board77

Cerin--

Re D above, given that we had just mentioned a place called Deleted Thread Storage, it seemed fitting to note that wasn't where the thread would be going.

Agree with change to C. Prefer your wording for the emergency deletion clause...it looks so much more official.

In terms of the placeholders: you know, I no longer care enough to fight about it. It's not like I read edited threads on a regular basis, and future historians can take it up with you.

Cerin--
My one concern about putting the reminder text from the charter next to D is that it might make us look as if we are warning against it, as opposed to merely reminding people where the bar is.

Thanks for your forbearance, Ax.

Quote:

Re D above, given that we had just mentioned a place called Deleted Thread Storage, it seemed fitting to note that wasn't where the thread would be going.

Point taken. How about:

Delete the thread permanently.

(Forgive me, I just think the current wording sounds overly dramatic; I'd rather not scare people out of voting to delete if that's what they want to do.)

Quote:

My one concern about putting the reminder text from the charter next to D is that it might make us look as if we are warning against it, as opposed to merely reminding people where the bar is.

I thought it seemed more like a warning coming at the beginning like that. Perhaps some other committee members will have some input on this (I'm not adamant that it be changed).

I'm not married to it being in the beginning either. But I do want to avoid the appearance of coercion. Any input from others on which works better?

Cerin - I agree with you about the warning (actually, I agree with all your suggestions ). Perhaps the way to handle it is to make it a footnote to D) and say something like...

* According to the Charter, a thread may be deleted by boardwide vote if it seems necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

If you think this may be construed as an encouragement to vote for deletion, perhaps we could say "if (and only if)".

BTW, Ax, I hope you are not taking my nitpicking personally. I think you've done a great job of steering this committee. It's just that I am a compulsive nitpicker. It takes me 20 minutes to edit a 2-paragraph email.

Quote:

B) Edit the thread soley to replace all real life and screen names with anonymous placeholders. The disclaimer may also be changed (see adjunct ballot).

Couple of comments about this.

First, real life names should not be included, because they have already been removed. We should not be suggesting that members need to vote to delete real life names, as this would be an artificial inducement to select this option.

Second, all screen names? That was certainly not what my intention was. I certainly don't want my screen name removed. Surely we are just talking about non-member screen names. I would like to propose the following revised language:

Quote:

B) Edit the thread soley to replace all non-member screen names with anonymous placeholders (all real life names have already been removed). The disclaimer may also be changed (see adjunct ballot).

Once again my back is giving me huge problems, so I apologize for the paucity of comments about this. Two point for clarity and one for meaning.

re Clarity:

1. Do not have them vote at the very end for both Parts 1 and 2. Put the rank choices after Part 1, and the two chocies after Part 2. Call it question 1 and question 2 if you wish. I think, generally, the word Question will be clearer ... i.e. this is a two-question ballot.

2. Instead of saying "see adjunct ballot", say "see Part 2," or "see question 2."

re Meaning:

As to wording of the justification for thread deletion, I prefer Cerin or Frelga's formulation:

Note that according to the Charter, extraordinary deletion of a thread (as described in option D) is permitted if it seems necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

According to the Charter, a thread may be deleted by boardwide vote if it seems necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

I don't like the word "only" in there because the charter does not really say that. The emphasis is on needing a binding vote rather than needing a breah of peace or security. Peace and security were contemplated by the committee as reasons for needing to delete a thread but they were not intended to be an exhausive list, in my opinion. They are examplary of the seriousness of the issue, not exhaustive of it.

Jn

Ax, looking back at your revisions to the ballot, did you want to make that 'maintain' to 'retain' change that was suggested for option A?

Quote:

A) Leave the thread as is. No board-sanctioned action will be taken on the thread beyond possibly changing the disclaimer (see adjunct ballot). Members retain their right to edit their own posts in it.

In addition, I would suggest taking out 'in it' at the end, or if not, changing 'in it' to 'in the thread'.

Quote:

B) Edit the thread soley to replace all non-member screen names with anonymous placeholders (all real life names have already been removed). The disclaimer may also be changed (see adjunct ballot).

I support Voronwe's suggestion above, although I wonder if we could eliminate 'Edit the thread solely' :

B) Replace all non-member screen names in the thread with anonymous placeholders (all real life names have already been removed). The disclaimer may also be changed (see adjunct ballot).


I support Frelga's suggestion for option D, removing the warning from the top and putting it with option D:

D) Delete the thread from the board permanently.*
*According to the Charter, a thread may be deleted by boardwide vote if it seems necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

Also, I'm having some trouble with 'from the board'. How about this (if not, no big deal):

D) Delete the thread (it will be permanently removed from the board).*
*According to the Charter, a thread may be deleted by boardwide vote if it seems necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

Frelga wrote:

If you think this may be construed as an encouragement to vote for deletion, perhaps we could say "if (and only if)".

I would object to including 'if and only if'. I think without, it more closely reflects the language and intent of the Charter.

Jnyusa, sorry to hear your back is acting up again!

Quote:

Peace and security were contemplated by the committee as reasons for needing to delete a thread but they were not intended to be an exhausive list, in my opinion. They are examplary of the seriousness of the issue, not exhaustive of it.

Hmmm. That doesn't seem to be quite in line with Voronwe's take on it, but I will not speak for him. We are not a position here to make larger interpretations of the charter articles, so if the word "only" isn't in the Charter, I will remove it here.

Voronwe:

I was under the impression the option refered to depersonalizing the whole thing...am I alone in this? It seems odd to contemplate a thread where half the names are in and half out...

Frelga:

I'm used to it, my boss and I do it to each other all the time. I just don't do it as much here because I don't get paid for it.

gentle for jny...

I have made many of the changes requested and smoothed off some rough bits thus exposed. I would like to determine the extent of the screen name edit before changing it, though.

Axordil wrote:

I was under the impression the option refered to depersonalizing the whole thing...am I alone in this? It seems odd to contemplate a thread where half the names are in and half out...

I believe Voronwe is correct. The issue was the non-members being discussed. Naturally anyone here being talked to or about was able to answer for themselves.

The reason I asked about the inclusion was because, like Cerin, I read it as a warning against choosing deletion.

Quote:

Peace and security were contemplated by the committee as reasons for needing to delete a thread but they were not intended to be an exhausive list, in my opinion. They are examplary of the seriousness of the issue, not exhaustive of it.

That's what I think, too.
The peace and security question determines whether a binding vote is held.
Once the vote is held, the reasons people vote the way they do, really don't matter - if you vote for deletion for other reasons than peace and security, that's your choice, I think.
That's why I'm still not sure why it needs to be included at all - it reads like a warning, whether it's in the beginning or in the option itself.

Quote:

I was under the impression the option refered to depersonalizing the whole thing...am I alone in this? It seems odd to contemplate a thread where half the names are in and half out...

I think it should refer to all names where someone is being talked about. I.e., when it says in a post: "Voronwe said", that needn't be edited, but if it says: "compare the reasons for which we invited Voronwe" - that would need to be edited.

Ax, you're doing a wonderful job of incorporating all these changes.

Quote:

D) Delete the thread. This is a permanent deletion. According to the Charter, deletion of a thread is permitted, via a binding vote of the membership, if necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

I think it is important to use the Charter language here ('if it seems necessary'), and I think Frelga's wording is preferrable, and I would suggest parenthesizing the second sentence:

D) Delete the thread (this is a permanent deletion). According to the Charter, a thread may be deleted by boardwide vote if it seems necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

hobby--

That actually strikes me as fairer, although I don't know how much practical difference it will make.

I think that's the best version yet for the last option!


(Oh, and for Jny - get well soon!)

Edit:

Quote:

That actually strikes me as fairer, although I don't know how much practical difference it will make.

What does, Ax?

Oh fine, seems it is. It's just that there is no word more prone to abuse...but I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Gentle for Jn.

hobby--

That if someone is mentioned or discussed, their name is removed, but if they are actively doing the discussing, it stays.

Some side notes--can someone edit a post of theirs in a locked thread? If so, how would an edited thread be locked down to prevent tampering?

Quote:

D) Delete the thread (this is a permanent deletion). According to the Charter, a thread may be deleted by boardwide vote if it seems necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

That is oddly worded. Isn't it always necessary to preserve the peace, etc of the board? Wouldn't it make more sense to say "if it disrupts"?

Otherwise, good job Ax. Feel better Jn.

Axordil wrote:

Oh fine, seems it is. It's just that there is no word more prone to abuse...but I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

You know, I agree. Err... "deemed nececssary"?

TED, my impression is that the wording is lifted from the Charter, which says "preserve".

ETA for Jny. Hope you feel better soon.