|
763. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:15:26 AM I linked to an earlier post in this thread where it was
discussed. Everyone was given a chance to respond. In a register-only subthread where most of the previous action consisted of a horrendously big argument? Where there were doubts raised that were ignored, and where only a very small percentage of the Mote responded at all? Please. No, it's up for discussion because you have brought it up.
You want less privacy, as does Jay. Seguine wants more
privacy. The other people involved have supported the
current RoE. The fact that it's up for discussion means
that you want to discuss it. Which is fine, but let's not
pretend there is some sort of massive movement for
change. I'm tired of your convenient inability to read written English and equally impatient with your penchant for distortion. No one is pretending to represent a massive groundswell for change. And if three people would like a different set of rules in their ideal Mote, then what I said is exactly correct. 764. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:15:50 AM So please don't cry "paranoia" now, and please don't invite me to cite the avalanche of examples I could quote to show that CalGal intended to convey about herself more authority than she possessed.
You are whining because you think I gave the impression I was in control and cowed everyone else into agreeing with me? Lord, what a forum of sheep you think the Mote is.
Why didn't the entire membership of the Mote receive email inviting everyone to weigh in on the topic?
Because we can't do everything, Seguine. You want to be involved, be involved. Don't complain because the people who are involved don't kill themselves trying to make sure that those who would rather just complain don't have as much to complain about.
The answer, of course, is that there was an "emergency", precipitated by me, which required that the RoE be clarified.
No, that's not quite true. It was the situation with you, it was the God revelation of private information, it was your questions about information that had been released on the forum but wasn't being used to your satisfaction. In the first month, we had a huge debate about three different privacy issues and we had to get something done in a hurry, since it hadn't occurred to us that the "public/private" situation was going to be questioned.
Also, it wasn't a secret about anyone--I just didn't feel like pulling in other people's names, given the rather poisonous atmosphere. We discussed it here, Seguine. Anyone who wanted to could be involved. What more do you want?
765. cazart - 2/21/2000 6:17:55 AM A suggestion: Move this subthread to the homepage. 766. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:18:17 AM ChristinO: You said it yourself, that's a direct quote. And the proper point of comparison is not even between my quote and her quote, it's between her quote, my quote, and your representation of what she said. You probably do remember that I was in the loop for a lot of the ROE discussion. Hell, you should know because you and I talked about it. I know exactly how it went. 767. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:22:42 AM No one is pretending to represent a massive groundswell for change. And if three people would like a different set of rules in their ideal Mote, then what I said is exactly correct.
Well, you certainly are giving that impression. The Mote will probably never have rules to make everyone happy. I don't think there is any reason to revisit the rules based on three people's complaints. Please, go out and see if there is general support for your position. I'm not standing in your way.
It is my firm belief that the anonymity and privacy rules are supported by most in this forum--and that a good percentage of people would leave if they were significantly changed to require transparency. If that's wrong, then let's find out about it.
I am less sure about Seguine's proposal. There may be support for it. My objection to Seguine's position is more a matter of enforcement than majority preference. I see no reason why it can't be covered by the "abuse" rule, rather than the privacy rule. But that's just my opinion. Wabbit--who is the person enforcing things--is the arbiter on that. But the first step is to see if there's interest. 768. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:24:00 AM that's Not a direct quote: CalGal:There's no need for this to become a discussion about you, so I won't weigh in on Seguine's side regarding the things you were doing and saying at that time, and the power structure of the Mote at that time and who did and did not appreciate it. We should stick to the facts. It takes exactly four minutes to send out an email to the Mote mailing list, and extensive email lists of Motiers and would-be Motiers had already been compiled. 769. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:29:28 AM Angel,
Then why complain to me? If you feel it's a problem that everyone wasn't consulted, why do you continually state your confidence in Alistair, Wabbit, Jay, and everyone except me, who was responsible for this terrible miscarriage of justice?
If you feel that everyone should have been consulted, then criticize Wabbit, Alistair, and everyone else. Tell them how they fucked up.
Go ahead, Angel. Tell them. Quit making it about me.
Never mind. I'll tell them.
770. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 6:32:55 AM Seguine,
Since any registered member of theMote could subscribe to this thread the only people disallowed from participation were unregistered lurkers. I'd say any discussion that allows the participation of all registered Moties is open forum. CalGal, Harper and I all volunteered in open forum. If you volunteered then it was through e-mail or I missed the post.
The fact that you apparently felt it more productive to abuse someone's privacy rather than just pointing out that the RoE were not specific enough says volumes about you.
771. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:34:07 AM Alistair, Wabbit, JJ, Jay? There's a complaint on the table.
Apparently, Angel and Seguine feel that we didn't sufficiently consult everyone, that we should have emailed all members signed up at that time to get their feedback. We should have then had a vote, apparently. You'll have to check with them about what we should have done if a quorum hadn't been heard from.
But nonetheless, they have complained. They feel that we were a trifle high-handed (well, they think that I was extremely high-handed; I believe your sin was omission or inertia) and that the voice of the people has been ignored.
Anxious as they are to only leave this criticism on my shoulders, I feel their complaint about member notification and consultation should weigh equally on all of us. So could you please answer their complaint? As everyone repeatedly points out, I have no authority on this forum, so I feel unqualified to answer for those who do.
Thanks in advance. 772. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:34:39 AM You're the only one making it about you, and you're probably just doing it out of habit. I doubt anyone else mistakes that. I'm not complaining to you. You're the one who jumps in whenever a complaint is made and makes it your own personal business. You issue a rebuttal and then when someone responds, this happens. It's ridiculous. What I'm making it about is, instead, your claim that it was all done in plain sight of anyone and no one disagreed, and how that's a bit disingenuous of a claim. That is it. 773. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:37:23 AM Can we just lose the psychodrama and the melodrama and just discuss the policies? Could we do that, please? Wouldn't that be much nicer than twisting what's been done and said around until it points squarely at you, CalGal, and no other? 774. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:39:04 AM Angel,
That's such horseshit. 775. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:40:51 AM Fine, Angel. It's not about me. Good.
Then the question is on the table. The folks in whom you place such confidence have been asked why there was no vote. Hopefully, their answer will reassure you. 776. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:42:41 AM It's not horseshit at all.
Who exactly asked for a vote? 777. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:44:17 AM Well? 778. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:44:21 AM Well? 779. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:44:21 AM Well? 780. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:45:04 AM I don't know how that happened. The triple wasn't intentional. 781. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:52:03 AM Wabs: Please delete 778-780 and this post. Sorry to have made the mess. 782. SpenceMirrlees - 2/21/2000 6:54:42 AM Team,
The procedure for deciding on procedures for deciding on the rules was discussed here. Openly, for all to participate. Not exactly a secret. If you don't like how it came down you have no one to blame but yourself.
I am baffled by the claim that CalGal purports to have special authority, more authority than she has, etc. Especially about the RoE. Indeed my impression at the time was that she went out of her way to get other people involved in that project. As I recall it was something of a project to coordinate volunteer efforts, coordination she was involved in. It probably would have taken less effort to bag that and just write the RoE.
|
