[name of applicant] seeks sponsorship to this forum”.

Why are we all of a sudden instituting a form of invitation? I understood that the overwhelming consensus was to move away from that way of doing things?

My understanding of that forum was that it was to spare the blushes of those who weren't interested in finding out the intricate details of their fellows' sex lives. If the forum is a separate request-only one that 'protection' remains. So why the need for 'sponsorship' (or 'invites' by another name)?

Imp,

I am sooo sorry to do this, but I just realized there is one confusing thing about the ballot.

It seems to me that elements of Q3 and Q5 would be mutually exclusive. The terms of eligibility (3 mos, 100 posts) does not have to change, but either the member would be admitted on request or other members would have to sponsor them.

This will be a ballot rather than a poll, right? So that individual elements can be accepted or rejected? If so, I would suggest making one question be a choice between the second sentence of Q3 and the sponsorship option of Q5. (That doesn't add more questions - just a rephrasing of 3 and 5)

Jn

Leoba wrote:

Why are we all of a sudden instituting a form of invitation? I understood that the overwhelming consensus was to move away from that way of doing things?

My understanding of that forum was that it was to spare the blushes of those who weren't interested in finding out the intricate details of their fellows' sex lives. If the forum is a separate request-only one that 'protection' remains. So why the need for 'sponsorship' (or 'invites' by another name)?

That's what ToE is for me too- but then, I don't post there. Others who do, however, want to have some sort of control over who can see what they wrote. I understand their worry but I think that having such control is impossible. I think we ought to think of ToE exactly like Leoba just described it, otherwise we're making ourselves vulnerable by posting there. It won't ever be a private place.

Estel, you mention SJ. I know what you mean (heh). I'm not sure he would know how to behave in such a forum either. But then, that's because I know him fairly well...so the people that I don't know at all get my trust free- but how do I know they will behave? And...he, like anyone else, can get banned from it if he acts irresponsibly. And also I think if the sensitive nature of that forum is explained to everyone very very clearly and stressed to the applicant by his friends, it will be okay.

What I'm trying to say is, you are able to pinpoint SJ as a possible problem. But you'll never be able to spot every other possible problem. I know how you feel, believe me, but I really think that's just an illusion of safety you're proposing. You know I don't say that to be mean or anything, it's just that you can't be sure of anyone. We both know SJ so we know to be careful with him, but if another problem poster comes along we might not even notice. And then we'd be screwed, because all along we'd be thinking we have control. We don't...it's impossible to have it.

Impenitent wrote:

yova, the draft ballot is in the first post - it's very short, won't take you a minute to read.

The sponsorship provisions are question 4 - it outlines the whole process for you.

Please do give us your arguments on this! I would be very grateful. (Of course, you could simply vote down that particular question when the vote opens on Friday).

I did read the first post and I was left with the questions I asked in my previous post.

Sorry Yova...got the number of the question wrong.

Quote:

Question 5: Before permission is activated, two (or more) current “Thinking of England” posters must sponsor the new applicant. The sponsorship will be in confidence and will take the form of PM to the administrator handling the permissions, stating “I am willing to sponsor [name of applicant]” and will be in response to a notifying post in that forum stating “[name of applicant] seeks sponsorship to this forum”.

.

So...a notifying post in that forum means in a ToE thread...PM reply means in confidence...and in both cases a very brief statement as specified.

I feel uncomfortable about sponsorship. I put the clause in in response to Estel's post, which seemed to reflect the opinion of many others in wanting some vetting mechanism. I know others DON'T want a vetting mechanism.

The clause is in there to be voted on - either it goes up or is shot down. Each clause will be voted on separately (the ballot will be completed for voting purposes on Friday)

Leoba - same explanation really. It's not my preference but I'm merely amanuensis here. The members decide.

Impenitent wrote:

I feel uncomfortable about sponsorship.

Me too. With the 3/100 regulation, I think it's superfluous, and a bit humbling.

I agree with Leoba, Mummpizz and Rodia.

If sponsorship is decided, I will refuse to sponsor any person - I am not willing to judge anybody and not willing either to be the one at whom fingers might be pointed if things go wrong with a poster. In fact, I would simply cease to post, I think.
I'm also strongly opposed to a read only option.

Out of curiosity, where can I see who is registered for the ToE forum? Or is that info only available to admins/shirriffs/whatevers...

Alatar

Thanks Impi.

I've been wondering about Alatar's question for a while too. If it isn't currently available, I think it should be made so.

Why, guys? How would knowing who was registered to post there be useful info?




I'm not trying to challenge this idea at all, I just can't see why anyone would be interested...