Estel:
Well, if we're really trying to get an option that the board will approve of, why don't we get a real compromise going.
Estel, I think it is really admirable and endearing the way you continue to strive for a compromise.
I probably shouldn't have made that remark about the likelihood of the amendment passing, because I really have no idea how any amendment will be received by the membership.
My initial reaction to your latest proposal is that it seems to be getting overly complicated. I still don't grasp why it is essential to you (as it seems to be) that the objection process take place in ToE.
To me, the emails model represents the idea of individual members voicing their conscience, which to me is what a vote should be. You seem to want to include some kind of group dynamic in the process. Is this correct? Can you explain why that is important to you? The danger of the band wagon effect has been mentioned several times. Do you feel that that isn't a significant concern?
Voronwe:
I'm definitely in favor of working to make the process as fair as possible, but I just don't see it as an issue of raising one groups "feelings" over another groups "rights". I see it as a question of balancing competing interests.
I don't know how anyone could not see that ToE members' feelings are being raised over non-ToE members right to participate in and benefit from the kinds of discussions that take place in ToE. But let's talk about competing interests. What is anyone's interest in being a member of ToE? Lidless has spoken very eloquently about this in a number of recent threads. The interest is in having a secure, supportive environment in which to explore your concerns and questions concerning intimacy. Of course, there are all the other interests a person has in participating on a messageboard (enjoyment of the company of friends, etc.), but I think that is the one peculiar to ToE.
So let's take a current member of ToE who has those interests, and a new b77 member who has those same interests. The only thing differentiating them is that the current ToE member had the happenstance to become a member before we closed the board. It happens that these two people know each other in real life, and the current ToE member isn't comfortable with the idea of the new member sharing in intimate conversations with him. To me, if these two people are to treated equally as we claim that we do, if their interests are to be considered equally important, then the interest of the new member to have access to the forum outweighs the right of the current ToE member to feel comfortable posting there; his discomfort is his problem, because it is not caused through fault of the new member.
We don't have a by-law that states that original members have the right to feel comfortable at the expense of new members' right to participate on the board. Perhaps we should. Perhaps we should offer an amendment to the Mission Statement: 'b77 is an internet community that was once private, but is now open to the public, except for our adult forum. In order to guarantee the comfort of our original members who post in that forum, the opportunity of new members to post there is subject to unconditional veto by current members.' If we passed that amendment, and amended the Key Principles to remove mentions of equality and respect, then I wouldn't have a problem with whatever kind of veto system the ToE membership wanted to set up.
The fact that I disagreed with the premises suggested as possible ones by Nin and Tosh is exactly why I DON'T want them evaluated.
But you agreed that those weren't valid, appropriate, whatever word you want reasons for objecting to someone.
No one here should have to do that in a RL situation as opposed to a hypothetical one.
No one here has to do anything too difficult. All we have to do is establish a simple standard: objections must refer to the conduct of the applicant.
Between the poles of the ones we would accept and Nin and Tosh might not, and vice versa, is a morasse of subjective interpretation and judgment that I just don't want this board to get into.
It isn't that hard. Does your objection have anything to do with the applicant's behavior? That's it. If not, then it isn't a valid reason to try and keep them from benefitting from the same conversation and fellowship you enjoy in that forum. Your discomfort is your problem, and you need to find a way to deal with it that doesn't infringe on another member's right to benefit from that forum.
I am finding the whole notion of independent objection harder and harder to maintain as a concept...it seems there is no method that is not either porous or excessively baroque.
And I am finding the whole notion of zero standard objections harder and harder to maintain as a concept. Frankly, I find it outrageous.
Perhaps it would be better to just go back to open voting, allowing people to put forward objections if they see fit, and raising the threshold to 1/3, as Cerin suggests. At least then the bandwagon would have to build up some honest momentum.
Yes, and the ugly spectre of the invitation thread will take its permanent place of honor on b77. Well, so be it, if it turns out that that's what people want.
I will work on incorporating some of this language into the email model, which is the only one I can support.
I agree with Voronwe. We are dealing with vetos now so why not deal with this type of veto now. I'm not sure why this type of veto is anymore something ToE members should decide amongs themselves than the other veto. I do think it helps address the issues of equality and could make it easier for the membership to accept this whole thing. Also, I think it's best to take care of this type of issue all in one go rather than asking the membership to vote on it again and again.
Will you then please take responsibility for composing something that can be added to the ballot as an option? I do not have a grasp of that issue, so I will not try to address it.
I would say we're trying to protect ToE's posters right to keep posting as they do now
Thank you, Eru! This is exactly what I was going to ask committee members to do.
Put in your own words what you think we are trying to achieve with this amendment.
I was thinking in terms of a spectrum of goals. Eru, you have articulated what I saw as the goal on one end of that spectrum. The other end would be something like:
We're trying to set up a procedure to keep people known for inappropriate sexually-related behavior out of ToE.
So if others could put the goal they see into words, I would appreciate it.
Back to your statement, Eru. To me, ToE posters don't and can't have a right to keep posting as they do now. They are posting in the dynamic of a closed forum, but this board is no longer a closed board! It is a completely unreasonable expectation, IMO. Maybe if several other members will state what they see as the goal, we will discover some middle ground (or maybe not).
Estel
I think that was a great explanation of why dealing with the retroactive veto in this process isn't a good idea.
However, Eru, if you want to compose something, I will certainly include it on the ballot (that is, the committee ballot from which we will ultimately derive the final amendment).