|
815. Indiana Jones - 2/21/2000 10:18:23 AM The biggest downer I see to the continuous rancoring about policy is that it saps energy that could be going into more productive things. We have limited resources (time, brainpower), and while we keep rearranging the furniture, the Titanic can sink. Whether or not this argument turns people off, nothing is being constructed to turn people on.
It appears to me from the little experience I have working with community leaders that there is too much of what Niner would call "rank democracy." Everyone sees wabbit as ruling by decree, whereas wabbit sees herself as needing a consensus before acting. It's very hard for anyone to make a decision about anything. There's also too much sensitivity to complaints.
Early on in my thread-hosting tenure, Kuligin complained that I had let a harsh attack by CalGal go by the way. He asked "what kind of host" I was, and I made no attempt to defend myself, saying something like "a lousy one that rules by caprice and whim." He's never complained again and has in fact complimented me a couple of times.
In actuality, there's very little to complain about here. The volunteers have set up a pretty good framework conducive to lots of freedom: it's up to the community to stop bitching and make things better. 816. CalGal - 2/21/2000 10:23:54 AM Seguine,
I don't see how it can be considered exploitation if the information was provided online and directly associated with the individual in question.
I see no way for Wabbit to enforce this other than to determine if the post itself is abusive. But calling it a violation of privacy just doesn't seem right. The person made the information public. By definition it is no longer private. 817. cigarlaw - 2/21/2000 10:27:38 AM did i say that?" if so, i should be taken out andm shot like rabid dog.
i benefit from health insurabe, but think all health insurance should be outlawed. hell,if we had legicare instwed of medicare, i wouldn't need insurance. i would just pay cash. 818. CalGal - 2/21/2000 10:29:34 AM Cig,
I'm laughing at the notion of you favoring single payer. Let's just consider it a hypothetical. 819. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 10:35:27 AM Indy:
It appears to me from the little experience I have working with community leaders that there is too much of what Niner would call "rank democracy." Everyone sees wabbit as ruling by decree, whereas wabbit sees herself as needing a consensus before acting.
The actual situation is similar to a judge, who hears arguments on all sides, and then makes a ruling. In wabbit's case, she often assesses the general feeling as well, and if there is consensus on an issue.
It would be nice, however, if we could limit those arguments at times to a post or two. Nothing is more depressing than a debate which goes on endlessly and pointlessly over obscure fine points.
I like the way we have arranged threads with individual hosts and policies. And I like your reply to Kuligin. It is very much in the spirit of things around here. 820. wabbit - 2/21/2000 10:38:38 AM Indy,
It isn't that I am looking for consensus; rather I am looking to enforce the existing RoE as best I can, more or less by my own interpretation of the RoE. I suspect I am more lenient than many would like in that interpretation, and not lenient enough for some. I don't expect to please everyone and frankly, pleasing everyone isn't my concern. 821. Seguine - 2/21/2000 10:41:22 AM CalGal, you persist in wanting to define the violation I propose in terms of abuse OR privacy violation. Let me state the proposal again:
Personal information may not be used to attack, harass, insult, or abuse.
You will notice that the prohibition lies at the intersection of addressing privacy and abuse, being concerned neither with one more than the other. It leaves all sorts of other varieties of attack, harassment, and abuse for you to worry about the unenforceability of. It does not require the moderator to concern herself with whether the info has ever, anywhere been disclosed by the person being attacked/harassed etc.
I am advocating making precisely one kind of abuse/insult/attack CLEARLY prohibited, and I am NOT contesting that IDs be considered inviolate. It shouldn't be hard to implement, and it should reassure newcomers that inadvertent disclosures won't be brought up 6 months down the line.
822. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 10:47:04 AM Rule 1) Respect the privacy of other Motiers within the Mote
Privacy is important to many people here, for many different reasons. Please do not post any personal information about any poster without the express consent of that poster. Personal information consists of any information, explicit or deducible, about any poster which has not been explicitly mentioned within the confines of the Mote by that poster. References to personal information will be deleted by the thread host in all cases and the poster's ID may be suspended at the decision of the moderator and the offended party (both of whom must be in agreement for suspension to occur).
Rule 2) Respect other Motiers' feelings Gratuitous personal attacks do little to further the forum and the discussions taking place within it. Please refrain from personal abuse of other Motiers. Posts which are unduly abusive, but still have valuable content, will at the host's decision be moved to the Inferno. The thread host will post to indicate what posts she/he has moved. Posts which are abusive and deemed without content by the host will be deleted. The author of any abusive post is subject, by the moderator's decision, to be suspended, and repetitive abusive posts will assuredly result in suspension. Rule 3)Respect the wishes of the Thread Hosts The thread hosts are volunteers chosen by the Moderator to further discussion and to moderate the tone of their own thread. Participants in any thread must accede to the wishes of the thread host regarding their behavior within the thread. The final judge of a thread host's decisions and behavior, and of the behavior of any Motier, is the Moderator, who possesses flexible executive power over the function of the Mote. If you have a complaint about a host's behavior, email the host and/or the Moderator. Any Motier may exercise fair comment about a Thread Host in the Policy Thread, sparingly as needed.
823. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 10:47:59 AM Rule 4) Do Not Spam the Mote Most Motiers do not appreciate wading through reams of meaningless posts to follow a discussion. Please do not post advertisements or link sites which are not germane to the discussion. Please do not clutter the threads with off-topic posts. Do not directly paste images that may be offensive directly into the thread. Such posts will be removed at the decision of the thread host or Moderator, and repeated postings of this sort may result in suspension at the Moderator's decision. Rule 5)Respect the Laws of Free Speech The Mote aims at fostering free speech wherever possible, but unfortunately some sacrifices must be made in order for an online debate forum to function well. Please do not threaten any Motier with real-life consequences stemming from dialogue taking place within the Mote. Avoid making any posts which would subject the forum or the poster to legal action. These posts will be removed by the thread host or the moderator, and the poster will likely be banned from the forum at the decision of the Moderator. Rule 6) Respect the Wishes of the Moderator The Moderator, and Mote Staff, are all volunteers who donate a lot of their valuable time and effort to the maintenance and improvement of this forum. The Moderator, and Mote Staff, are all subject to the Rules of Engagement, but the Moderator otherwise wields total power within the Mote. What the Moderator rules may be fairly commented upon in Mote Policies, but all Motiers are subject to the rulings of the Moderator. The Moderator may grant limited or full power to other Staff members to act in conjunction with, or in the absence of, the Moderator or a Thread Host. These persons's actions are subject to the decision of the Moderator, and otherwise they are to be treated as Moderators. 824. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 10:51:11 AM Just because Irving asked. 825. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 10:53:25 AM Errata for rule 1):
Any Motier has the right to ask that any private information relating to them not be mentioned by anyone. Any Motier has the right to allow any and all Motiers to use any of their personal information as they see fit. 826. Seguine - 2/21/2000 10:55:22 AM My last was a response specifically to this:
"I don't see how it can be considered exploitation if the information was provided online and directly associated with the individual in question. I see no way for Wabbit to enforce this other than to determine if the post itself is abusive."
It doesn't have to qualify as "exploitation", any more than my disclosure of your id needed to be malevolent in any way for it to be prohibited. A disclosure need simply be against the rules. "Abuse" need not be determined by the moderator; "insult" or "attack" would suffice, which is why those words were included in my proposal. I'm confident Wabbit, as well as most of the hosts, are perfectly capable of noticing such things. The rule is not remotely unenforceable. 827. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 11:15:00 AM No debate? Good, then, the motion carries (whack). Anything else? Moving right along.... 828. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 11:26:30 AM Next on the agenda, the big marble 'The Mote' banner with the giant stuffed olive in the corner. There is no question that it has to be removed, post haste. I suggest something slightly more attractive, like a large neon sign which reads The Mote, Home of Angel-Five And His Endless Supply Of Good Ideas in all its dazzling truth. Or in honor of the departed PE we could name it'The Sacrament'. and have a few dancing nun gifs in the banner. 829. Indiana Jones - 2/21/2000 11:44:45 AM Irv: Agreed.
wabbit: I have no problem with the job you've done. And your post is exactly my point: you don't need to worry about pleasing everyone, and the few permanent harpies should just get over it or drink large quantities of hemlock. 830. Seguine - 2/21/2000 12:02:04 PM A-5's Rules are toooooo lonnnnnngg, and far too cautious (the requests that offensiveness be avoided--goodness gracious), but I could go along with some sort of dancing thing or other in the banner. Pace the memory of PE, Nuns seems a little tame. What about that photo of Pelle and the buzz saw? 831. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 7:08:29 PM Wow, talk about ask and ye shall receive. I'm impressed that both A5 and Seguine have offered their versions of what the RoE should say, and I think it's a good start for discussing a revision.
My feedback follows. I am only one voice, and I'm very interested in seeing what others think.
Seguine:
Personal information may not be used to attack, harass, insult, or abuse.
I think this is what we want to say, and is certainly what we mean, but may be a bit unclear to those who haven't had the background of the issues. I think it needs a bit of definition, but I admire the succinctness. I'm a great fan of succinctness.
Which brings me to:
A5:
You know I admire you, old friend, but among your many sterling qualities, succinctness is one I rarely see listed.
I like the way you've organized the rules, and I think the points you mention are very good for both regulars and newbies to read. But I feel (and I say this with the utmost respect and appreciation) that they can be edited down to about half their length. In fact, I'd be willing to give it a shot, if others are in favor of using these rules as a basis.
I do have one quibble with one of the statements you made:
References to personal information will be deleted by the thread host in all cases and the poster's ID may be suspended at the decision of the moderator and the offended party (both of whom must be in agreement for suspension to occur).
Based upon my experience at the old place, I believe that requiring an offended party's official protest is unfair to the offended party. The rules should be applied at the discretion of the Moderator, and should not require any participation from an offended party.
[continued] 832. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 7:12:29 PM If an offended party's protest is required, then the offending party will be aware that the offended party has protested (or at the very least agreed to the punishment). This leaves the offended party open to possible further abuse and may cause offended parties to allow things to pass which they are extremely uncomfortable with.
Leave the offended party out of it altogether. The Moderator is a good enough judge of what violates the spirit of the rule and what doesn't.
One other comment:
Since we do not all agree on a single term for participants of this forum, I recommend using "participant" instead of "Motier." 833. joezan - 2/21/2000 7:24:54 PM
At this sad juncture, "Fellow Sufferer" would a much more apt term. 834. joezan - 2/21/2000 7:25:43 PM
...would be...
|
