board77

Eru--

Yes, I realize compromise is exatly why options B and C were included. I don't object to compromise, as long as it appropriate.

I object to option C because I think it is a false compromise. It is deletion is all but name. It will have the same effect as deletion.

I object to option B because I think it introduces an issue that hasn't been considered carefully enough yet. The editing of usernames from posts is really a complicated thorny issue and I don't think that's being respected with the inclusion of this option in a ballot that is supposed to be about the revote on the deletion question.

To put it plainly, I don't object to options B and C because they are compromises. I object to them because I think they are inappropriate. I should also add that I don't think that an option being a compromise should protect it from being removed from the ballot.

Faramond,

Thanks for giving me something to focus on.


B) Replace the screen names of individuals indirectly referred to in the discussion with the anonymous placeholder ***** (real-life names have already been removed). The disclaimer may also be changed (see Question Two).

I agree the committee overstepped what I also consider its boundaries. However there is an aspect of the thread (and others) that has made me uncomfortable. Harsh personal statements about people who cannot respond because they were not and could not be members trouble me. I do feel it is appropriate to make statements and identify people acting in an official capacity. In our context, I mean it is OK to be harsh in the discussion of official actions by owners, mods, and admins of another board using their screen names. (B) isn't specific enough for what I might have considered a legitimate action. I agree that it should be removed.


C) Replace names as in B) above, and then move the edited thread to Deleted Thread Storage. Only Rangers and the Mayor can access files in this area. The disclaimer may also be changed (see Question Two).

This shares the problems of (B) and adds the problem of virtual deletion, as you said. I agree with you that it should be removed.


D) Delete the thread (the thread will be removed permanently; it will not be moved to Deleted Thread Storage). According to the Charter, a thread may be deleted by boardwide vote if deemed necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

I think the first sentence is sufficient.

I vehemently object to the Charter citation. I think other parts of the Charter address how we are to deal with problem threads, posts, and posters. I think they are far more applicable to this situation and should have been exercised. The citation of the Charter is being used to hide the fact that we didn't have the guts to approach this problem properly.

I would expect the cited part of the Charter to be used for protection from external threats, like lawsuits. I think its use here is totally inappropriate.

Well, I am definitely a negligent voter. I looked at this but did not see it until Faramond reposted it:

C) Replace names as in B) above, and then move the edited thread to Deleted Thread Storage. Only Rangers and the Mayor can access files in this area. The disclaimer may also be changed (see Question Two).

The Mayor cannot access that forum. Only the Rangers can.

Faramond: This option is in essence deletion, and deletion is covered in a straightforward way in option D.

Hmm, that's interesting logic. I am personally opposed to this option (though not to its inclusion on the ballot) because it is not deletion but is a guarantee that lots and lots of people will eventually see the thread. Imagine someone coming here six months from now from the .. um, Led Zeppelin fansite, joining the Ranger pool and then coming upon this thread in deleted thread storage. How on earth will we explain why it is there?

Well, gee, we felt, like, REALLY BAD about the stuff in this thread and we just didn't know what to do about it. So we put the thread in the closet.

I have two tennis rackets in my closet that my Dad bought for my daughters when they were about 8 and 10 years old. The rackets are too small for them now, and they never, ever play tennis. But meanwhile my Dad died and I just can't bring myself to throw those mementos away.


Jn

Faramond - and IS, good points on the wider repercussions of options B & C.

I guess I did not object to them because...well...because I don't intend to vote for either of them and myopically, as long as the option I want is there I didn't look further.

I'm particularly convinced by your arguments against Option B because the precedent it would set opens the door just a crack to maverick redaction in future. Option C is unpalatable to me, but hey - if it carries the day, then I guess it's what people want no matter the potential fallout.

As I said though - I have the option I need on this ballot so I won't make waves. I tend to drown in waves even when I think the water's safe.

IdylleSeethes wrote:

D) Delete the thread (the thread will be removed permanently; it will not be moved to Deleted Thread Storage). According to the Charter, a thread may be deleted by boardwide vote if deemed necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

I think the first sentence is sufficient.

I vehemently object to the Charter citation. I think other parts of the Charter address how we are to deal with problem threads, posts, and posters. I think they are far more applicable to this situation and should have been exercised. The citation of the Charter is being used to hide the fact that we didn't have the guts to approach this problem properly.

I would expect the cited part of the Charter to be used for protection from external threats, like lawsuits. I think its use here is totally inappropriate.

It was I who insisted that this language be included in this option. Whether or not there are other Charter provisions that could be applied to this situation, there are no other Charter provisions that would justify taking the extreme step of deleting this thread altogether. I strongly believe that people need to know that they should only vote for this option if they believe that deleting the thread is in fact necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

I find your statement that "The citation of the Charter is being used to hide the fact that we didn't have the guts to approach this problem properly" to be both nonsensical and personally insulting. Indeed, I find your increasingly scornful comments regarding people's sincere efforts to address a sensitive and difficult issue to be most disturbing. It is impossible, in my opinion, to disagree about how to approach something like this without being so vituperative.

As to the purpose of this discussion, I disagree without the comment that it is to address the language of the ballot. That was the committee's job. The purpose of this discussion is to discuss which options should be voted for, not which options should be included.

I agree with the arguments against options B and C, and personally believe (as I stated in the committee) that the decision should be between deleting it completely, or keeping the status quo. So while I disagree that options B and C should be removed from the ballot (on the grounds that there is no reason to even have a committee if its hard work can simply be undone by the comments a few other members) I will strongly urge people not to vote for either B or C.

As for the choice between A and D, it is a difficult one. Unfortunately, the thread is already a pale reflection of what it once was, since so many posts have already been deleted by the threadstarter and others. What was once a very valuable discussion which (IMHO) should have taken its place among the threads of historical interest (where I personally think all of the "controversial threads" should have gone) is now an unintelligible mish-mash. Thus the value of the thread has been greatly reduced.

I therefore believe that the best course of action is to get rid of it and let the community move beyond this unfortunate affair.

Idylle, in the thread on editing wrote:

There is a part of the current situation that is a little off center from a dispute between members. Several of the injured parties were not members at the time the statements were made. Some are still not. What does that cause?

Among other things, the biggest case of hypocrisy I have witnessed in several years. It was OK to have the words around when they couldn’t respond to them but it is criminal to leave the words exposed now that they can read them and react to them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Idylle, you just don't get it, do you? There is no hypocrisy here. There is not a single person who has said that the thread should go because now the people involved can read them and react to them, and we don't want to deal with that. The people in question have read the thread in question, and the only reaction that has been shared with us is that the continued presence of the thread is causing personal hurt, both for the people in question, and their friends who are members here. Given the fact that the value of the thread has been greatly reduced as I discussed above, I believe that the threat to the peace and security of the community that this personal hurt is causing is enough to justify deleting the thread.

To both Voronwe's posts above.

IdylleSeethes wrote:

The citation of the Charter is being used to hide the fact that we didn't have the guts to approach this problem properly.

I would dearly love to understand what this proper approach would have been, in your view, Idylle. If I don't understand what that approach is, if it is not even apparent to me, then it isn't a matter of a lack of guts that prevents me from taking it.

Quote:

I would expect the cited part of the Charter to be used for protection from external threats, like lawsuits. I think its use here is totally inappropriate.

My understanding was that we included the citation so that people would understand what the grounds were for a thread to be deleted. In my mind, it was partly to assure those such as yourself who were against deletion that this option had some basis in the Charter, and was not completely capricious.

Quote:

Among other things, the biggest case of hypocrisy I have witnessed in several years. It was OK to have the words around when they couldn’t respond to them but it is criminal to leave the words exposed now that they can read them and react to them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not sure hypocrisy is quite the right word to describe the willingness to say things behind people's backs that you aren't willing to say to their face. However, I believe you are mistaken about an aversion to reactions being in play here. I don't believe a desire to avoid responses to the things said is at issue here. The point is that leaving the thread visible is hurtful to those who were discussed and members here who are close to them.

Bravo, Voronwe!

ETA: you and Cerin make my life here much too easy.

Voronwe: I agree with the arguments against options B and C, and personally believe (as I stated in the committee) that the decision should be between deleting it completely, or keeping the status quo. So while I disagree that options B and C should be removed from the ballot (on the grounds that there is no reason to even have a committee if its hard work can simply be undone by the comments a few other members) I will strongly urge people not to vote for either B or C.

Why have discussion of the ballot if the work of the committee is immune to alteration?

Is there, in fact, any provision for altering the ballot once the committee has decided what it will be? How would the ballot be altered now?

I suppose it can't, which means this thread seems to have no purpose. Why was it started in the first place?


I strongly believe that people need to know that they should only vote for this option if they believe that deleting the thread is in fact necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

True peace is established through discussion and transparanency, not enforcement. I think it is a mistake for the Charter to include "preservation of peace" as a grounds for deleting a thread. There is always a better way. If a discussion or a thread is truly disruptive it can be moved to the bike racks, and those who wish for peace will then have it, and those who want controversy can slug it out in the racks.


As for the choice between A and D, it is a difficult one. Unfortunately, the thread is already a pale reflection of what it once was, since so many posts have already been deleted by the threadstarter and others. What was once a very valuable discussion which (IMHO) should have taken its place among the threads of historical interest (where I personally think all of the "controversial threads" should have gone) is now an unintelligible mish-mash. Thus the value of the thread has been greatly reduced.

I therefore believe that the best course of action is to get rid of it and let the community move beyond this unfortunate affair.

But Voronwe, what I don't see in your reason for supporting option D is how this thread threatens the peace of the board. You argue that the thread is virtually valueless. But the Charter does not list valuelessness as a possible justification or consideration in deleting a thread. I think decisions to forcibly delete or edit should always be made independent of the perceived value of a post. And you say that you believe only the reasons listed in the charter are legitimate reasons to vote to delete the thread.

Faramond wrote:

[Why have discussion of the ballot if the work of the committee is immune to alteration?

Is there, in fact, any provision for altering the ballot once the committee has decided what it will be? How would the ballot be altered now?

I suppose it can't, which means this thread seems to have no purpose. Why was it started in the first place?

I don't know if the ballot can be altered now and I hope the Loremasters spell it out here. I asked the same question in the committee, and my understanding is that the main purpose is for people to campaign for their preferred option.

Yes, it appears it is a campaign thread. I suppose that's why it was started, then. Fair enough, though even if nothing can be done I still object to options B and C.

Faramond wrote:

Voronwe: I agree with the arguments against options B and C, and personally believe (as I stated in the committee) that the decision should be between deleting it completely, or keeping the status quo. So while I disagree that options B and C should be removed from the ballot (on the grounds that there is no reason to even have a committee if its hard work can simply be undone by the comments a few other members) I will strongly urge people not to vote for either B or C.

Why have discussion of the ballot if the work of the committee is immune to alteration?

Is there, in fact, any provision for altering the ballot once the committee has decided what it will be? How would the ballot be altered now?

I suppose it can't, which means this thread seems to have no purpose. Why was it started in the first place?

Faramond, as usual, you ask good questions. In actuality, the Charter does provide, in ¶2 of Article 7:

Quote:

The ballot may be modified in response to member comments, and the request for a vote may also be withdrawn during this period.

What is not provided for is a mechanism for modifying the ballot in response to member comments. It is always my fear that these types of procedures will devolve into anarchy. I would say that the unspoken part of this rule is that there would need to be a clear consensus in support of the modification before it can be made. Otherwise, the membership discussion really does negate the work of he committee.

To me, the main purpose of the "discussion of the ballot" is a "campaign thread". Or rather, its an opportunity for people to explain why they believe certain result is the best result, and an opportunity for other people to consider these reasons before voting.

The ironic thing is that the proposed change to the ballot is actually a change that I myself proposed in the committee (but after we had substantially voted on the ballot in the committee). I suppose having had the suggestion turned down once, I was not anxious to support the same change at this stage. However, if it does appear that there is a strong concensus for eliminating that portion of the ballot, I would support doing so. But I think there are at least as many people that would like to keep those options as there are people who agree with us that they should be eliminated.

Quote:

I strongly believe that people need to know that they should only vote for this option if they believe that deleting the thread is in fact necessary to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board.

True peace is established through discussion and transparanency, not enforcement. I think it is a mistake for the Charter to include "preservation of peace" as a grounds for deleting a thread. There is always a better way. If a discussion or a thread is truly disruptive it can be moved to the bike racks, and those who wish for peace will then have it, and those who want controversy can slug it out in the racks.

Whether or not the Charter should include such a provision is another question altogether. I happen to believe that it should, but would be open to consider other views. However, this is not the place for that discussion. The point is that it does so provide. As such, those are the rules we should follow. Otherwise, why have any rules?

Quote:

As for the choice between A and D, it is a difficult one. Unfortunately, the thread is already a pale reflection of what it once was, since so many posts have already been deleted by the threadstarter and others. What was once a very valuable discussion which (IMHO) should have taken its place among the threads of historical interest (where I personally think all of the "controversial threads" should have gone) is now an unintelligible mish-mash. Thus the value of the thread has been greatly reduced.

I therefore believe that the best course of action is to get rid of it and let the community move beyond this unfortunate affair.

But Voronwe, what I don't see in your reason for supporting option D is how this thread threatens the peace of the board. You argue that the thread is virtually valueless. But the Charter does not list valuelessness as a possible justification or consideration in deleting a thread. I think decisions to forcibly delete or edit should always be made independent of the perceived value of a post. And you say that you believe only the reasons listed in the charter are legitimate reasons to vote to delete the thread.

More good questions! Let my try to elaborate. The existence of the thread is causing continued distress to a number of our members who are friends with the people who are upset about the continued existence of the thread. If the thread remains in place it will likely to continue to cause friction between members and to be a continual sore point.

Even so, if the thread had not already been emasculated I would still argue that its value to the community as a thread of historical interest outweighed the threat that it posed to the peace of the community. So the valuelessness of the thread in itself is not the reason to edit it, but it does contribute to the extent that I believe it would need threaten the peace or security of the community in order to justify deletion.

But I really can't state this with a high degree of certainty. I find this a very challenging issue, and I want to also make it clear that I do find your reasoning persuasive.

Voronwe and Cerin,

1. You haven't been involved in the discussion, so you probably don't know, but I actually agree that something very harmful was done, both to ourselves and to the targets, when those harsh words were expressed.

I believe the board and its individual members owe something to the injured and it needs to have some substance. Among my opinions of the current activity is that it is what we called "eyewash" in the Army. Just put it out of sight and pretend it never happened. That isn't the right thing to do and it isn't enough.

The words have been said. The damage has been done. What needs to be done now is what I hope you learned to do as a child when you did something unpleasant.


The substantive things that could have been done include:

- Apologies to the injured from those who expressed the harsh words.

I have no way to cause this to happen and not being a party to the events of the past, I am in no position to judge who was right and who was wrong. It would have been a nice gesture. A way to show our quality.

- Apology from the board.

Impenitent tried this approach and got almost no support. I think that was unfortunate.

- Apologies from the individual members.

We are a collection of individuals, but we are all members of a group from which something hurtful seems to have been done. We have no authority to speak for each other, but we can speak for ourselves. Someone was kind enough to connect me with one of the injured parties. From within the limits of my sphere of control, I have apologized as best as I could. It is all I can do and it isn't enough.

- Formal action internally

I seem to be the only one who thinks that in order to do something as extreme as removing a thread, or deleting a post, that there must be a formal finding that something wrong was done. That hasn't happened. I have suggested it several times and I don't think anyone has even acknowledged it. A lot like Impenitent's call for an apology.

The words that are in the thread are just a means of conveying a sentiment. Removing the words not only doesn't change the fact that they were said, but does nothing to address the underlying cause of their existence. I consider the underlying problem infinitely more important than the words themselves. You can't make someone take back or regret the words, but you can say by your actions that you disagree with what was done. Sidestepping the correct approach shows that you don't take this problem seriously.


2. "Hypocrisy" is the best word I can think of for a situation in which there was no concern expressed for the harsh words until it was time to open the board and let the world see what we were really like. Taking the wrong aproach to this makes it even more so.



I can't stop you from proceeding with the "eyewash" approach to this problem. If you happen to succeed, I don't think you will have done anything worthwhile.

If you want to expend your energy on a vote, take up Impenitent's suggestion, and vote on a resolution that properly conveys to the injured our regret that this incident ever happened and leave sweeping things under the rug to the maintenance crew.


Its easy to call me insensitive and claim that I don't understand, but I think I have examined this problem in depth from several perspectives and that those words are unfair.

Idylle, the injured parties themselves are the ones that have requested this "eyewash" approach to this problem. Does that not mean anything to you?

As for apologizing, I am all for that, but it must be an individual decision. For myself, there is no reason for me to apologize, because I am one of those that spoke up in support of the individuals in question at the time that it happened, and spoke up against bad mouthing people who weren't there to defend themselves (not just in that thread, either).

I don't believe that a legislated apology would mean a damn thing to these people. It certainly would not mean anything to me.

As I stated above, I have a very low degree of certainty on this issue. I think there are very strong arguments both in favor and against deleting the thread. You on the other hand, have a very high degree of certainty that your way of looking at the issue is the only rational way of looking at it. I do not dispute that you have examined this problem in depth from several perspectives. But you are not the only one to have done so. I don't think that you are insensitive (and I don't think I used that word), but I do think that it is unfortunate that you are not willing to accept that other rational people have also thought alot about this dilemna and are not quite as sure that they know what the right answer is.

Idylle, I like and respect you alot, and that has certainly not changed. I hope that my words have not caused you to reevaluate your good opinion of me.

Faramond wrote:

Yes, it appears it is a campaign thread. I suppose that's why it was started, then. Fair enough, though even if nothing can be done I still object to options B and C.

Fair enough yourself. My opinion is that the options should not be removed at this point, although I suppose if a fabulous new option were identified it could be added, or wording could be change to avoid confusion. If people agree that an option doesn't make sense, they won't vote for it, but I don't think we should remove the possibility of a choice unless something in the Charter demands it (and that, to me, is a marginal excuse).

TehIdyllicOne wrote:

- Apologies to the injured from those who expressed the harsh words.

I have no way to cause this to happen and not being a party to the events of the past, I am in no position to judge who was right and who was wrong. It would have been a nice gesture. A way to show our quality.

I agree completely.

I also agree with Voronwe - I can't see myself participating in any apology either from the board or as an individual. I can only express my own liking and respect for the affected parties.

However, I have great respect for your being moved to make personal contact.

Quote:

there was no concern expressed for the harsh words until it was time to open the board and let the world see what we were really like.

I don't think this is right, Idylle. Even in the thread itself, there were fair words spoken.

However, you remind of an important point that influenced the committee's decision on a revote. During the original vote discussion, there were posts that stated as a fact that the affected parties have already read that wretched thread while the board was closed. So, the reasoning went, it would no further harm to keep it nor any good to delete it. In reality, it turned out that the affected parties did NOT see the contents of the thread until the board was open.

Quote:

If you want to expend your energy on a vote, take up Impenitent's suggestion, and vote on a resolution that properly conveys to the injured our regret that this incident ever happened and leave sweeping things under the rug to the maintenance crew.

But Idylle, it appears that the existance of the thread itself is causing an injury. One of the concerns that were related to us from the affected parties was that those words were there on the board for all the world to see. I can see why that would be frustrating to me - to know that every new member who's never met me before would read this thread and form an opinion about me based on the words in it. That, BTW, was the reasoning behind the option to move the thread into storage.

Faramond asked if discussion here could actually change the charter, and though I don't remember, and haven't read every bit of the charter, I simply assumed that discussion of a ballot could change it because otherwise the discussion would be pointless. Moving along, Faramond, do you object to B & C themselves, or their presense on the ballot?

Idylle wrote:

- Apologies to the injured from those who expressed the harsh words.

I believe some people have extended their apologies, but I can't say for certainty.

Idylle wrote:

- Apology from the board.

I still don't agree with this. Some on this board have done nothing wrong, and I see no reason to apologize when you have done nothing wrong. Personally, I don't even think I posted in the wilko thread, and to my knowledge I have not offended, or insulted any of the injured parties.

Idylle wrote:

- Formal action internally

What more of a finding can be found than "the thread disrupts the peace, etc"? Should we form an investigation committee when perceived wrongs are committed? I'm not disagreeing, just asking.

TED, I stated before that I objected to B and C being on the ballot. I don't agree with D but don't want it stripped from the ballot!

Voronwe reminded me of what I should have known, that the ballot may be changed, thought the mechanism for this is not given. I would suggest that the committee members themselves would be the ones to change it, if they saw a widespread consensus that one of the options or the form of the vote was thought very poor. I think Voronwe said that he sees no such broad consensus forming yet and I agree with that.

I do hold out some hope that option C may still be junked, for it really feels inappropriate to me, and Jn has made perhaps the best and most down to earth argument on this (though I'm not sure she was arguing it should be junked) when she pointed out that from the perspective of all the people who will take turns as Rangers it won't be deletion but a rather odd and unfortunate "stashing away" of the thread. Frankly I'd rather see the thread deleted then have it exist is this pointless and perplexing limbo.

Voronwe, regarding my challenge of the "peace of the board" clause, you correctly state that we are not debating the language of the Charter. But, this vote will set a precedent in how far we are willing to go for the "peace of the board", and I don't think that should be overlooked.

Yes, I certainly agree that the question of what constitutes "peace of the Board" is a very relevant question to this issue, and not a simple one to answer, either.

And I couldn't agree with you more about option C. There was another option that the committee considered and ultimately rejected (at my urging, if I can be so bold as to say), which involved "hiding" thread and doing nothing else. The current option C at least involves some other action other then just hiding it away. Still, the same basic rationale that justified the jettisoning of the other option really does apply to this one too. As Jn has already eloquently expressed.

Idylle, thank you for explaining.

The problem with a board apology is that some vociferously objected to that idea when it was brought up in the previous discussion.

I can certainly see the arguments against options B and C. Perhaps there will be some other members stopping in, and we will see the kind of consensus build that would allow those options to be removed from the ballot.