board77

Thank you, Voronwe.

I don't understand the rationale for delaying voting on member rights until a non-binding poll is concluded.

This is the way I see it:

A member-wide discussion is being conducted in Business on the issue of multiple ids. This discussion helps to form my opinion on the matter (whether or not there is a quasi-determinative poll conducted).

My role in the convention is to vote my best judgment on the question of multiple ids for b77.

So I see a non-binding poll as completely inconsequential for the deliberations here. Either we vote on a ballot here according to our best judgment, informed by the discussion in the Business Room (poll or no poll), or we ditch the process here (regarding multiple ids) and conduct a binding poll in Business and take that result and put it in the charter.

Waiting for a non-binding poll to conclude is sensless, IMO. If arguments in that thread don't change my opinion on what will be best to do regarding multiple ids, then I am not going to go against my better judgment and change my vote on a ballot here because of the results of a non-binding poll.

Do you see what I mean?

Edit

So I think a non-binding poll is useless here, and useless there. Either have a binding poll, or just leave it as a discussion, which we factor into our individual votes here.

I agree with Cerin.
Let the discussion roll on for a bit, and see what happens.
If there is enough sentiment then the membership can call for a binding vote themselves regardless of our approach or decision. We can always amend what we write if there is a subsequent binding poll.

Cerin, yes I understand completely. As is well known, I never wanted to have that discussion thread in the first place. I think it has disrupted the process, and has attracted a disproportionate amount of attention to one Member's Rights issue which, while important, is not more important then all the other Member's Rights issues. I'm disappointed that virtually all of the imput from members who are not in the committee on Member's Rights has been on that one issue and that members are completely disregarding all of the other member's rights issues. I think it has distracted the committee itself from the overall question of what rights members should be guaranteed, and what responsibilities members need to have to make board77 be a successful and lasting community.

However, that being said, the thread does exist. The call for a non-binding poll there was made by committee members. I don't think I can just disregard that call and proceed with our own ballot on the issue with no regard to that expressed desire. Plus, I think the timing will work out okay. If I first post a draft Member's Rights ballot on Sunday, I'm sure we will need several days of discussion regarding it as I anticipate that it will be both lengthy and complex. It may even be that I will break the ballot into two parts, with two separate voting periods. If, as has been discussed, this "non-binding poll" is completed by Wednesday, it should not delay us significantly. However, I won't wait much beyond that.

Quote:

If arguments in that thread don't change my opinion on what will be best to do regarding multiple ids, then I am not going to go against my better judgment and change my vote on a ballot here because of the results of a non-binding poll.

I feel the same way but it is not my place to tell others how they should approach things. If other committee members think it will be helpful to have a non-binding poll of the members, so be it. I have no desire to be a dictator (no matter what Idylle thinks).

But what I will not allow is for the whole system that we have been working on to be thrown out the window so that we can have a binding poll of the membership of this one Member's Rights issue. As I wrote in the other thread, that would delay everything by another 20+ days (plus raise significant issues of the fairness of the process, if one Member's Rights issue is treated differently then all the others). That is where I draw the line.

Cerin, Holby, and Voronwe,

Thanks for saying so. I've felt the same way, but considering the sensitivity of the issue, kept to myself.

Voronwe

Thank you for your further comments. It is really helpful to have clarification on some of those points!

Now I'm going to go back and re-read the relevant threads , and see if I can get back in the groove of the larger discussion.

Well, the opinions being expressed in that thread are coming from 11 regular members and 9 committee members (plus one off-topic discussion in which 3 additional posters participated) ... out of ~130 members, of whom ~40 are the original members who decided not to allow multiple IDs originally.

There are more new members than original members so the average sentiment may have changed, but I would not call that thread a widespread clamor for multiple IDs.

I think that however Voronwe decides to proceed, we should go with his judgment. It might indeed be useful to get a sense of where the membership falls out on this issue so that we don't take the loud voices of a few for the silent voices of many, in either direction.

Jn

Thanks for explaining about my question, Voronwe and Jny!

I quite agree that such insults, if repeated, should be punishable!

Hmmmh, it's difficult for me to explain how I feel about the question - I guess in the end what we have is ok, it's not that I'm totally opposed or so.
It's just that it strikes me as too elaborate. Sorry I'm so annoying about this!

Personally, I'd like all personal insults, if repeatedly used, punishable. Whether someone would continue to call me a "German Nazi pig" or just "asshole" - they are both equally insults, I think, and shouldn't be tolerated, even though the latter targets neither my nationality, nor religion, race or whatever.

So, I was thinking we might just have a clause saying:
"You have the right to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status and therefore the responsibility to treat others likewise. You have the right to express your thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial, but with respect, forbearance and consideration for the context, the feelings of others, and the value of contrasting viewpoints, as this is necessary for worthwhile conversation among adults.
Therefore, repeated abuse and personal insult against other posters will result in a hearing and a penalty may be imposed."

(And, please, I don't mean to rock the boat too much! If you think this would mess too much with what we have, ignore it! It's possible I just don't understand how much detail definition we need here to make things enforceable.)

Edit: I've just been to the "penalties"-thread, and in the first post there it lists
- abusive language
- insults targeting nationality etc
as two things that can merit a penalty - so what I said above, about wanting "normal" insults punishable is already being envisaged.
But in the first post in this thread, safeguard against "normal insults" only appears in §2, which are the non-enforceable hopes for courtesy.
So, I'm wondering whether that is ok.

truehobbit,

The enumeration of "special" offenses tied to race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc., may be uniquely a US perspective. We are developing a tradition of protected "minorities", who are sometimes actually the majority. It struck me when I read the last few posts because I just came out of a discussion of government promoted participation of certain groups in all government contracts.

I'm ambivalent, but it seems so normal for the statement to be there.

Allow me to quibble for a minute with Hobby.

Din, Holby, Alatar ... and others ... have expressed pretty strong concern that we not try to make disputes of a personal nature a Hearing matter.

If 'abusive language' will be understood as applying to someone with a difficult manner who manages to insult lots of people, then I would rather take that phrase out of penalties rather than move the courtesy clause up to 'enforcable.'

Again, I see a big difference between "insulting" and "abusive," almost as large as the difference between "insulting" and "defamatory." If that difference is not apparent to others, then I would suggest that we take out the abusive language point.

It has seemed to me that committee members really did not want to get too broad on this article, thus giving too much opportunity to co-opt the hearing process.

Jn

I'm certainly in favor of having "special" offenses specifically tied to race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. but I can see Hobby's point too.

I think that I can devise a choice on the ballot that gives committee members the choice of one or the other.

To explain my position, I think the section on Member's Rights and Responsibilities is the most important part of the charter. I think that the clearer and more specific that we can be as to what is expected of people and what they have a right to expect. This is one area that I think that more detail is better then less. I'd rather include things that may go without saying then risk a chance of someone not understanding what is expected of them.

A perfect example is what happened in the when to open the board poll. If I had been more specific in the beginning that the totals would be rounded to the nearest integer rather then just assuming that everyone would have the same perspective about it as I do, it would have prevented all the extra angst that people went through last night and today.

I think I can give an example of my thoughts that Jny alluded to.
There was a fairly decent ruckus in the Board Opening Poll thread today.
I won't recount all that happened there, but suffice it to say there was a dispute. That dispute was apparently settled between the members without the need of a Jury or Bike Racks Thread.
In my opinion that was the right way to solve that. At least so far as an initial effort went. What I mean is that solving disputes like that should be attempted to be reconciled by the participants themselves first without the need of immediate aid. Nor should there necessarily be any type of hearing do determine offenses. Kind of like no harm no foul I guess.

I don't mind combining these two clauses, but I really don't want to move it to the enforcable section. Unless I'm misunderstanding Hobby completely and this is not what she is suggesting.

Jn

Primula_Baggins wrote:

I wonder if we ought to disallow secondary IDs (and RP IDs) from sending PMs?

Sounds like a good idea to me.


11. The right to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status and therefore the responsibility to treat others likewise
Could we add a comma after status, and say "in the same way" rather than "likewise" at the end of the sentence?


On the question of accidental and/or intentional insults (re enforceable rights, such as using a certain epithet that is offensive to some), what I understand is that someone could ask the person to edit it, and if they refused, the offendee could ask an admin to edit it; if the person who had used it took exception to the editing, they could discuss it in Bike Racks with whomever had taken offense; if they persisted in re-posting it, that would be cause for a hearing. Is this correct?


I've been thinking over the suggestion Impenitent made, to be added with reference to the enforceable rights:
"If you feel that your rights have been impinged, before you put into action any formal procedures (in accordance with our Charter provisions) please consider attempting to rectify the problem through informal discussion with the offender by politely bringing the offence to his/her attention."

Oddly enough, the idea of people working out community disruptions (or potential community disruptions) privately hadn't occurred to me.

truehobbit wrote:

So, I was thinking we might just have a clause saying:
"You have the right to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status and therefore the responsibility to treat others likewise. You have the right to express your thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial, but with respect, forbearance and consideration for the context, the feelings of others, and the value of contrasting viewpoints, as this is necessary for worthwhile conversation among adults.
Therefore, repeated abuse and personal insult against other posters will result in a hearing and a penalty may be imposed."

My feeling is that we don't want this added statement in the unenforceable section, and we don't want the courtesy section moved to the enforceables, where a reference to a hearing would be appropriate.

I had thought we wanted to keep those things (enforceable v non-enforceable rights, i.e., individual disputes v community disruptions) clear and separate for the membership to distinguish between. Is there a natural progression from one to the other? I seem to recall statements to the effect that incidents over non-enforceable rights could not possibly lead to a hearing (i.e., could not possibly escalate to a community disruption).

Quote:

Edit: I've just been to the "penalties"-thread, and in the first post there it lists
- abusive language
- insults targeting nationality etc
as two things that can merit a penalty - so what I said above, about wanting "normal" insults punishable is already being envisaged.

I've suggested in the Penalties thread, that 'abusive language' be replaced by 'personal attacks directed toward another poster.'

Personal attacks were one of the things that distressed me most deeply on TORC ('attacking the poster rather than the argument'). This goes beyond lapses in courtesy; it can be an habitual tactic, and can be done so adeptly that it doesn't include abusive language. I would like protection against habitual personal attacks to be an enforceable right.

Quote:

But in the first post in this thread, safeguard against "normal insults" only appears in §2, which are the non-enforceable hopes for courtesy.
So, I'm wondering whether that is ok.

I think personal attacks, when used persistently as a tactic (whether deliberately or unconsciously) rise above the level of 'normal insults' and so would appropriately be in the enforceable, rather than in the courtesy (non-enforceable) section.

But then what about someone who uses 'normal insults' routinely and persistently? They just get taken over and over again to Bike Racks? Does that ever bridge the gap between individual dispute and community disruption?

Cerin,

I don't think it matters a lot but "likewise" seems more reciprocal than "in the same way" to me.

Jnyusa,

I agree with you about not moving it to the enforecable clause.

Jn, I'm not sure that I am 100% sold on the structure this article, dividing it into two sections of enforceable and unenforceable rights and responsibilities. I think it might be clearer if it were divided into two sections of: 1) rights; and 2) responsibilities, with no mention of what is "enforceable". After all, what is enforceable will be clearly delineated in the "offenses that merit a penalty" section of the dispute resolution article that we are currently discussing. To me its redundant and confusing to emphasize that here as well. I also feel that in several places the "rights" and "responsibilities" blend in with each other in a way that makes it a little less then clear as to what people can expect, and what is expected of them.

I know that this article will be longer if done this way, but still not nearly as long as the admin article. I firmly believe that this is the most important part of the charter and that we should strive to make it as clear as possible what rights members can hope to expect, and what responsibilities we expect members to live up to in order to ensure that those rights are preserved.

All I ask is that people have an open mind and consider this as a possibility. I know that it is a fairly radical departure from the structure that we have been looking at, but I think that the moving away from including a distinction in this article of what rights are enforceable and what are not would actually remove the need to resolve the questions that have been raised about which section certain rights/responsibilities would find themselves. I feel it would be better for that to be left to the dispute resolution article.

If people hate the idea, please feel free to say so. If no one else thinks its a good idea, I will abandon it with no regrets. But if some people think it might be an appropriate way to go, I am thinking perhaps we could hold a preliminary vote on just the issue of which approach people prefer. Then once that were determined we could have a more extended vote to determine which provisions to actually include.

Here is a sample of what I am talking about (note that I have not yet gone through and incorporated all of people's comments; this is just a sample to express my idea).

Article 2: Member's Rights and Responsibilities

Our purpose in establishing these rights and responsibilities is to build a vibrant, diverse, supportive community where both conversation and signature pictures reflect our personalities, our humor, our genuine opinions, our artistic appreciation, our creativity, and above all our mutual friendship. [Note: I've moved this from the bottom of Jn's draft to the top; I think this should be said up-front]

¶1: We strive to create and preserve a culture and atmosphere that will ensure the following rights for all members of Board77:

1. The right to post under one primary registered screen name if you are 13 years of age or older and the right to post under one or more secondary screen names if admins are informed at the time of registration that the screen name belongs to you, and if the screen name ends with an asterisk (*) so that other members will know it is not a primary name.

2. The right to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status.

3. The right to express one’s thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial.

4. The right to use adult language that is generally acceptable in written media.

5. The right to post free of disruptions caused by the personal disputes of others.

6. The right to serve as an administrator, mediator or juror and to run for elected office.

7. The right to create and register characters for use in the There and Back Again forum (a role-play forum).

8. The right to post in languages other than English in threads, ranks or signature texts.

9. The right to post in the Thinking of England forum (a forum restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older) without fear that information will be revealed irresponsibly or maliciously in other forums or outside Board77, and to be free of ridicule, provocation, or demeaning posts in that forum.

10. The right to post without fear of intentional insults that target your nationality, ethnicity, religion, native language, gender, age or sexual orientation.

11. The right to post without confronting advertising spam, pornographic pictures, sexually explicit conversation outside of the age-restricted forum, and pictures or conversations of an offensively violent or distasteful nature.

12. The right to speak freely regarding the shortcomings, ethical or practical, of any given law.

13. The right to a Hearing if you are accused of an offense for which a penalty may be assessed, as well as the right to appeal a Hearing under certain circumstances, and the right to petition for the reversal of a ban under certain circumstances. [You should refer to Article 4 of our Charter for a full explanation of your rights under any dispute procedure.]

14. The right to address a personal dispute with another member in the Bike Racks forum, if the other member agrees.

15. The right to attempt to resolve a personal dispute with another member through mediation if the other member agrees.

16. The right not to be harassed by any other member by PM, email, or any other means.

17. The right to be free of threats of real life violence or other criminal acts.

18. The right to petition the administrators for redress if you believe that your rights have been violated.


¶2: In order to create and preserve a culture and atmosphere that will ensure the above rights for all members of Board77, all members have the following responsibilities:

1. The responsibility to state truthfully your age for board access or entry into any forum with age restrictions and inform admins at the time of registration of any secondary screen names that the screen name belongs to you. Secondary screen names do not have the right to vote in polls or by email and will not be admitted to the Business Room.

2. The responsibility to treat all posters with courtesy and respect, regardless of their status.

3. The responsibility to show respect, forbearance and consideration for the context of the post, the feelings of others, and the value of contrasting viewpoints, when expressing one’s thoughts on any topic, no matter how controversial, as this is necessary for worthwhile conversation among adults.

4. The responsibility to refrain from unnecessary cursing or obscenities. We encourage everyone to use language that is clear and contributory (not spam or netspeak) without our having to restrict the expressions that are generally found in adult conversation.

5. The responsibility to resolve your own personal disputes in a productive fashion, and not to interfere with the resolution of other members personal disputes.

6. The responsibility to participate in the governance of the board whether simply by voting when a quorum is needed, or by serving in some official capacity.

7. The responsibility, if posting in the There and Back Again role-play forum, to do so in a way that does not prevent other characters from participating or unnecessarily stifles the creative options of other posters.

8. The responsibility not to use foreign language to conceal an insult against other posters or a violation of board rules. Posts in foreign languages should be translated upon request, preferably by several members, and the translations of posters should be trusted.

9. The responsibility not to reveal information from the Thinking of England forum irresponsibly or maliciously in other forums or outside Board77, and if posting in the Thinking of England forum, the responsibility to post prudently and not expose yourself to unnecessary harm, to keep that forum free of ridicule, provocation, or demeaning posts and to report violations of our by-laws to the administrators.

10. The responsibility not to makeintentional insults that target another member's nationality, ethnicity, religion, native language, gender, age or sexual orientation.

11. The responsibility to use good judgment in your own posts and keep them free of pornographic pictures, sexually explicit conversation outside of the age-restricted forum, gratuitous advertising, spam that would annoy any reasonable person, and pictures that would disgust or dismay any reasonable person.

12. The responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that your own computer is free of internet viruses and to not deliberately inflict damage on the board or the internet access of its members by hacking or deliberate introduction of viruses.

13. The responsibility to not use the board to solicit or encourage the participation of members in illegal activities.

14. The responsibility to abide by the decisions of our juries and to use proper procedure when contesting the decisions of administrators or jurors. You should refer to Article 4 of our Charter for a full explanation of your rights under any dispute procedure.

15. The responsibility not to use PM or email to harass other members of the board.

16. The responsibility not to make threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against any other member.

I'm just not sure, Voronwe.

I liked the original linking of right to responsibility, because it made clear how intertwined they are—for you to have your right, I must exercise my responsibility, and vice versa. It made the rights seem less like entitlements and the responsibilities less like burdens, because the organic relationship between them was more clear. We all must give this much in order to receive that much.

Or maybe my mind is twisted on this, and your way is clearer. I'd best get to bed!

Prim, I only ask that you think about it.

To me its clearer to have everything that people should be able to expect grouped together and everything that is expected of them also grouped together.

Well, I'm thinking about it, to the extent that I can. I am concerned that people will eagerly read the section on what they can expect and skip over, with a faint shudder, the section on what is expected of them.

But that may be my innate Lutheranism talking.

I had a look also V, I agree with Prim. What you've done is great and very clear, but it makes the whole thing read very long and I for one would be inclined to glaze over when I got about halfway through. I prefer the original structure.

As a matter of interest, how much longer are we discussing before the vote? I am starting to feel that this charter is causing us problems where there should be none. I'd like to call for a fast-track of the charter. At this stage I believe that the board would be better served with an OK charter that's delivered soon than a watertight one delivered later. So long as our provisions for altering the charter are in place and well thought out we are in a position to correct any small problems after we open.

This is not a slight on the great work done so far, but I do believe that relations are being strained by the level of detail we're going into and that the simpler we keep this, the better it will work in the long run.

Alatar