board77

Imp, I'm sorry to come so late to this discussion. It was just one too many things for me to keep track of, I guess.

I remember being persuaded by Prim about the three-month, 100 post count restriction. However, I no longer remember the reasons; my natural reaction is that the limit we have now -- that a person has to ask for access -- perfectly matches the reasoning I understand for ToE to be restricted: so people who don't want to encounter sex talk don't have to.

I'm afraid I'm not really following the finer points of this discussion, re what should be in a new poll. If you put up the same choices as last time (with a few post count options) I see no reason to think the same thing won't happen again.

Why are the ToE posters not in here advocating for something? That's what I really wanted to hear in the initial discussion, but there was very little input. I would probably support whatever ToE posters wanted, if they would only come and say what they want.

I think the lack of participation justifies taking this to committee. What we offer could then be presented with the rest of the votes, perhaps it would be carried along in the final wave of ratifications.

Yoohoo, I'm a ToE poster, and I'm for the 100/3 solution - both to ward off the hotshots and the lazies (and to open the gates for oldbie spammers).

I'm all against any mentoring. Seeking a mentor would be an insult to the independency of posters necessary on this board.

Thanks! I'm convinced.

I don't think it makes any difference (once all the percentages are added) whether we start with the most stringent or the least stringent option at the top, but I'm content to bow to the majority and commence with the most stringent.

I'll amend the poll which is STILL A DRAFT POLL at this stage! If anyone new comes in with some good reasoning for adding something else or rearranging the poll, I will of course take new opinion into account. But the time is nigh.

That's pretty much right, except remember that it's two-thirds, which is 66-2/3%.

Prim, 66% of membership must vote to make it a quorum...and then the supermajority vote that ratifies the clause is 80% of that 66%.

Yes?

Not quite, Imp. Exactly 39 votes makes a quorum (this was decided back at the beginning of the process). Of those 39 or more votes, 66-2/3% (not 66%) is the required supermajority.

So if exactly 39 people vote, 26 votes (precisely two-thirds) is the required supermajority. If 73 people vote, we need 49 votes for the supermajority (48.6666... rounded up to 49).

Thanks.

Will amend first post to include that information.

I will admit I always find these vote things kind of confusing.

Just to be clear we are discussing Article 3. We are not voting on it yet right?

Wilma, we're discussing clause 3 of Article 6. Most of Article 6 has already been ratified, and the vote on just this clause will be open for voting this coming Saturday and will be open for 10 days.

In the meantime, yes, your thoughts and opinions and suggestions are very welcome!

What is the rationale behind the new ballot?

Did the other vote fail to garner 2/3 because the vote split between two options?

Was the first step in writing a new ballot to eliminate the option that got less votes?

Why are we not simply preceding with the option that got the most votes, and seeing if that will pass?

Maybe they are hoping with the new discussion people could possibly change their minds. I will admit I was for the sponsorship thing, since on another board I have seen a person fake their way into peoples hearts. Most people liked him (including me) Then he went nuts. That is when I learned the damage that can be caused by being a frequent editor of posts. There was a lot of dirt that I did not see or learn about until later. It was scary. He got 10 000 posts in 8 months. THen he ended up getting banned. Most of his victims do not even want to to talk about it. This was just a general SciFi board too, and it was mainly verbal abuse.

I shudder to think what wuould have happened if there was a TOE forum. There were a few people who saw that he had anger issues. For this reason alone, I think we should have some form of sponsorship. That way if anyone within the forum wants to block entry into the forum they can. I am very concerned about the legal aspects too (like posting of illegal images, people coming on there soliciting for illegal things like GHB, discussing a sexually oriented crime)you never know who can come on there since it's the internet. But no one from TOE seems to be concerned. Am I just being to paranoid?

I don't know, maybe only those with ToE access should be the ones to decide this?

I am really curious as to the exact nature of that first vote, that is, who voted for which option and why.

I have access to TOE but do not post there.

Yet.



I voted for the 3month/100 post option. First (and most importantly) because I think it sufficient time for new posters to become known to existing TOE members. And secondly, because new posters would have time to acclimate to the board.

I don't particularly care for the idea of sponsorship. (too similar to invites) although I really believe that active TOE posters should decide what criteria to use when admitting new members.

Edit: becase I cant spel

The first vote on this clause was basically split between the two options with neither getting a super-majority and, unfortunately, due to the way I had structured the options, it was not clear whether either option would have held sway alone.

This vote is because the overwhelming number of votes indicated that SOME eligibility requirement is preferred (very few people voted BOTH clauses down).

Wilma, a troll in ToE would not last long; the other clauses make it clear that any misbehaviour earns a swift ban from that forum and the other mechanisms in place in the charter would come into play if a poster acted trollishly generally. I think little havoc could be wrought by sucha one, and only briefly.

Cerin, I also asked people to offer explanations of how they voted so that we could take account of their opinions in this new vote. Unfortunately few have done so. Few ToE posters have weighed in with opinion this time round - perhaps because they feel they've already said their piece in the previous discussion (which is a pity, as this clause is so very SPECIFIC)?

I don't know. I DO know that an eligibility clause of some sort (even if it states only that there are no further eligibility requirements than those already in place for the board) is necessary because the last vote indicated that the great majority of voters see that as desirable.

Iin view of Wilma's concerns (and others have previously expressed them also), I think I may add yet another option to the poll, offering the greatest stringency in eligibility. I doubt it will attract support, but it wil be there so there can be no doubting later than greater stringency may have been supported if only it was offered.

Imp, is there any reason you are not just offering the simple, 3-month/100 post option for ratification?

Erm. I am. It's option B.

*checks first post*

Yep. It's option B, being the next less-stringent option after 3 months, 100 posts and sponsorship.

Well considering I do not have access to the TOE forum, I feel like I am just being overbearing, but if I get permission for it just so I vouch for the sponsorship thing (as someone who has acess to TOE) I will do it.

The thing with that guy was that he would post something rude, with just enough time for a person to read it and then edit it so quickly a person could not really say well person X said this to me!!! Because by then it would have been edited. He was quite popular too, so a victim could not count on being beleived (this went on for months). It was through that case I also learned the power of the quote function too. It got to be so bad that a poster learned how to copy threads onto boards so that the perpetrator could get caught if he was editing (which he did).

Also I had learned that a particular poster was concerned with having sponsorship.

Thank You for answering my questions about extreme wackos. I feel better.

So who do I ask about getting permission to TOE?

Until we open, it's still simple, Wilma: PM any admin and state that you're over 18.