board77

Okay.

I'm clear now: the revote decision has already been made, so now we're discussing the ballot options.

Well, assuming that the ballot in the FIRST POST is the most recent one, then - I think the two questions and the options presented cover it all just fine.

I like the ballot as it stands.

Yep... ballot in FIRST POST is the recent one that Ax asked to be posted.

Impenitent,

I was really thanking you for expressing what is, in my view, the correct opinion.


Jnyusa,

I'm not actually opposed to revotes. You might remember in the committee I started out with the idea that revotes shouldn't be limited and it may have been you that convinced me otherwise.

I strongly believe in the connection between rights and responsibilities. Simply doing something because you can is the attitude of a thug.

I expect people to act responsibly. Millions of us are entrusted to get into our cars every day on the assumption we will do reasonable things while we are in control. Nothing stops us from doing any number of unreasonable things. We don't expect someone driving down a quiet country road to suddenly spin the steering wheel and take off through the cornfield. That isn't rational.


Voronwe,

Rational people are capable of doing irrational things.


Axordil,

Unfortunately, I wasn't in the mood to discuss this issue for the nth time. Everything that needed to be said has already been said multiple times and we have already voted. To avoid proving my statement to Voronwe (above), I stayed away. It was already obvious that my prior participation in discussing this issue was irrelevant.


Cerin,

I'm distressed enough for both of us. Please see my rights and responsibilities statement to Jnyusa (above).

I understand and agree on the deletion of invite threads. There was a part of the Wilko thread that could have been argued to have fallen under that rule. No one seems to have pursued that idea, although it is probably the only legitimate reason for changing the thread. There isn't a strong argument against that claim, although I would have still hoped to preserve the thread.


tolkienpurist,

Thank you.


Axordil (2)

The only unforseen consequence was this vote.


Frelga,

Have you lost your sense of humor?

I would also like to repeat what I have said to you before in a PM and I think publicly. We have disagreed on this and I will continue to do so, but I respect you, your consistency, and your reasons.

Idylle:

The discussion on whether to have a vote is over. We're having one. Please discuss the issue at hand--the contents of the ballot and their merits--or start another thread.

Ax, may I respectfully say that that hardly seems fair, as Idylle was responding to remarks addressed to him.

I think everyone is being commendably restrained, under the circumstances.

Frelga, dahling, you make me blush.

Cerin: true. I will make a more general annoucement to that effect.

EVERYONE: this thread is NOT for discussing the merits of having a revote. It is for discussing the options on the ballot. Please move discussions on whether revotes should exist in general, or whether this one should exist in specific, to another thread, so that the business of this thread can proceed.

Cerin, mission accomlished.

Idylle, it's not personal. Strictly speaking, it's not even business. As you observed, we disagree, but that does not affect the respect I have for you.

And I have finally figured out why this issue was bothering me so. I mean, I read the thread when I first got here, went and and a few times. None of that had anything to do with me, merely individual posters expressing individual opinions.

Ah, but then there was that vote on the "controversial threads". I chose not to vote, as I felt that it is not my business to dispose of someone else's posts. But the very fact that these threads came up for the vote change my perception of them. To me, they were no longer individual opinions - the board as a whole voted them to be valuable and significant. In my mind, suddenly there was my signature on them, and I am not at all comfortable with that.

And yes, I know that most people voted to keep those threads out of respect for the right of each poster to post without being tampered with.

ETA: And I recall many thoughtful, fair comments in the thread in question. However, as strongly as Idylle feels about the intrinsic value of every letter ever typed, I feel just as strongly about taking part in perpetuating mean-spirited comments made in the heat of the moment and in the perceived privacy of a closed messageboard. Let me make this clear, I do not dispute anybody's right to make those remarks. But if I am asked the question "should we keep them", I cannot with the clear conscience answer yes.

Since the basis for my reaction has been removed, most won't understand why I took the time to write the following statement. I think it is worth posting because others may decide to cut me off for the same reason.

Also, several things about this incident are entwined with my basis for considering thread and post deletion and modification abhorrent.


Axordil,

You have just participated in revising history by censoring your own post.

Rather than quote what you deleted, I offer the following, but you can feel free to correct any misstatement on my part in my interpretation:

Quote:

Axordil invited me to take my opinion elswhere.

I'm sorry you considered my post irrelevant. I assume you were reacting to my statements about the legitimacy of the revote from before the convening of the committee. My statement must seem harsh to the leader of the committee. I followed the committee closely and I thought you handled it very well.

Please reconsider what I said in my last post. I responded to 8 posts from 7 posters:

- It was completely made up of direct responses to statements made to or about me in this thread, including yours

- Most of them relate directly to the coming vote

- One was a statement supportive of a committee member's position on the future of the subject thread that opposes mine

- One was a statement that I agree there is a legitimate reason for discarding at least part of the subject thread, which is supportive of those who oppose my position

- One was to correct a committee member's stated impression that I was calling anyone irrational

- One was to correct a committee member's misstatement of my view of revotes. I'm not against them

- One was to agree with a committee member on her statement about invite threads


I don't think I deserve being AXED for that.


I hadn't planned on making legitimacy the cornerstone of an argument on this vote, but it is a perfectly valid position for the loyal opposition to take and still participate in the discussion and the vote.

I understand that I don't have a right to call for the impeachment of the committee, a coup, or many other remedies in this thread, but I do have a right to argue for killing the subject thread or leaving it exposed in its now wretched condition. I didn't realize we had a rule limiting discussion to only a part of the history of the issue. The premise of the revote is not unassailable and irrelevant to the discussion. It is perfectly reasonable to take this into account when voting.

So far as I can tell, this discussion is about the past and future of a specific thread. What aspects of this have been declared impertinent? Where are they stated? Are the limits enforceable? If so, will the limits on the discussion be enforced fairly or are they just for me?

You are the second member of the committee to express that my opinion about the future of the subject thread is unwanted. What part of the following do I misunderstand?

Quote:

We aspire to maintain a culture of respect, equality
and openness.

Our Key Principles
Free Exchange of Ideas
Diversity
Fellowship
Transparency
Self-Governance

Well said IS.

Guys, IS has every right to his opinion and it has a bearing on the discussion here. This is the correct place for it. I will not be splitting the thread unless there are personal attacks, which has not happened.

Please, show a little respect for opinions other than your own.

Alatar

Well, I personally think that discussion of the ballot includes discussion of the options and not just discussion of the wording. I'm afraid that my comments earlier may have led Ax to interpret our purpose here more narrowly than it need be.

If people can stand to do it and if we can remain objective, I think that it would be beneficial for those who have changed their minds to state why they have done so (a la Frelga's earlier post) and for those who have not changed their minds to state likewise. Those who want to speak about it should speak.

Jn

*is wondering where Ax did deleting or revising*

I don't see any "edited by" marks. Maybe Ax posted in the middle of the night after Frelga?

Of course every member has the right to edit out something they no longer want to let stand on this message board IS.

Eru: if you edit relatively quickly after you make a post, it doesn't show the "last edited by" line - at least, that's been my experience since I joined. (I actually like that: normally, if you edit immediately, you're correcting typos, and it's nice to do that without the edit line appearing.) I saw Ax's original post, but I don't remember whether it was made as a separate post and then delleted, or whether he just edited the post that still remains.

IS - are you, in essence, asserting that whether or not a revote SHOULD be occurring is relevant to how people should vote? That is, if one's opinion is that a revote should not even be occurring, then one should vote the same way as before, in an attempt to achieve the same result as before? If this is your stance, then yes, I think this is definitely the right place to make that argument.

I agree with tp. IS has every right to discuss the re-vote decision here. It might not be productive to the ballot to only discuss the decision, so in a way, I am with Ax as well. My suggestion: weave the two together, so the thread remains somewhat on track.

I'd be interested in seeing the opinions of those who have and haven't changed their minds, since that element was a part of the decision of those who voted that a re-vote should take place.

What Cerin and Frelga said!

And, IMO, discussing whether there should be re-vote or not is of course allowed, but it's pointless in this context and unconstructive in this thread, and that's something not entirely rational, either.

(That said, let me add that the above contained a certain amount of sarcasm, because I agree with tp that casting doubt on people's rationality because they happen to have a different opinion is not the way for a constructive discussion!)

Cerin, thanks for a great summary of what the question really is!

Thanks for the support. I really had no intention of making the revote a main issue. I think there is a presumption that I would because of my uncompromising stance on it prior to the formation of the committee. I didn't interfere with the committee when it was in progress and I know the vote is inevitable. I'm not inclined to boycott votes with which I disagree.

I had hoped to enter the serious discussion on a more positive note. As I have already said:

- There are valid reasons for wanting to remove at least a part of the thread

- I would not have disagreed with the simple removal of names of non-members prior to the opening of the board

- I agree a few (very few) members have a legitimate argument against the harshness of the words. It is against their nature to be harsh and I respect their sensibilities and their desire to not be associated with the harshness.

I also think drawing attention to this issue hurts my interest.

I meant no disrespect to Ax. I will try to address the issue of the ballot itself before moving to the reasons to vote against it, although it is difficult to make suggestions without explaining motivation.


Eruname,

It has been there and back again. Either that or I shouldn't stay up so late.

On your second point, I actually disagree. I wrote a lengthy statement about that general issue. I keep being robbed of the opportunity to post it and it doesn't sound like Ax thinks it is appropriate here

tolkienpurist,

That is the correct assessment. I think there is an ethical issue for those who now have an opportunity to revote, but who also understand the opportunity to not be legitimate, but who have changed their mind in either direction. Not that I expect most people to think that through.

IdylleSeethes wrote:

On your second point, I actually disagree. I wrote a lengthy statement about that general issue. I keep being robbed of the opportunity to post it and it doesn't sound like Ax thinks it is appropriate here

I don't think this is the thread to post it in, but I'm not sure where you could post it. I'd be very interested in reading it since I feel the opposite. Sometimes I may post in anger, be a bit rash or just not think clearly...or maybe divulged too much. I have had things that I regret posting and am thankful for the opportunity to get rid of them.

IdylleSeethes wrote:

- There are valid reasons for wanting to remove at least a part of the thread

- I would not have disagreed with the simple removal of names of non-members prior to the opening of the board

- I agree a few (very few) members have a legitimate argument against the harshness of the words. It is against their nature to be harsh and I respect their sensibilities and their desire to not be associated with the harshness.

IS, I am not entirely follow your reasoning here. Your second point, if I understand it correctly, is actually an option on the ballot, which includes several choices other than the outright deletion of the thread.

Quote:

That is the correct assessment. I think there is an ethical issue for those who now have an opportunity to revote, but who also understand the opportunity to not be legitimate, but who have changed their mind in either direction. Not that I expect most people to think that through.

It took me several passes, but I did parse it in the end. Are you talking about those who don't agree with the current state of the thread AND don't think the revote is justified?

Quote:

On your second point, I actually disagree. I wrote a lengthy statement about that general issue. I keep being robbed of the opportunity to post it and it doesn't sound like Ax thinks it is appropriate here

Idylle, post your lengthy statement here

A) Leave the thread as is. No board-sanctioned action will be taken on the thread beyond possibly changing the disclaimer (see Question Two).

A straightforward option. I like it.


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).

Names are redacted from hearing threads after the fact, I believe. Does the Charter give any other justification for redacting names?

I dislike this option because I think it reaches too far into unknown territory. The Charter at least mentions circumstances the members may use as justification for deleting a thread. Does the Charter mention circumstances in which the board as a whole may go in and edit the posts of another? This clearly does not fall under the Ranger power to edit posts.

This committee was convened for the purpose of dicusssing the deletion of a thread. I would prefer the vote stick to this question.

If we are going to start redacting usernames from non-hearing threads because offence has been taken, I think this process should start with an amendment to the Charter, so the process is well-defined. We should not begin to address this issue with an ad-hoc vote in which attention is focused primarily on another issue.

I think option B should be removed from the ballot.



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).

I find this option deceptive. What is the point of keeping the thread in a forum no one can see? This option is in essence deletion, and deletion is covered in a straightforward way in option D.

I think option C should be removed from the ballot.


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.

Another straightforward option.

Though the mention of the Charter justification is interesting. I know some disagree, but I have a hard time seeing how the wilko thread threatens the peace of the board. I doubt anyone would argue it threatens the security or continuance of the board. It all depends on how "peace of the board" is understood and defined. There are lots of threads which can cause conflict and hard feelings that will never even be proposed for deletion.

I hope voters realize they are setting a precedent here for how far we will go to preserve "peace of the board", and a precedent for what "peace of the board" will mean.

Option B and C are an attempt to find middle ground...so hopefully those who loathe deletion and those who loathe it stay as is can find a compromise possibly.

At least that's the way I see it.