board77

It would be nice if I were wrong there, Eru - so, do you think, then, I misunderstood Impenitent's post?

Another edit:
Here's what I mean - quoting it because it's been a bit back, on page 4.

Impenitent wrote:

I stand by what I wrote, though with the addition of this sentence:

Quote:

While I have great faith in many individuals, it will take time to rebuild my trust in the goodwill of the larger community.

[snip]

EDIT: I just read the off-the-cuff idea Cerin posted on the previous page, regarding the cancellation of all ToE permissions so that all who wish access must petition.

I know it's not a current proposal (and I missed it in the committee discussions - must have come up while I was MIA) but WHAT A BLOODY GOOD IDEA!

No, I'm not suggesting we change track now (I can hear collective groans) because I know that would open a huge can of worms, but still...I wish I had seen it during committee discussions as I would have urged that it be taken up.

(Oh and sorry about some minor edits to my previous post - just a bit of beauty operation, to prevent offense. )

I can't speak for Impenitent or you so I'm not going to go there.

While I realize a few people are uncomfortable with lurkers, it's only because they've opened up and haven't had things reciprocated by a quite a few people. That can leave one feeling vulnerable and possibly judged. That's the only vibe I'm getting.

I understand that this is the feeling, Eru. But the conclusion from this vibe is that it would be acceptable to exclude those people because of a feeling of discomfort and hence possibly distrust, isn't it?

No, I don't think so. There's no grounds to exclude because of that. The people haven't done anything. People are really worried about those who have done things in the past...PM/IM/email harrassment, manipulation...that's what I think anyhow.

I'm glad you think so, and I'm sure a good part of the people in favour of the amendment think the same - but unfortunately I can't believe that this is the general view.
If people already know who they'd prefer not to see in ToE, without anyone having done anything wrong, this is a problem that's not going to be covered by the amendment.

I really do think it is the general view truehobbit. I wish I could show that in a concrete manner, but I can't. People have been honest that there's only one or two people who this is going to be used on....people who have done wrong in the past. I honestly don't believe the regular ToE members are out to keep quite a few people out because they don't like them.

But the amendment is not for keeping out people who have done wrong at some time in some past - it's for people who have done wrong during their time on this messageboard!
If ToE-members try to use it to keep out people for any other reason, it has to be hoped that the Ranger in question will point it out to them that they have to bring evidence from the accused's time on this board.
That's why I'm saying the amendment is not going to solve anybody's current problem!
And the view people have, of mistrusting someone before they even have done something wrong here, and wanting preventive measures based on nothing but personal distrust, is something that no amendment can offer them!

Whoever said it applied to conduct purely on this board?

I never said it, and I'm the one that initiated the original discussion. I honestly have no idea where you are coming from. Hell, the amendment discusses cases that happened offline and in person - that's definitely not on the message board.

Your view of what the amendment is for is seriously scewed TH. Every single person on the committee knew the reason why this amendment was initiated, and what it was to prevent. Saying that the amendment doesn't cover the issue that started the whole thing is the first place is, quite simply, wrong.

It honestly feels like you may want the ToE to be a place of deleted posts.

truehobbit wrote:

But the amendment is not for keeping out people who have done wrong at some time in some past - it's for people who have done wrong during their time on this messageboard!
If ToE-members try to use it to keep out people for any other reason, it has to be hoped that the Ranger in question will point it out to them that they have to bring evidence from the accused's time on this board.

Utterly incorrect.

Members have until (10 days from day of announcement) to consider whether they have a reasonable belief that the rules pertaining to posting on the ToE forum are likely to be broken by the petitioner based on past experience either here or elsewhere.

So not only does it cover anywhere, "past" is not limited to only the time since joining B77 either.

Did you really think a proposal would be put through that didn't successfully cover the issue that kick-started the whole discussion?

Are you guys gonna wrap this up so I can finally lose my ToE virginity?

I hope so. I'd really like to assist you in losing your ToE virginity

Hello everyone!! I have been requested to share a part of a post from Yova's "Who gives a rats arse" thread in the turf, as it has some bearing on previous discussion here.

TehMary wrote:

Think of it this way. Pretend that you were molested at some point in your life. Pretend that you are part of an open board that had a "sex forum" that you took part in that had some restrictions but was still being "worked on". Pretend that after and three months of sharing personal information in that "sex forum" the creep who molested you joined the board. Wouldn't you want some sort of protection to keep him/her out?

I hope this helps because I want in.....

truehobbit wrote:

But the amendment is not for keeping out people who have done wrong at some time in some past - it's for people who have done wrong during their time on this messageboard!

truehobbit, I know others have addressed this, but I wanted to respond as well.

The amendment is meant to apply to any concerns ToE members have related to a b77 member's behavior, whether that concern is based on the person's conduct here or on interactions from the past (either in RL or on TORC, for example). In this way it differs from the Ranger provision and from the Hearings provisions in the Charter, which apply only to behavior on this board.

Quote:

And the view people have, of mistrusting someone before they even have done something wrong here, and wanting preventive measures based on nothing but personal distrust, is something that no amendment can offer them!

It would be personal distrust based on some point of behavior as related to the standard given in the amendment. The behavior may have taken place elsewhere, but the distrust is still based on something that can be pointed to (though it need not have happened here on b77).

Legolas the elf wrote:

Are you guys gonna wrap this up so I can finally lose my ToE virginity?

We have to allow discussion for a minimum of 10 days, so the discussion will wrap up on Oct. 14 and the vote will begin then and go for 10 days as well.

Thanks TM

I didn't think the amendment covered only behaviour on this board. There is too long a history with many of us here long before the board started.

Estel wrote:

I never said it, and I'm the one that initiated the original discussion.

Yes, I must admit I was very confused by the fact that all the interested people on the committee should have overlooked that.

Turns out I completely overlooked the "elsewhere" in the text!

Sorry about that, and thanks, lidless, for re-quoting!
I was only aware of the bit after that, specifying the kind of behaviour that would be considered a reason for excluding someone, and took it the behaviour had to have occurred in people's six months here.

Which IMO is the only fair thing to do.
The way it's now it's completely unacceptable to me, unless there were strict procedures by which to prove this past behaviour elsewhere.

Cerin wrote:

The behavior may have taken place elsewhere, but the distrust is still based on something that can be pointed to (though it need not have happened here on b77).

Like I just said, I wonder if there are sufficient provisions to make sure there really is something that can be pointed to (i.e. proved) before an objection is accepted.

Estel wrote:

Every single person on the committee knew the reason why this amendment was initiated, and what it was to prevent.

I know that, too, which is why it is so distasteful to me to discuss it - like the time we had the veto discussion in invites, like I said above - same reason for starting it.

Quote:

Saying that the amendment doesn't cover the issue that started the whole thing is the first place is, quite simply, wrong.

I see that now - sorry!

Quote:

It honestly feels like you may want the ToE to be a place of deleted posts.

I don't want it, but I seriously don't care a fig whether people delete their posts or not. It's not a threat that works for me, I'm afraid.
(I don't have issues with deletion, as you know. )

truehobbit wrote:

Quote:

It honestly feels like you may want the ToE to be a place of deleted posts.

I don't want it, but I seriously don't care a fig whether people delete their posts or not. It's not a threat that works for me, I'm afraid.
(I don't have issues with deletion, as you know. )

It's not a threat in the sense of "If I don't have my way I will take my ball(s) away." It's a prediction of a natural consequence, a natural reaction to being uncomfortable in sharing information. It seems you don't see that.

You have completely missed the point of the whole debate - making the ToE work - a living, breathing forum where sex is discussed openly with as great a feeling of openness, comfort and safety as can be achieved within the confines of B77. Your principles would destroy that forum.

Taking wilma's example of being harassed at a convention. Does she need affadavits? Sworn statements? Independent witnesses? CCTV downloads? A police report? Which evidence would satisfy you? Obviously her word alone is not good enough for you. You demand proof.

And that is a sad state of affairs.

Her word is good enough for me.

How many times do we have to say that that isn't meant as a threat?


If the amendment does not pass I will delete my posts.

This is NOT meant as a threat.

This is me protecting myself, as I will feel that the measures the board provides are not adequate protection.

If I may clarify, please.

TH misunderstood my post (which doesn't surprise me).

My intention was, if we are going to put into play new security measures, it is only fair that we subject ourselves (ie current posters) to them also. It also means, in a manner of speaking, a clean start for the forum. Everyone who wishes to participate must go through the process of applying.

It seemed like a fair idea to me, and a way of reassuring all B77ers that we are all on the same team - there's no 'in' team and then the others.

Too late now - it would mean going back to the drawing board with this amendment (a horrifying prospect, after all the work and emotional energy that has gone into it) but I still think it's a good and fair idea to have one standard for everyone. Mistrust had (and has) nothing to do with it.

Impy--

It's one of those ideas that sounds good on paper, or on screen rather, but has hellacious pitfalls in the execution. Would the board as a whole clear those who wanted into ToE? If so, does that include people NOT in ToE? If so, why should somone who isn't a part of it, and doesn't intend to BE a part of it, get a say? And if not, then who DOES decide?

Well, this is all academic now, but in the scheme that I suggested in the committee (and that was rejected by the rest of the committee) the decision would still be made by the ToE participants themselves. Its just that the same rules would have applied to people who already were ToE participants as to those who were not yet ToE participants.