Thanks for all the excellent feedback, everyone!
Can the collusion language be added to the preamble? Would it seem less out of place there?
I think the collusion language must be included in the announcement thread instructions to be of any practical use.
Regarding the wording of the Question 10 provision, I like Nin's suggestion. In the following proposal on how to incorporate it, I've put it with the surrounding information into one sentence so as to avoid repeating 'A Ranger will'. I also changed Nin's wording somewhat to address the concerns just expressed:
When the 10-day period is over a Ranger will announce in the ToE thread whether the petitioner is granted or denied access, will state the number of objections submitted and will supply the petitioner with a summary of the objections that is of sufficient vagueness to ensure the anonymity of those objecting.
or taking your latest suggestion, Voronwe:
...and will supply the petitioner with a summary of the objections lodged against them, making every effort to avoid revealing the identity of those objecting.
Voronwe, I agree with Ax, I don't see how it would ever not be possible to protect someone's identity, you would just be as vague as you needed to be.
Applicant E kept trying to grope ToE poster F at a moot. Applicant E is told: it is felt you are disrespectful of people.
Would this not fall under the exception clause? I consider attempts at groping to be 'RL contact of a seriously harmful nature'.
It is a natural reaction to discuss these types of issues with your friends. However, in order to avoid unintentional abuses of this system, it is important that people avoid combining together to deny a petitioner access for inappropriate reasons.
Voronwe, I don't think joining together to deny a petitioner access for inappropriate reasons would be unintentional. I thought what we were trying to say here is, don't do this intentionally. Also, I would rather not encourage people to discuss amongst themselves by actually suggesting that it is the natural thing to do.
Tosh had suggested, 'Please do not try to organise a denial of the forum to anyone for inadequate reasons.'
I prefer 'inappropriate' to inadequate, and arrived at, 'Please do not attempt to organize a denial of access for inappropriate reasons.'
I'm thinking at this point that the original language is the most accurate and to the point.
Is that the person voting might very well have their own objections, and not be basing their veto on the objections stated.
I'm very glad you brought this up, Estel. It was my understanding that what differentiates this model from your compromise model was that people may
not voice their objections anonymously, but everyone with a specific objection must submit that objection by email. This is the main feature that would allow me to back this model if it is the one that comes out of committee. The voting, as I understood it, was to be exclusively based on the summarized objections, which is why I felt that should be reiterated in the poll wording. I believe this is explicitly stated in the instructions (emphasis added for this comment only).
Objections with a brief explanation should be submitted by PM to a Ranger or by email to the Administrator account (link). Once two objections are submitted, a summary of those objections will be posted in this thread and the thread will continue to be updated in this way if more objections are received. Approximately halfway (five days) into the objection period, a poll will be added to the thread; current ToE posters who believe the petitioner should be denied access based on the objections listed may indicate this by voting in the poll.
Now with this evident lack of clarity, I would propose changing the above wording, possibly to:
Any ToE member who has reason to object to the petitioner gaining access to the forum should submit their objection with a brief explanation by PM to a Ranger or in an email to the Administrator account (List of Rangers and Admin. acct. email address).
For instance, the objections stated all refer to the petitioner as being a trouble-maker on the boards, but one of the people voting hasn't stated their objection because, even in summary, they will be recognizable from their reason.
As I said, I don't think anyone will be recognizable from a sufficiently redacted objection.
I think that adding "Based on the objections stated" is to specific, and it also bases the votes on other peoples objections rather than personal ones. I thought that was something we were trying to avoid.
That was in the case where not all objections were known. In this case we're having all objectors state their objections in email, all objections will be posted in the thread in a redacted version, and the community bases their decisions on that shared information.
I'm a bit disturbed to see that Voronwe agrees with Estel's interpretation of the model. I had thought the intent of Wilma's proposal was clear, and that the language in the instructions is also clear, but perhaps I am mistaken.
BTW, at the risk of destroying civilization as we know it, I officially asked in ToE for people to let us know in the B-Room which model they prefer.
Might ToE members' preference be different from what the membership as a whole would prefer (that is, which one has a better likelihood of passing?) I see no one has responded in the Business Room thread, perhaps not a good portent for achieving a quorum.
Speaking of quorums,
I NEED HELP figuring out the quorum for this amendment vote. Also I'll need to put the period of voting in the ratification presentation. Did we decide in one of the last votes that we will vote 'til midnight Eastern time of the last day of voting, or did I imagine that?
Edit
Once the last content issues are addressed and the reordering approved, I think we should probably proceed straight to selection. If we're not familiar with the reasoning behind all of these by now we never will be.
Well it seems there is a difference of understanding on the reasoning behind the poll model.
Edit
I'll have to check collude in my dictionnary before I say more.
Nin, what we're saying is, 'Please don't plot with your friends behind the scenes to keep someone out of the forum for inappropriate reasons (like, you just don't like them).'