Giving that power to one person or even to a group of five people means the rest of us are reduced to the status of children, with no concern in the world but to enjoy, and coming to believe it's our right to enjoy without being bothered by pesky responsibilities.
When we first started setting up this board, there was a basic consensus that we wanted to be responsible, <snip>
Yes, I think that's one of the basic conflicts here. Some want the responsibility, others don't (not because they are not responsible people but because they prefer to exercise their responsibility in real life venues, not on a messageboard).
Well I see that I didn't understand halplm after all and thus my previous post was worse than useless.
See my response to this question before. But really, why should we need to look past that incident? That seems to be a good example.
The only reason I suggested looking past that incident is that you had in several places protested that you
weren't just talking about that incident but about a pattern of behavior.
I think that incident was rather unique, so that it would be useful to make clear whether we are or are not mainly talking about that.
hal, would you mind saying exactly how you would have preferred to see that incident develop? That is, what do you think those people who seriously objected to a joke thread in Bike Racks (on the understanding that that is not what the forum was intended for, and that what it was intended for is something we regard as important to the posters in this community) should have done?
Well now we're getting somewhere. Whose VALUES are the procedures and guidelines supposed to represent.
The values of the community that wrote and ratified them.
I was under the (apparently false) assumption that the charter was supposed to be valueless. That is, accepting of any values, while protecting us from rampant attacks, meaningless spam, and arbitrary dictatorships.
I believe Prim posted the Member Rights and Responsibilities a few pages back. Could you review that and say if you think it represents any values?
If someone doesn't agree with those values they're not welcome and should just move along? Is that what we're actually saying?
Yes, I believe so.
I think that the enforcement of those rules needs to be able to recognize the difference between someone breaking that rule, and someone joking about that rule.
I know that Lidless and tp were having what they believed was a harmless joke. The problem was, I saw harm in it, not intended harm, but potential harm to the usefulness of the forum for members of the community. There are times when people will disagree, hal. They thought it was a harmless, joking use of the forum, and I thought it was a harmful (not intendedly so) joking use of the forum, and that is why I brought the 'rules' to bear -- the rules being the stated guidlines for use of the forum.
I think the posters responsible for "modding" (which is everyone, although some think it more their duty than others), need to be able to recognize that the board is NOT served best by Absolutely strict enforcement of every rule guidline and VALUE that the charter represents.
I am aware of this. In this case, this was not a capricious adherence to the letter of the law. I felt the members of this community were
not being well served by this use of the forum, which far outbalanced the right of two posters to amuse themselves and others by misusing it.
I think what we may have here is a clash of values underneath it all. There are those who respect the Charter as representing the values they want for the board and therefore desire to operate according to it, and there are those who do not respect the Charter as representing anything of value, and who want to be free to make this board into a different place than the place now reflected in the Charter.
This is so very untrue I don't even know how to respond.
I'm happy to hear it, and I'll gladly put that idea out of mind. (But I wonder if you can see how I came to that conclusion based on the statements you've made about not caring about the Charter and not even knowing what's in it).
So you are saying you do respect the Charter as reflecting the kind of board you want b77 to be?
I'm sorry, Cerin, but this sounds blatantly like "If you don't buy into the B77 vision, then we don't need you." Maybe that's what you think the case should be, maybe that's what everyone but me thinks the case should be. I don't know, but the absurdity of it is quite funny.
I'm just trying to understand you. You had said you thought people would be leaving, and I'm trying to understand what is behind your statement. I'm not stating my own ideas here, but trying to understand what you have been saying. You said that my previous statement was an incorrect understanding of your view, so I'm happy to accept that this is incorrect also.
Oh, now people want to UNDERMINE the charter? Why don't you bring a list of the times people have tried to undermine the charter, Cerin? Does this happen often? Do you see it every day? Are you trying to protect the charter from this nasty group of MEMBERS?
I'm just trying to understand you based on what you've been saying lately. If the above is incorrect, I'm happy to leave that idea behind and continue trying to understand you. I'm just repeating back to you what it is I think you've been trying to say. Obviously I'm not getting it.
Yeah, I guess teh board does fulfill everythign YOU want for a board... the funny thing is, I kind of want it fulfill what EVERYONE wants for a board.
Yes. But I had thought you were describing a case when what one group wanted was not compatible with what another group wanted.
There are so many assumptions being made about me and what I think, that all usefullness in discussion is gone.
I am not making assumptions. I am saying back to you what I think you mean. When you tell me I'm wrong, I accept that, and go back to trying to understand what you mean. They aren't assumptions, they are mistaken interpretations.
No, we TRIED to pick 2. It appears some people still want 1 and will drive the other "side" out, because they think rules are the best thing ever, and shouldn't ever EVER be bent, let alone broken... even for fun or as a joke.
I trust you're speaking about me here, but that isn't the case. The misuse of the Bike Racks wasn't a minor bending of a rule in my view, regardless that it was meant as a joke. The harm wasn't contingent on the intent, the harm was contingent on what I saw as a potential result.
And I don't want 1, Prim, I want the group A that can't stand the other group B to accept them and leave them alone, just as group B accepts and leaves the group A alone.
People aren't going to accept something that they see as hurtful or potentially harmful to members of this community (which is the way some saw the Bike Racks thread).
I want the group A that can't stand the other group B to accept them and leave them alone, just as group B accepts and leaves the group A alone.
What I see is constant picking and harping from you about what you see as the rules faction interfering in your fun. What you seem to see is constant picking and harping from what you see as the rules faction intefering in your fun. The problem is, no one else seems to see it your way. If you know of people who agree with you, perhaps you could solicit some of them to come and explain, since you're having a hard time making yourself understood and giving concrete examples.
On the other hand, maybe you really are only going on about me and the Bike Racks incident. In that case, you aren't advancing understanding of your viewpoint by claiming that you are referring to a pervasive problem.
I should be more precise. It's not that the one group can't stand the other, it's that they can't stand their "values" or behavior. And they don't really want the other group to leave, they want them to conform.
Yes, I want everyone to conform to the rules outlined in the Charter, and I don't mind saying so. I want this because the Charter was carefully written to support the kind of community we wanted to build for the people who post here. There are very few restrictive rules in it.