board77

Oh, a tangle of weeds, I know! and as I said, I do NOT intend to re-start that discussion - was merely commenting on having first heard the idea.

As Vinnie says, it is all academic now.

Axordil wrote:

Would the board as a whole clear those who wanted into ToE?

Hypothetically speaking, the whole board would object as individuals to those they felt had acted in a manner that violated the rules for posting in Toe.

Quote:

If so, does that include people NOT in ToE?

Yes. Even those not active in ToE are able to understand the principles behind the need for a certain kind of behavior in consideration of the personal contents of that forum.

Quote:

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?

Because ToE is part of this board, because the presence of ToE on the board benefits everyone (by providing a place where explicit sexual conversation is welcome for those who wish to engage in it, and by providing a place where explicit sexual conversation is welcome for those who wish to avoid it), and because everyone, whether or not they participate in ToE, can understand what kind of conduct is necessary there, and can understand when they see behavior that raises warning signs.

Quote:

And if not, then who DOES decide?

We all decide (hypothetically speaking), because it is in all of our interest to protect that forum from misuse.


In matters of voting in this country, all citizens participate, even if the issue isn't one they anticipate will affect them as directly as it may affect others.



Edit

All academic now.

Edit

And of course, because of the way we have set up the process, there is no chance of a greater pool of voters inhibiting in any way the voice of those who participate in the forum. You would only have a chance for more objections, not for less.

Well spoken.

Err. Academically, of course.

Well, academically, I'm glad I'm not arguing in support of the idea.

Although, as Eruname pointed out, when ToE was formed, everyone here HAD gone through a rather more opaque process of vetting, indirectly...

truehobbit wrote:

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.

That might be reasonable if this were just some other board that we all happened to join and where we first all met each other. But it isn't. We all have a pretty long history. We're a group of people from another place. The dynamics are all still here. It's still the same group of people, we're just posting at a different URL.

The fact is some people are known to have done wrong, hurtful, and damaging things because they did these things to members here. They don't get a clean slate just because they are visiting a different URL. It is completely reasonable to consider past actions when those actions have affected members here. It's just like real life. A convicted felon is still a convicted felon no matter what city he lives in (not trying to say anyone here is a convicted felon...it's just an anology okay folks?).

Ax wrote:

Although, as Eruname pointed out, when ToE was formed, everyone here HAD gone through a rather more opaque process of vetting, indirectly...

I I felt like saying this earlier, but didn't, but I feel like it now. I believe rescreening the members who are in there would not place everyone on equal footing. It would mean current members would be screened a second time which is unfair to them. They already went through the process of having a thread started about them and being voted on whether they were able to have access to this board or not. By future TOE members being screened, the process is evened out IMHO.

TLE wrote:

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.

I think you have completely missed the point of this messageboard. It seems to me you want ToE to remain the private club the board once was. If ToE can only be a living, breathing forum under the conditions that it violates the principles of the board, it will have to go!
If upkeeping the principles of the messageboard will destroy the forum, then that means the forum doesn't work here.
We don't know whether that's the case, though, and I for one am willing to run the risk and test it. If the forum is strong enough to persist, I'll be happy about that. If it's not - good riddance.

It seems to me that for you ToE is the most important part of this board.
I think it's not.
It also seems to me you are damn certain ToE will die if you don't get your wish.
I don't know what makes you so certain, I think it's not certain at all.

It's just what I've been saying since the beginning: ToE needs to learn to live with the new conditions. There will be new members in there, people who you've never heard of before. You have to learn to trust them. The only other way is to make ToE a closed club - and that is what we can't have here, so if you want that, you'll have to have your comfort and safety elsewhere .

But this is neither here nor there. Because after all, we are not talking about new members you've never heard of before and theoretical trust and mistrust in the future.
We are talking about Snowdog.

The fact that this whole kerfuffle is made for the sake of one person you dislike (and I'm not giving the least judgement here of whether this dislike is justified - I don't care if it is, this is about motivation) is reason enough for me to be opposed to this.

TLE wrote:

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.

It is a sad state of affairs that someone is not condemned without proof?

Wow, I sometimes wonder what kind of world you are living in.

Maybe one where you know everything and what you know is always right and true.

You trust people's word. (Except Snowdog's of course.) Very nice. So, what would happen if someone comes in some day who we don't know from a previous board, and someone raises an objection to them. Is it automatically the word of the person you've known for eight months that you trust over that of the person you've known for six months?
Or how do you determine that?

I would be happy with a safety measure that prevents people who have broken the rules in the way described in the article, if proof can be given that they have done so (either here or elsewhere).

But this is expected to be some kind of: "after we've made sure Snowdog doesn't get in we probably won't need it anymore because we trust everybody else" kind of rule, right?

Estel wrote:

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.

Ok, so much the better!

Although, if that is the case, I don't understand why you keep repeating it.
Because, really, why should we care whether you delete your posts or not? They are your posts, you have the right to do with them whatever you want.

Impenitent wrote:

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

(my italics)
At the risk of misunderstanding you again: I find it harrassing that you keep pointing to your perceived wrongs by me at every opportunity. I don't understand why you do it, but I would like to ask you to stop it.

Eru wrote:

They don't get a clean slate just because they are visiting a different URL. It is completely reasonable to consider past actions when those actions have affected members here. It's just like real life. A convicted felon is still a convicted felon no matter what city he lives in

I wouldn't be opposed to have misdemeanours from elsewhere, when they can be shown up, admitted as reasons for exclusion from ToE.
On the other hand, Ax keeps pointing out that this is not like RL legal matters. I don't know what happens to convicted people when they move towns. But I think it's not fair to not be allowed a new start anywhere because of things you've done elsewhere.
If someone tries to get into a circle again where people have rejected them for previous things, you might justly say that's silly and not astonishing if it proves useless, but that's their problem, if they want to try anyway - but I think in mere technical terms, everybody should start with a clean state.

I keep repeating it darling, because you keep bringing it up and saying that people are threatening with it. If you would like me to stop attempting to correct you and others who have made the same assumptions, please stop miscontruing it when it was said.

Um, no I was asking why you keep repeating the fact that you will delete your posts.
You brought it up quite out of the blue in response to my earlier longish post (the one where I'd got things wrong):

Estel wrote:

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

Ok, when I read that as a threat I was wrong - I stand corrected - but I don't understand why you mentioned it - why should it influence my position on this question?

truehobbit,

I counted over ten fundamental errors in your post, the worst of which was, of course:

Quote:

The fact that this whole kerfuffle is made for the sake of one person you dislike (and I'm not giving the least judgement here of whether this dislike is justified - I don't care if it is, this is about motivation) is reason enough for me to be opposed to this.

It's not a question of disliking Snowdog, I don't know him. It's a question of people with that history destroying ToE if he were to gain access. That's my motivation. That's everyone's motivation. There's nothing personal about it, as you insultingly insinuate. How could there be? I never posted with him once on TORC. I've seen the Grey Havens posts, the links it had, and have a recent e-mail from the owner of "another website" as to why he was banned from there. I could go into more detail, but you won't understand.

I also can't be bothered to point out all your other errors and correct them because it's beginning to feel more and more like explaining the color blue to a blind person. I can't even begin to get interested in your replies. Not even to this post.

I shall now withdraw from debating with you on this.

Lidless, I found that post to be most distressing. If you "can't be bothered to point out" what you perceive to be Hobby's "other errors" then you shouldn't mention them in the first place. Comments like "its beginning to feel more and more like explaining the color blue to a blind person" are, to put it mildly, counter-productive. Why not at least make an attempt to understand where people who disagree with you are coming from, rather then just automatically condemning/dismissing them?

truehobbit wrote:

Impenitent wrote:

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

(my italics)
At the risk of misunderstanding you again: I find it harrassing that you keep pointing to your perceived wrongs by me at every opportunity. I don't understand why you do it, but I would like to ask you to stop it.

It did not surprise me because I had, in a previous post in this thread somewhere or other referred to trust, and I had not clarified in the post you referenced the motivation for my spontaneous acccolade for the (academic and now no longer relevant) idea that new and existing posters should face the same screening process.

Therefore, it was not surprising that someone such as you, who had been away for a bit and was trying to catch it all up quickly, would put together the two disparate comments and make a connection. For me, the two comments had no connection; they were made at different times and in response to different conversations; to you, the comments may have seemed connected because you had read the conversations in quick succession.

As for harrassment - I feel pretty bloody harrassed by you!

I have tried, V, I really have, and no doubt so has truehobbit about my posts. I'm sure both of us have dents in nearby walls at head level.

It's pretty obvious it's a case of never the twain shall meet. I do not automatically condemn a post by truehobbit. I really try to give her the benefit of the doubt, but almost every time, her posts make my jaw drop. In her last one the, "I think you have completely missed the point of this messageboard", "It seems to me that for you ToE is the most important part of this board," and "I sometimes wonder what kind of world you are living in," were instant classics. Perhaps your post should be addressed to her as well.

This has been going on for over two months now, and nothing will change either stance in the few days that are left. The last thing I want is for my jaw to go Pavlovian on me, so I'll step back now. I for one refuse to clutter up this thread any more with the to and fro.

But when someone slides in a somewhat troubling suggestion that this is really just about a dislike of a person rather than something higher on the scale, I cannot let that one lie. That was insulting, so I replied.

If she bothers to repeat it, I won't bother to reply. If she wants to lob another subtle insult, I won't know about it because I won't be reading it.

truehobbit wrote:

Um, no I was asking why you keep repeating the fact that you will delete your posts.
You brought it up quite out of the blue in response to my earlier longish post (the one where I'd got things wrong):

Estel wrote:

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

Ok, when I read that as a threat I was wrong - I stand corrected - but I don't understand why you mentioned it - why should it influence my position on this question?

I did not say that as a threat. I said it because it honestly feels (and I do stress the feel, as in "I feel" as opposed to "you are") like you want the ToE to be ruined one way or another. It feels like you would prefer it, and all the people who post in it, to be gone. I'm not saying it should influence your position. I'm saying that the way you word your position feels quite personal. It feels like you are attacking the posters who are trying to protect the ToE, rather than debating the ideals.


Voronwe - I am distressed that you don't as easily recognize the myriad snide remarks dressed up in smiles, or the insults disguised as complaints from her as you do the open remarks from others.


I'll be completely open here. Openness and transparency are supposed to be the most important part of this board. Well, the only person I am not open with here is Truehobbit, mainly because when I am, she accuses me of "attacking" her and "calling her names." I gave up on it a while ago, and decided to reply to her the same way she does to me. I won't anymore. I'm not good at dressing up my words, and I'm definitely not good at subtly insulting people. So here it is, I'll put it straight out on the floor for all to read, and if it makes me a pariah, then so be it.

I avoid debate with Truehobbit at almost any cost. This debate about the ToE being the line. I avoid it, because it will always turn ugly. I don't know why that is. Almost every poster on the board, I can have an all out bitchfest with, but we'll still be friends the next day. Maybe it's because those fights don't seem personal. With TH, it always feels personal. Maybe it's because English isn't her native tongue, and I'm reading things into what she says that she doesn't mean to be there. I really don't know.

All I know is, in this debate, which I cannot and will not back out of, things were going fine - people agreeing to disagree and trying to work towards a common good despite that. Things aren't going well anymore. Insults and personal fighting have, again, entered into a debate where they shouldn't be. This is the last stage before voting - where we are supposed to be improving what the committee voted on. Instead, we're stuck in a rut because it is being questioned whether or not this should be going up for a vote. We're not making any improvements at all. We're stagnant.

The fact is, this amendment is going up for a vote. I can't, and won't, let my fear of being open with TH hold me, or anyone else back from trying to improve on what we have. And it is fear. Fear of being gossiped about. Of being put down. Fear of getting nasty emails, like some other posters have, from TH or her friends. Fear of being told I'm attacking her or calling her names, when all I want to do is move on. Fear of having my reputation on this board completely ruined by someone who doesn't even know me, doesn't want to know me. Someone who, I am pretty sure, wants me gone and would cheer if that ever happened.

So now you know, the one person on this board who I am not open with. The one person on this board who I am afraid of. The one person on this board who has ever held any sort of power over me, because I feel that she can influence the opinions of people I dearly love - and indeed, it seems like she is influencing those people - like you Voronwe. Someone tries to be honest with her, be it me, Steve, Impy or anyone else, and all you see is someone making openly "rude" remarks. You don't notice the subtle ones that she makes. The ones that go straigh to the core. I won't even go to the Bikeracks with her, because I feel that it will just give her more ammunition to put me down with. As if this post won't be ammunition enough.

Well, I've had enough. I'll be open from now on. I won't be scared anymore. Cause, honestly, if you prefer subtle knives that you can ignore to open and transparent disagreement, then I can't change that. The only reason she has any power over me is her influence with you and other people I admire. Well, screw that influence. I can and will disagree with her, and if she says I am attacking her or calling her names when I am not and you believe her, then so be it.

On this issue, at the very least, I will not be a doormat.

truehobbit wrote:

But this is neither here nor there. Because after all, we are not talking about new members you've never heard of before and theoretical trust and mistrust in the future.
We are talking about Snowdog.

The fact that this whole kerfuffle is made for the sake of one person you dislike (and I'm not giving the least judgement here of whether this dislike is justified - I don't care if it is, this is about motivation) is reason enough for me to be opposed to this.
*snip*

But this is expected to be some kind of: "after we've made sure Snowdog doesn't get in we probably won't need it anymore because we trust everybody else" kind of rule, right?

*sigh to the millionth power*

This, I have to step in and correct. I stated my opinion many, many threads ago that the specific issue was how and whether to exclude Snowdog from TOE, and stated that I found the theoretical debate disingenuous if people were only concerned about one poster. Almost everyone else who could trouble to be involved in the debate at that time clarified that their concerns were not only, or mostly, about Snowdog - but precisely the "theoretical trust and mistrust" that you seem to believe isn't an issue. But why would you? After all, you are one of those posters who is free to pontificate about theoretical "openness" and "transparency", since "new members you've never heard of" aren't actually an issue for the nonparticipants in ToE.

Again, the question was raised by me, by Frelga, by at least one or two others - could we drop the issue if Snowdog specified his intent not to seek access? Snowdog has already stated that he has no intention of requesting to access ToE - and people still felt that this amendment was needed because the discussion over Snowdog had highlighted a larger issue about forum security.

Let's say it again: THIS IS NOT ABOUT SNOWDOG, AS ANYONE WHO HAS BOTHERED TO READ THE DISCUSSIONS BEFORE PULLING OUT THEIR CEREMONIAL BULLHORN WOULD KNOW.

Yes, this is not the most helpful post in the world. I know that. But it frustrates me that the same old issues are being rehashed weeks and thousands of posts into this debate - by someone who either has not bothered to follow the proceedings, or does not care that the issues she is raising have long been resolved. I don't find anyone who does this fearsome. I find them tiresome.

I'm in a position of being able to see both sides of this issue. I understand truehobbit's concerns regarding the principles of the board, and I believe I understand the concerns of those who post in ToE.

I think it would help in this situation if we made a conscious effort to think the best, rather than the worst of each other for the short time that remains in this discussion; if we made a conscious effort to take people's words at face value rather than imputing underlying meanings to the things they say; if we made a conscious effort not to take things personally.

Everyone's point of view is valid here; we all have the right to see the situation as we see it and to feel about it the way we feel about it. We all have the right to vote as we see fit.

As far as the discussion stagnating, Estel, I don't think we are necessarily trying to improve the amendment at this point. Rather, we want those who basically support the general idea of the amendment but see problems with it to speak up about what they see as problematic, in case it is something we can deal with under the provisions available to us through the Charter Amendment Procedures text and the ratification text. So far I don't think there have really been any comments of that nature, excepting Tinsel's comment that she doesn't like the poll aspect of the amendment.

I think truehobbit's problems with the amendment are more far-reaching than that, and aren't the type that can be addressed by this discussion. I think her only recourse is to vote against the admendment at this point, which is of course her right, as it is her right to voice her opposition in this thread.

I think if people feel they are not getting through to each other, it is alright to stop trying after awhile. There are only so many times you can say the same thing over and over. Heaven knows I've been in that position often enough myself. It needn't be a matter of hard feelings, unless we make it one.

Fuck.

It starts to seem, at least to me, that the best solution would be to delete the whole bloody ToE, and open an invite-only forum elsewhere. That would be the only way to be sure of the people you want to discuss your deepest secrets with.

If you can't stand the heat, you better get back in the shade.

Rowanberry may I respectfully suggest you refrain from posting when you are too emotional. Your post above is very unhelpful unless your point was to inflame and/or alienate.

I wish I could understand why this issue continues to be so fraught. Thankfully it will be over with soon enough.

Well umm.. I am interested in making an effort to clarify some of the amendment.

I think the whole discretionary measures paragraph should not be sandwiched in between the rest of the explanation of the amendment. It's quite confusing for me.

Quote:

Approximately halfway (five days) into the objection period, a poll will be added to the thread; ToE members who believe the petitioner should be denied access based on the objections listed may indicate this by voting in the poll. If 12 ToE members vote to exclude the petitioner, the petitioner will be denied access to the forum for six months. Forum members are trusted to refrain from trying to deny the petitioner access without good reason."

The poll will offer the following options:
-I do not think this person should have access to ToE based on the objections stated in the thread
-This option is only here because a poll requires at least two options

Discretionary Exception for Extraordinary Circumstance

If a Ranger receives a communication that a ToE member has had a RL experience of a seriously harmful nature with the petitioner, the veracity of which is supported by at least one other ToE member, the Ranger at their discretion may announce in the petitioner's thread in ToE that such a complaint has been brought and the petitioner has summarily been denied access. The petitioner will be informed that a serious complaint has been lodged and their access denied, and the thread will then be locked and deleted. If it is subsequently determined in a hearing that the accusation was false, the accusing member will be subject to penalties up to and including an immediate ban and always including a minimum two-year ban from the Thinking of England forum.

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 lodged against them, making every effort to avoid revealing the identity of those objecting. The petitioner's thread will be left up for an additional three days, after which time a Ranger will delete it.

If the number of objections is less than that required to deny access, the petitioner will be granted access to the forum and should announce their arrival in the Welcome thread in the forum, which will be created for this purpose.

Does the person who was barred access due to RL issues still get their thread put up for 10 days? Does the person still get to hear a summary of the objections? Do they hear about the RL objections? I am confused. I think the purple section should be at the bottom of the explanation of the amendment.

About the rest well uh.... Well I wish I could think of something to lightent the mood. Uh... I think what some people are trying to say is that there are shades of grey and some people are saying it's simple it's black and white. (You know there's a gray character on Farscape? ) For me it's shades of gray and we have to cover that instance.

Also, sadly I am seeing wide divide between those in ToE who actually post there and those in ToE who have access but never post there. I think certain sides can't or won't see the vulnerability involved.

Rowanberry, I think I am going in the shade. What I would have considered an OK post in the past I now consider TMI after reading several threads discussing ToE.
It's too much for me and it seems more people are in the shade then out of the shade in ToE so what's one more?

I think no matter what the trust level in ToE is now, when more people come in it will have to be rebuilt from scratch by some. I now know that is the case for me. That doesn't mean though it should be a free for all and predators should be allowed in there. Sorry but predators exist. I am a bit saddened that I would be accused of making up stuff like that. Trust me it wasn't fun being confined and cut off from my friends. Sorry that I wanted to save anyone else that greif. (Sorry, that was a dig, but it hurt).

Maybe once I see people willing to open up again. I will too. But until then I think I will hang back.

*Goes off to look for an umbrella*