board77

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:

Axordil wrote:

Edit to add: Really, any well-formed objection that relates to comfort level is valid, now that I think about it.

Exactly. But it should be up to the person to decide whether their objection is sufficietly serious. As soon as you start requiring explanations, you cede that power to someone else. That is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

I agree with Voronwe and Prim on this. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to write more.

Axordil wrote:

I think ten is low if there are no standards save individual, subjective comfort levels--or for that matter, simple dislike of someone, which is going to creep into any anonymous system anyway.

Unless you think disliking someone IS grounds, in which case I think we might as well rename ToE "sex talk between people we like" and be done with it.

Otherwise I would push for a higher number. Not more than 20, but more than 10.

Ax, I'm not wedded to a particular number. I haven't given alot of thought to what would be the appropriate threshold. How many people are there that post regularly in ToE? I would need to know that number before being willing to commit to a particular threshold number.

Members, the first draft of the ballot is up in the first post of the Jury Room thread.

DRAFT BALLOT

As always, we covet your comments and suggestions.

Regarding the latest postings in the Jury Room:

A straw poll is totally acceptable, and is not outside the Charter.

It is common practice with most organizational bodies / steering committees to "sound out" the membership before a formal vote is taken. Ditto manufacturers with new products. It smooths the path, facilitates transitition and can help avoid basic mistakes. This is true from international accounting bodies to even Congress.

No one wants to waste time on trying to implement a new accounting principle or passing a new law that doesn't have a hope of being accepted by the membership at large.

Another way to look at it is as follows:

Much talk in the Jury Room is, "But the members wouldn't vote for that because...", or "They won't like that because...". In other words, much is second guessing what would be acceptable. So why not first guessing?

Another way to look at it is as follows:

There is nothing against the Charter about a committee member making the following posts: "I sounded out a few people about Option Z, and only one of them liked it. We need to either ditch it or revise it," or "Did you see the posts made in the Business Thread. Your proposal would meet with resistance unless you take out the second paragraph". In fact I cannot see anyone complaining about such posts, since the Jury Room is not behind closed doors and the members can comment here on what is being talked about there.

So either V-man can set up a quick informal straw poll as an individual, or as a formal member of the committee, on behalf of the committee. Either is acceptable by the Charter.




In summary, you are looking for guidance from the members. Since when was that a bad thing? How could it be a bad thing? How could that be against the Charter, which is there for posters in the first place? All it does is to help facilitate the committee in its discussions and responsibilities, not abrogate or supplant them. And that should be made clear in the straw poll.

Lidless, I have nothing against asking for guidance from the membership. That's what we do through these Business Room threads.

What I object to is not following the procedure given in the Charter for offering an Amendment to the Charter.

Cerin, what Charter provision do you contend would be violated, and how?

Voronwe

This is the section of the Charter I'm referring to:

The committee itself will vote on elements of the amendment before presenting a final form to the membership for ratification.

As I said in the JR thread, this seems clear to me. We vote on elements of the amendment before presenting a final form to the membership for ratification.

It does not say, we vote on elements of the amendment before presenting a range of choices in a straw poll to the membership to determine which final form we present to the membership for ratification.

That is what I thought you were proposing. I'm still not clear just what it is you are proposing.

I don't think he's saying that the results of the straw poll will determine which results we give to be voted on.

I think he's saying that we should do the straw poll to see what's on the mind of the membership before finalizing what the ballot will be, and before voting on the ballot, whether we are amending it or not.

As I said Estel, I think that's what we make every effort to do during the entire process. So that doesn't really make it any clearer for me.

Point of definition - by not making a straw poll literally means that every effort has not been made.

There is nothing in the Charter that gives rules on how the choices the committee vote on come into existence. Absolutely none.

A straw poll is neither final nor binding on the committee. In fact there is nothing stopping the latest member to join B77 expressing concern on an ongoing discussion in the Jury Room and starting up a poll somewhere.

Would you ask for that poll to be deleted? Would you ignore the results of that poll if 100% polled against a suggestion you had made? Is it unconstitutional?

No, of course not, just as Gallup and Mori polls take place on an almost daily basis on the issues of the day or an upcoming election / proposed action.

Sometimes governments themselves commission Gallup or Mori to do some research for them. Even the US government. The results of those polls are not binding, and I doubt the US Supreme Court would suggest they are illegal or unconstitutional.

Lidless, what I thought they had in mind was something different. I think it's great to ask the membership what they think. It's fine to ask it in a poll.

I thought what was being suggested was getting the amendments (we had three separate models that we were not able to integrate into one) all ready, and then running a straw poll to see which was preferred in order to decide which one to offer.

That seemed wrong to me, and it still does.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that a straw poll would violate the charter.

The vote presented to the membership in 'final form' actually ratifies the amendment and makes it part of the charter. As long as it is clear to the membership that the poll is not ratification, and they will still have to ratify the final form presented by the committee, there is no contradiction.

The one thing I would be mildly concerned about is that the membership would be too apathetic to vote twice. They might think that their straw poll is the end of the story.

We did fall below the quorum minimum on the last binding vote and I sense a feeling among the membership that the work/play ratio is a bit too high here.

Jn

ETA: Meanwhile I saw the straw polls in the symp. and turf.

I've been trying to follow the discussion in the Jury Room and I think the committee might be stuck on some all-or-nothing options where a compromise would work better. Particularly with regard to the explanations given, if any, for why a person should be kept out of the ToE.

We have rules in the Charter already for behavior in the ToE. It might be helpful to focus on those as the reasons why a person might be kept out, that is, if there is a reasonable belief that those rules are going to be broken (based on past experience with the person), which would result in the person being permanently removed from the ToE anyway, then that should be a legitimate reason for keeping them out in the first place.

Under Article 5:
"Permanent suspension of access to a forum ...
• In the Thinking of England Forum, posting in a manner that ridicules, demeans or threatens other posters"

Under Article 2:
"Enforceable member responsibilities ...
To post prudently in the Thinking of England forum and not expose yourself to unnecessary harm. That forum should be free of ridicule, provocation, or demeaning posts and you should report violations to the Rangers. You must also refrain from maliciously spreading information posted by others in that forum."

I would think that behavior which ridicules, demeans or threatens other posters or spreads personal info. (which is an infraction by itself) taking place anywhere on the board should be sufficient to deny access to ToE where these issues are most sensitive.

This kind of behavior taking place on another board should also be sufficient.

The question was raised whether there would be enough people having observed the necessary criteria to actually block someone if first-hand observation were required. But I don't think that these criteria already given in the Charter are that hard to spot; and if someone did behave this way chronically, there would be many other posters who knew about it. And it would be easy to point to specific posts as evidence of the problem.

I know a number of people have been saying that in the particular case they envision right now, no explanation should have to be given because everyone knows what the problem is. But that may not be the case in the future. And I am also concerned about the issue that Cerin has raised - that discomfort with a poster may be quite nebulous and veto would be applied unfairly with no recourse. By referring to the behaviors already specifically mentioned in the charter we would avoid the situation where the posters asking for the veto would have to invent an explanation as to what makes them uncomfortable, but at the same time these categories of infraction cover a sufficiently wide range of discomfort-producing behaviors that I believe they protect against the specific actions that members might find objectionable.

Jn

Thanks, Jnyusa! That was a tremendous help.

Just checking - is the threat of stomping out of B77 as a whole if a certain person doesn't get their way still a viable threat? Or have we moved on from that?

No, I haven't moved on. I refuse to move on.

If I don't get my way I'll stomp out immediately!

wanders off to work out what direction my way should be...

I have been reading the draft ballot and there are quite a few things I do not feel good about.

First of all I am sure there are people already in the forum who are not fond of each other yet still post freely in that forum so the sex talk with people we like goes out the window already. the thing is they have demonstrated respect and maturity with the subject mater posted. It's not about liking a person.

Also I would like to say I would not be trying to reject people left right and centre and all this talk seems to imply ToEers like rejecting people. Or judging people. We do not. I am quite disssapointed that is what non-ToEers think of us (or imply about us). Also, I will say here that there is more salacious stuff outside of ToE then inside of ToE just to give you guys an idea of what you are missing out on. It's not too much. It's just really a lot discussion and good manners like Tosh said.

I have started to read the draft ballot and well I really think sometime over the course of B77 you will find my posts in ToE dissappearing for no reason. I do not like that the list of objectors has to be given. I htink it just leads to people asking why.

Also, I think 10 people is too high. Considering it took quite a while to get 5 people on a committe if ten was the number, nothing would ever get an objectin worth considering and the all of this would be pointless since anyone could get in anyway since the number needed for an objection is too high. I guess that is the point for a number that high, to make it impossible for any objection. I do not imagine the forum lasting for a long time. I am sorry but that is just my opinion. I know I come off as harsh. New people who have not been on there would not even have to worry about getting rejected since there will be nothing to see.

I was hit on at a convention last summer although I had already refused this guy (who wasn't that nice the first time). I also heard he was complained about by another person. Just with 2 complaints he is risking getting banned from the convention next year. Keep in mind 2000 people attend this convention. I would never want him in a place where he could read about semi private things about me or my friends. Since I am can imagine he would go after them too. He approached one of my friends with a massage without even asking her. By my standards that is not good. Whoever is validating my complaint may feel he treated my friend fine when really he didn't.

Also, I wanted to ask are we ever going to work on that anti lurk thing? I know that makes many ToE ers uncomfortable but they still deal with it. If more people join yet the number of posters stay the same (which to be honest I think it will). We will have to work on that.

I assume you're talking about me, Lidless.

If we pass an amendment that allows people to object to other b77 members being a part of ToE without giving a reason, then for me, the representation of the board in the MS and Key Principles is a farce. That's just the way it is. I can't reconcile the idea of one set of posters being able to restrict the privileges of the rest of the membership without being accountable, with the things we've said in the MS and Key Principles. That doesn't mean I think everyone should see it that way. That just what it would mean to me.

I see nothing wrong with the kind of forum that ToE is being private, and being kept private. I think it probably should be private. I just don't see how that is an option as part of a board that talks about

an atmosphere of fairness

administration done fairly and openly

excercising power publicly rather than behind the scenes

safeguarding the undermining of our principles by privately made decisions

willingness to be frank and forthright in our dealings with one another

no member is more important than any other member

no group of members holds absolute power

we are all accountable for our actions

Those principles are not consistent with a policy of one group of members being able to anonymously veto the rest of the board's participation on a forum without explaining the reason for their decision.

The reason I explained that I would have to leave the board if that became an official policy, was because I felt the need to explain why I was arguing so vehemently about it. I know that I am very vocal and that it can leave other members feeling overwhelmed. I wanted people to understand that my stance wasn't capricious or just for argument's sake. I wanted people to understand that from my perspective, I have just as much at stake here as those who fear losing their forum.

But it isn't about stomping off. If that sort of amendment passes, then I'm obviously out of sync with what the prevailing mores are around here, and that means I don't belong here anyway. And as for being a threat, it was not. It's just a fact, and the loss would be mine, not yours.

Wilma wrote:

I do not like that the list of objectors has to be given. I htink it just leads to people asking why.

Wilma, I wonder if there is some confusion over that point. There is an option the committee might choose (it's by no means certain) that after the objections are over, the list of those who had objected would be listed in ToE, for the other ToE members to see.

There is no option on the ballot to reveal the names of objectors to someone who has been denied access.

Quote:

Also, I think 10 people is too high.

The thresholds vary, depending on the method of objecting.

For objections that are explained under either of two guidelines, the threshold is only 5.

For objections that are made by anonymous poll in a combination with email, the threshold for the anonymous objections is 10; since an anonymous vote allows for capricious or arbitrary objections, the threshold has to be higher.

Quote:

New people who have not been on there would not even have to worry about getting rejected since there will be nothing to see.

Well, perhaps they will build something new, based on the dynamic of an open board this time? It won't be the same, but maybe it will still be nice.

You really think people will talk about that kind of stuff on an open board?

I am sorry. I personally feel the forum as it is, is worth saving.

I am sorry but to me the whole point of this is not to force an open version of ToE. that is one I will most likely not be really participating in. Considering the lurk rate now, I highly doubt there would be anyone who would be for that.