board77

Yeah, but you don't know your Latin. :mrgreen:

You're right. That's what I meant to say by:

Quote:

b) abusive posters harassing another poster (preferrably another of the troublemaker ID people)

but I probably didn't put it clearly enough. The troublemakers shouldn't be let loose on every poster here ("And havoc ensues..."), they would slash it out between themselves.

but maybe I just don't get it.

po'ed (in latin)

have a nice special extended weekend - hell and my employer knows I'll have one (back on tuesday)

Okay... brief suggestion:

no mods.

People who think they could be help when trouble arrises, lift their hand. Their names show up in a list as potential helpers. (like Ethel said she was I don't remember what the other day).

When someone is not happy with another poster on the boards, he goes to the liste and picks out two people to ask for help. The other involved poster can do the same.

So- volounteers as troll patrol.

What say you?

Uhh uh-huh. Don't call 'em rangers. Everyone would be IMing me for advice then....

A sherriff-admin role only I think. That must be rotated, and no consecative terms allowed.

Dunno what else to suggest at this moment in time.

[kidding]
Anyone who feels a power trip coming on should be given a pistol containing one charge and be told to be the gentlemanly thing... [/kidding]

Farawen wrote:

And I don't think the admins should be relied upon to do that; they are the Tech People, right?

Erm....not really. The things we've been doing are pretty darn easy and I'd say most people could do this job.

Now you need a techie to change the look of this board and to change code and that sort of thing.

Thankfully that hasn't needed to be done otherwise I'd be screwed.

Thats why I thought maybe we could have a couple of volunteer on-duty techies. They could be given admin powers for whenever technical maintenance is needed, and then return to regular poster status.

Nin, your combo sounds quite reasonable, and it sounds like lots of folks are leaning in that direction - to have the mod/admin functions folded into one person, with perhaps a voluntary group that can do conflict resolution as needed but would have no other regular powers.

I do want to leave the discussion thread up for ten days though, to capture as many opinions as possible. Meanwhile, I'm moving all of your answers to a spreadsheet so that voting (when we do that) will be efficient (I won't include options that nobody wants).

Meanwhile, could we address some of the other questions as well? - such as the term of office for the sheriff/mod/admin, how many we might need, the number of people in the possible voluntary 'jury/resolution' pool, etc.?

Also, we might start thinking about the definition of 'trolling' as we perceive it. What would justify an admin removing posts/posters speedily and without due process?

Jn

In my view, trolling:

-Posting commercial ads (with exception of posters we know, who are trying to promote an endeavour of theirs, like let's say, um, Berhael opened a Lush shop and wanted us to know and visit, that wouldn't be trolling, because it would be a thread people could participate in. But that's an exception we probably won't have to deal with too often)

-a new unknown poster who almost exclusively flames people (a poster we know who starts flaming people for no reason and out of context I assume we could talk to, and discuss the situation with. A poster we don't know who only comes in to say we're wankers is a troll we needn't bother talking to. )

-someone who registers only to post a plug to his website. These people often plug religious pages. I don't care how sensible the religion is, if the poster doesn't stick around to actually talk about his beliefs and be a member of this community, off with his head. (I assume any real member who wants to show us the light will want to go beyond dropping a link)


That's all I can come up with right now...anyone?

*twiddle*

You all overcomplicate things.

There is an answer. It's simple, and in tune with the theme of this board. Don't have people who go around looking for problems. You just don't need it...because if there is a problem, such as a troll, their activities are going to hit places where at least Some decent posters visit, who can call in the Admin. And if the troll sticks where there Aren't decent posters, WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!???!!!

All you really need to do is have a system for solving problems. You don't need to find them. Figure out ways to make the admin Not turn into despots. I've got some advice on that note...make it so the admin can't act without the complaints of at least a few people...then have our guidelines, which are decent, be what the admin base their actions on.

So, how many do you need? 4 or 5...enough so one or two can be on vacation, and there's a decent chance there'll be one on at any particular time...so, try to split them evenly between those in the European time zones and those in the American/Canadian time zones...and maybe a few from Down Under too. Why do you need more?

Everyone can be the "rangers" or whatever you want to call them...don't limit the field and make an authority you don't need.

Maybe you're right... yeah, I think you're right.

But I think the admin should have, in case of emergencies, the right to act immediately. And then the action would be discussed and possibly reversed. Maybe we won't need that but I think they need that right.

You're correct, Ro, they do need that right - because the Admin (as things stand at the moment) are the only people who can lock or delete or move a thread, or ban a member.

Say someone gets on overnight, and spams the first three pages of the Turf with links to porn sites, including some pretty graphic pictures. We need to ensure that the first Admin online can delete the lot and block the idiot before too many people end up sick over their morning coffee. they can account for their action afterwards, if that's what we wish to see.


Now, those other questions:
Term of office for the sheriff/mod/admin: 4 months, so we rotate three times a year. That gives someone time to get up to speed, without getting run too ragged or getting to out of sync with ordinary posting (I noticed that the RP dropped way off the scale with the two effective leaders of Seekers busy Admining )
how many we might need: I like the idea of three Admin, ideally covering at least two of our three main timezones between them (America/Europe/Oz). That way we get cover most of the time and have an uneven number, in case there is a need for an executive decision to be taken (it may happen).
the number of people in the possible voluntary 'jury/resolution' pool, etc.? : this is harder, it depends on who is willing and who amongst the willing have the skills. We are a small board still, but I'd suggest no less than half a dozen, preferably at least double that to draw from.

I agree with Rodia's definition of trolling.

I really like the idea of people nominating for the conciiation team and then having that nomination ratified by poll. Their terms would be indefinite - they could drop out at any time.


The team would be listed on a sticky thread, with tneir email/IM/whatever included and those in conflict situations could appeal to the conciliators of their choice.

I think the team could be as large or small as the number of people interested in doing that job (as long as the membership of the MB agrees that nominees have the appropriate skills).

It could be informal; perhaps just one conciliator would do - or perhaps the conflicting parties would prefer three impartial people to hear them out.

Members of the conciliation team could also step in if asked by bystanders (just to cough and draw attention, perhaps) or if they themselves see a situation getting out of hand and hot heads prevailing.

Minimal interference would be preferable, I think.

I'm really kinda fuzzy on this idea of a jury...is this something that we Need?

Mummpizz, didn't the tribunes use to get power-crazy or something?

Jny, thanks for doing some serious work about this - and I actually read the whole thread before posting! :mrgreen:

I'd also say: no mods! That's been the principle we started out with.
It's strange, I don't mind the mods on TORC, because it's a different place, but the thought of having mods here is very unpleasant.

So, as to who does what, and how to solve conflicts:

Admins normally wait for the decisions of the members at the moment, and that's very good, but I think they could also take things like moving threads around into their own hands. I also think they should have a minimal power for keeping up order in case a troll wreaks havoc all of a sudden.
Like Leoba said: Say someone gets on overnight, and spams the first three pages of the Turf with links to porn sites, including some pretty graphic pictures. We need to ensure that the first Admin online can delete the lot and block the idiot before too many people end up sick over their morning coffee. they can account for their action afterwards, if that's what we wish to see
I fully agree with that.

As to solving conflicts, I like Nin's idea of a pool of volunteers. If a member feels harassed and would like someone to mediate, they could go to the list and contact someone they trust. That way there'd probably be more choice - with only three or four mods, you'd just have to be lucky that one of the mods in office at the time is somebody you'd like to mediate for you.

If no one calls on the mediators, because the people in the conflict don't think they have a problem - maybe someone of that pool could just contact them and offer help.
You know, just say: "It looks like there's a problem - would you like to tell me what the matter is - or, if not me, then someone else" - and a mediation or arbitration process could start from there.
I simply can't imagine anyone refusing such an offer.

Hmmh, I had meant to add some more thoughts, but they were all too hazy - I'll think about the other issues later.

Procedural suggestion .... this thread is operating sort of like an ad hoc committee, and I see that through discussion people's views are converging on some issues.

I sat down earlier in the week with my sharp pencil and tried to do a PERT diagram ... a model that shows the order in which tasks must be accomplished, and how long each one takes, so that you can put a time frame around the sum of all tasks (in our case, decisions) and I realized that with the kind of poll options we have at our disposal, and the ten day voting period, it will take us until 2007 to vote on every element of our charter/constitution/whatever.

So I'd like to propose the following:

As we reach what appears to be a general agreement on some items, I'd like to assemble those items into a sort of scheme of how the site should be administered. Then when we vote, we'll vote on alternate schemes instead of voting on each item individually.

Example: there seems to be virtual consensus that we don't want mods, so we don't really have to vote on whether there are mods and only then vote on the terms for admins, etc. So every voting option would say admins=mods, and the options would only differ on those things where there was not a consensus.

I'm not confident that I'm stating this quite clearly ... but the impact of it on the democracy of the board is that this thread ends up working like a committee charged with coming up with a governance scheme. We'll probably come up with several governance schemes that differ from one another in minor details, and the whole of the alternate schemes is what would be put to a vote when we feel we're ready.

We could just vote on those items that we didn't agree on, but then people who have not been participating in the thread would not be able to see how those items fit into the whole. So I think it will be important to put the whole scheme as a voting option ... or ... if by marvelous stroke of luck we come up with a scheme that we all basically agree on, we can put the whole scheme to a yes/no vote of the membership.

If that did not make sense, or if it did make sense but you disagree with it, please speak up!!

Jn

It did make sense, and aye, let's do it that way.

I understood the first part (after reading it twice ) - and I think it's a good idea!

I didn't quite get this paragraph:

Quote:

We could just vote on those items that we didn't agree on, but then people who have not been participating in the thread would not be able to see how those items fit into the whole. So I think it will be important to put the whole scheme as a voting option ... or ... if by marvelous stroke of luck we come up with a scheme that we all basically agree on, we can put the whole scheme to a yes/no vote of the membership.

I don't quite understand why the people who didn't participate here would have a clearer picture of what's up for the vote if they get the finished scheme rather than a single item, but I agree it's quicker to vote for a whole scheme than for single items.

And I may be reading it all wrong, but if you look at the parts I boldened, it seems to me you said that we could vote on a whole scheme or we could vote on a whole scheme...

TH - :mrgreen: I love to confuse people that way!

If we come up with more than one scheme, people can vote among them. If we come up with one scheme, people can vote to accept it (or not).

People who aren't participating in the thread ... at some point they'll have the opportunity to vote on governance ... I guess I'm just sayng that we should put together the whole plan, or alternate plans, and show them to everyone all at once.

Jn

Guruthostirn wrote:

Don't have people who go around looking for problems.

I don't see it that way. I see it as having people who will be able to fix problems whenever they arise.

I'm a mod at another board and I don't specifically go looking for problems but I do try to watch out. Really it's just sitting around acting like a normal poster until someone does something stupid. That's what we're trying to put in place here I think.

Jn...will read your long post soon. Brain's fried right now!

hmmmmmmmm - sounds good I think

:mrgreen:

Of course I fully trust you Jny and I'm confident once I see those schemes, the pennies will drop
Thanks for all the work you're doing on this
____________
Resident witch