TH - on the last point above, it might be wise to temporarily suspend the posting rights of anyone who is disrupting the board, not just in RP
Yes, but not before the person has been asked to change their behaviour and refused. For an admin to have the power to just suspend someone's posting rights - even if it's just for the day or so - when the admin thinks they are causing a disruption - that's opening the door to admin power abuse, IMO.
I did try to do a vote on starting this forum and only 10 people participated in that vote.
I think that it's perfectly fine for admin to go ahead and start a new forum. Why waste time with a vote that is most certainly going to go for making the new forum? I agree that the admin should mention it and try to get some feedback, but no need for a formal vote. I don't feel like people care about that sort of thing *that* much.
But the point is that everybody would have had the chance to participate if they had cared - and that's what makes all the difference.
I'm not saying there needs to be a formal vote - but there needs to be an announcement
before the fact is created, so that people who care to know what's going on can keep informed and object in time if they wish to.
Why waste time? - That's similar to what Estel said. - I'm sorry, but I don't understand the hurry!
I had meant to post this in the other thread, but I don't remember which one it is - will re-post it there, if I find it:
Governance through objection IMO means giving people the opportunity to object
before facts are created.
This requires, if not a formal voting procedure, at least a timely announcement of what's intended to be done.
Creating facts first and then waiting for people to object is counter-productive, I think.
If, say, a forum is created and someone really doesn't like it - this puts them into an awkward situation about objecting - the effect of this procedure is basically putting people off from raising objections in the first place.
That's why creating facts is a popular means of bureaucracy to forestall objection - you go ahead and do something, so people will be confronted with the results, if you know something you plan is going to raise protest if you ask beforehand.
Plus, if an objection is raised, it puts the admin into an even more awkward situation of maybe having to go back on what they've done.
Much easier IMO to ask first if people want something and then go ahead and do it if no one objects - that's what governance by objection is all about, I think.
For crying out loud, GIVE THE ADMINS SOME POWER !!!!!
Please also remember, all those who are so much in favour of admin power, that we are going to have a whole new set of admin each three or four months!
This means 12 different admins a year!
Say, each of them as an idea for a new forum, for a change in the smilies etc - the board might look different each week, if changing the design of the boards was a normal part of admin power.
And where do we stop? Smilies and forums are for the admin to decide on a whim? Then what about layout? What if an admin decides the boards should be pink?
(Please note that I'm not saying anyone ever decided anything on a whim so far - but that's what the empowerment would imply, the way it's suggested here.)
I think everything concerning the layout and design of the forum should
not belong to admin powers to decide on, for two reasons:
- admins change frequently. If we don't want surprises from an admin playing around with the board, we should not give them the liberty to change things without at least announcing the intention and waiting for feedback.
- it's just part of my basic principle for a democratic board that admin powers are limited to regular processes and emergency situations.
Regular processes, for example, are approving new members, locking and deleting invite threads.
Emergencies are getting rid of trolls and spammers.
There's no way in which I can see the creation of a new forum as either a regular process or an emergency need.