|
1058. 109109 - 2/26/2000 4:38:16 AM I oppose Irv's version because it suggests democracy, and I prefer the version of the Mote as warring but blood-related fiefdoms under a toothless central authority. 1059. dusty - 2/26/2000 6:29:11 AM Message # 1041 JayAckroyd
It is interesting that amidst all this ruckus, only four people have made a direct comment on Irv's draft.
There's a reason that I haven't bothered. It seems a waste of time to talk about proposed new rules when we do not have a procedure for deciding how to approve them.
Most venues have a rule for deciding how to adopt rules. True democracies (thankfully, rare) put the matter up for a vote, and let the majority rule. we aren't a democracy, so the fact that we have no voting procedure probably doesn't matter.
Absolute dictators have rule. Whatever they say, goes. There's not much point of debate if that is our model.
Some committees operate on the basis of formal voting, other on the basis of consensus. In the latter, debate ensues until someone (normally the chair) asks if there is a consensus. Silence is considered assent, and, lacking dissent, the policy is changed. Please note that lack of dissent is not equivalent to 100% approval. (Examples upon request.) I read the history of the RoE, and did not find a single instance where this question was posed. So this isn't our model.
A benevolent dictator asks for input, and then makes a decision, giving due weight (possibly zero) to those opposed. I thought that this might be our model, but it appears not to be the case.
After reading this thread, I cannot determine the date, or the action that occurred that signified the acceptance of the RoE by the community.
Until someone explains what the procedure is for changing rules, discussing alternative rules is pointless.
In summary, we are using a voting rule, we aren't using a consensus rule, we aren't using a dictator(absolute or benevolent) rule, so what are we doing? 1060. dusty - 2/26/2000 6:42:05 AM Message # 856 IrvingSnodgrass
1) I was getting very tired of the discussion dwelling on how the original rules were formulated and I wanted to move things forward.
I'm sympathetic to this concern, despite my last post that comments on how the prior rules were formulated (or to be precise, my lack of understanding as to how they were formulated.)
It is only of secondary interest to learn how the prior rules were formulated. If the answer is as simple as, "they just happened", so be it. But I cannot justify spending time debating changes to rules, if we have no procedure for adopting a change.
I recited my view of the history, because there have been some strong statements implying that the procedure was well defined. If it was, I missed it. 1061. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/26/2000 9:22:02 AM Dusty:
Our system has been mentioned often enough. We don't "vote" because to do so would be unwieldy. There are relatively few people who even care about the policies around here. and I'm sure many, if not most, would feel receving an e-mail asking them to vote would feel it was an imposition.
That leaves two possibilities:
1) Decisions could be made by the Moderator or the admin "team," without consulting the membership.
2) The system we have now, in which everyone is invited to provide their input, if they are so inclined, and a general community feeling (a consensus) emerges. The Moderator then makes a decision based upon that consensus.
It is closest to this system, of those you mentioned:
A benevolent dictator asks for input, and then makes a decision, giving due weight (possibly zero) to those opposed. I thought that this might be our model, but it appears not to be the case.
The main difference is that anyone can bring up a topic and ask for input and discussion. The Moderator makes the final decision. 1062. bloodnfire - 2/26/2000 10:01:31 AM FWIW. I endorse Irv's proposed new ROE. 1063. bloodnfire - 2/26/2000 10:09:50 AM And it's good to see Seguine 'popping in' from time to time too. 1064. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 11:41:00 AM I think the procedure for adopting changes has always been pretty clear: the Mote staff makes changes based upon their own judgment. Since their judgment is shaped by their perception of the overall needs and wants of the Mote as expressed in discussions like this, and everybody's pretty universal in their support of those judgments, I think this is a sustainable and desirable system. It's the best of both worlds. Yet it's not democratic at all, really. I'm not sure where 'South Carolina' Niner is deriving his notion that the execution of this forum is democratic. Votes don't decide what happens here in any direct sense. But if he really does want a toothless central leadership, I can't agree with that -- though it's irrelevant, because his argument is rooted in the concept that we have one now, and we don't. The central leadership in this forum is really the only body with any significant power at all. I don't mind thread hosts being more empowered under the aegis of the Moderator, but that's not a pressing concern. Niner, can you explain your statement a bit more, in case I misunderstood you? 1065. dusty - 2/26/2000 11:43:41 AM IrvingSnodgrass
Our system has been mentioned often enough.
With all due respect, I don't think it has.
We don't "vote" because to do so would be unwieldy.
Agreed.
There are relatively few people who even care about the policies around here. and I'm sure many, if not most, would feel receving an e-mail asking them to vote would feel it was an imposition.
Actually, the percentage of people weighing in with comments about policies exceeds the proportion who make such an effort in most other venues. Although the number who participated in the original drafting of the rules was far smaller than the group discussing changes.
I think we need to be a bit more formal when we make important decisions. As far as I can tell, the decision to implement the RoE occurred this way:
439. wabbit - 9/23/99 10:17:07 AM
I'm pretty happy with the revisions Cal has made to the RoE and I think we should get it posted asap. Any objections or suggestions should be made today.
There were subsequent objections, which were ignored.
I confess I'm still a little miffed that the decision to implement rules we all have to live by occurred in a thread that I did't know existed, and encompassed only six days of discussion. Only one day's notice from the time the revised rules were posted. Heaven help the person that might have taken a one-week vacation. 1066. dusty - 2/26/2000 11:46:38 AM Angel-Five
I think the procedure for adopting changes has always been pretty clear: the Mote staff makes changes based upon their own judgment.
Of course, if it really was clear, your description might have matched Irv's. And there wouldn't be all these other people calling for votes, when it is perfectly clear that voting isn't part of the process. 1067. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 11:55:39 AM Several people have also stated that there's essentially no changes between the old rules and the new proposed rules. This mystifies me, because there are clearly a lot of changes, and not just in tone and clarity. The mechanism of action on violations is clearly spelled out, and the authority responsible for those actions is also clearly spelled out. This isn't a minor thing, and it perfectly fits the needs of our forum. It may seem plain and simple to us how things are run here -- because as more than one person has said, the new rules seem pretty much to be the way things work now. That, in a nutshell, is a very good reason to adopt the new rules -- because new participants don't know that right off the bat, right now. They don't know how things work and who calls the shots. And it's an issue of concern to any poster as to who can delete/move their posts, and why they can do that. If we can give them an up-front statement which clearly explains how the forum functions AND tell them what is and isn't allowed, we've made things easier for everyone. The new RoE will do exactly that. No one loses by adopting them, and everyone gains. 1068. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 12:00:28 PM With all due respect, Dusty, my description is pretty close to Irv's. I emphasize the role of the administrator more; but both of us make it clear that the Mote administrators decide, and their decision is based upon the tenor of community feeling on the issue. I think the calls for a vote reduce to earlier claims made by some participants that 'everyone' had expressed support for the adoption of the old RoE and a desire now to have as many people as possible voice their opinion on the matter. 1069. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 12:02:06 PM As for your argument that the decision-making process is unclear in the Mote... well, that's one of the main reasons I support the new RoE, because it's clearer as to who makes what decisions when. 1070. dusty - 2/26/2000 12:29:24 PM Angel-Five
but both of us make it clear that the Mote administrators decide,
You refer to "administrators" plural. Irv refers solely to the moderator. That's not a minor difference.
As an aside, can you name the administrators? How does one become an administrator? 1071. dusty - 2/26/2000 12:32:47 PM Angel-Five
I think the calls for a vote reduce to earlier claims made by some participants that 'everyone' had expressed support for the adoption of the old RoE and a desire now to have as many people as possible voice their opinion on the matter.
You may well be correct on this issue. The statement that "everyone" had expressed support was absolute hogwash, as well as being meaningless, in light of the fact that the rules came into being by the decision of a single person. That said, I'm not in favor of a vote. I am in favor of more clarity. 1072. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 12:55:03 PM Administrators? Well, Wabbit and Alistair. I use the plural because Alistair has presumptive moderator power and has exercised it more than once when there was necessity and Wabbit wasn't around. As far as administrators being able to decide who stays who goes what's said and what's deleted, that's Wabbit, and in the event of Wabbit's absence or an emergency that's Alistair. It's a good setup. If your point is that you'd like that spelled that out, I don't mind that in a FAQ or a hyperlink in the new RoE. 1073. CalGal - 2/26/2000 2:45:05 PM Dusty,
The statement that "everyone" had expressed support was absolute hogwash, as well as being meaningless, in light of the fact that the rules came into being by the decision of a single person.
I can't find any statement asserting that "everyone" expressed support. The closest I can find is a post of mine saying that "we all believe" that the privacy rules are best for the forum, and even there I made it clear that not everyone was in agreement. But I don't think you'd want to go around claiming that the majority of the members support moving to transparency. (This statement was made before the current discussion began, btw.)
Other than that, in the original post I made to Seguine, I said this:
Did everyone agree? No. A consensus was reached. Who determined that a consensus had been reached? You seem to think it was me. You might want to think again.
I can find no statement from #685 to now in which it was claimed that "everyone" agreed. But maybe I missed it. Could you point it out?
To the best of my knowledge, the following statements have been made: - Anyone could voice their opinion.
- Anyone could wanted to could participate.
- Wabbit felt that a consensus had been reached and made a decision.
I don't see any gross misrepresentation in that, nor do I see a claim that "everyone" approved the rules.
There were subsequent objections, which were ignored.
Not that I could see. Spud asked what would happen in his case, Wabbit answered. The next series of posts were several days later.
I confess I'm still a little miffed that the decision to implement rules we all have to live by occurred in a thread that I did't know existed, and encompassed only six days of discussion.
Honestly. Statements like this just astound me.
1074. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 3:15:31 PM Message # 809 CalGal
(in response to my You announced at first that 'everyone' agreed on the Mote RoE, and had to be taken to task on that.
No, "everyone" did agree. I'm not backing off of that. 1075. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 3:25:04 PM Wow, all of a week ago you said that. You also said something about how 'we' had drafted and agreed upon the RoE and if 'you' wanted to change things yadda yadda. When I asked you who 'we' and 'you' were, you said 'we= The Mote'. 1076. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 3:31:48 PM My bad; five days, not a week. The obvious point is that more than once you have used terms to indicate a much wider range of support for the original RoE than ever actually existed. You went so far as to indicate that silence meant assent as far as you were concerned, which is ridiculous. The feeling expressed by you, and by Spence among others -- that everyone was permitted to comment on the old RoE and if you missed it or didn't speak up, too bad -- is the main reason some of us have invited more people to participate in this discussion, and why Wabbit even put it on the listthreads.asp page for a while. Some people don't feel that your feeling was the case in any meaningful way. 'Everyone' did not agree, and 'everyone' did not participate, and silence does not equal assent. Silence equals nothing. Thus the discussion now. 1077. CalGal - 2/26/2000 4:09:10 PM You went so far as to indicate that silence meant assent as far as you were concerned, which is ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? Unless you wish to declare that everyone must be heard from? Silence is assent.
And if you note, I put quotes around "everyone". For a reason. My lord, I've been as clear as I could be about what "everyone" meant, and said so over and over again. And it was my very next sentence in which I said, "silence = assent"--which clearly qualified "everyone" as "everyone who posted". There was discussion; anyone who wanted to could participate. If you weren't around at the time, what is to be done?
The feeling ...is the main reason some of us have invited more people to participate in this discussion, and why Wabbit even put it on the listthreads.asp page for a while.
Jesus, that is such horseshit. At the time, the Policies thread was created and taken off the main page because a significant group of people said it made the Mote look bad and they didn't want to see it. There were plenty of invitations to people at the time, Angel. And even with it on the front page, and even with Christin's post in the Cafe inviting people to post here, we had relatively few people post (as a percentage of the whole). About the same as last time (when the conversation was spread through both Suggestions, Censorship (which was deleted) and Policies.
|
